4 ms·

I remember comparing the iPod to a minidisc with the same headphones and the same audio compression rate. The iPod was really poor in comparison.

vonklaus 11y ago
Sony had a minidisk player out in 92' the first iPod came out in 01'. I never personally compared the 2 apples to apples[0] but from memory and having owned both, the ipod held more songs, had a better ui, was easier to use and you could store music with no additional cost(i.e. no need to buy disks). > The iPod was really poor in comparison. Do you mean the audio quality? What specifically was worse about it? [0]pun intended.
- kw71 11y ago
  Minidisc always sounded better than mp3 to me, but I never tried out the other codecs that Apple use. I wish I could find a replacement battery for my MZ-NH1, it supports PCM recording and I like the idea of optical media better than a flash chip.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
As a fan of both Minidisc and iPod this sounds dubious to me. Mp3 allowed you to use both better encoders and higher and a wider range of bitrates than ATRAC. I would have rated the headphones as the weakest part of the chain on the early iPods and you didn't use those.
- chinpokomon 11y ago
  I really liked my Sharp with ATRAC 2.5. I guess I still like it, but I honestly haven't used my MiniDisc player in probably a decade. MP3 at 320 kbps could encode higher fidelity, but when MiniDisc was popular (sic.) most MP3s were recorded at 128 kbps or even 64 kbps with Joint Stereo. Even Apple's AAC was encoded at lower quality bitrates for years. It wasn't until OGG and lossless WMA seemed like they might put a little pressure on Apple's business model that they increased their bitrates and made it possible to remove the DRM. Of course the upshot of all this movement was that MiniDisc was no longer viable for prerecorded content. It still was an adequate poor man's DAT for my live recording purposes.
Jimma 11y ago
MiniDisc does indeed sound considerably better than iPod even when comparing MP3 at 320 kbps with MiniDisc SP at 292 kbps and there are several reasons for this including the quality of the later versions of the ATRAC codec itself and the fact that better quality components were used in the manufacture of MiniDisc players than are used in iPods. MiniDisc players were effectively designed and built by companies that specialise in high quality audio equipment whereas iPods were designed and built by a company that is an expert in computing. Many other MP3 players on the market are built very cheaply indeed and are often worse in sound quality to iPods.

vonklaus 11y ago

Sony had a minidisk player out in 92' the first iPod came out in 01'. I never personally compared the 2 apples to apples[0] but from memory and having owned both, the ipod held more songs, had a better ui, was easier to use and you could store music with no additional cost(i.e. no need to buy disks). > The iPod was really poor in comparison. Do you mean the audio quality? What specifically was worse about it? [0]pun intended.

kw71 11y ago
Minidisc always sounded better than mp3 to me, but I never tried out the other codecs that Apple use. I wish I could find a replacement battery for my MZ-NH1, it supports PCM recording and I like the idea of optical media better than a flash chip.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

As a fan of both Minidisc and iPod this sounds dubious to me. Mp3 allowed you to use both better encoders and higher and a wider range of bitrates than ATRAC. I would have rated the headphones as the weakest part of the chain on the early iPods and you didn't use those.

chinpokomon 11y ago
I really liked my Sharp with ATRAC 2.5. I guess I still like it, but I honestly haven't used my MiniDisc player in probably a decade. MP3 at 320 kbps could encode higher fidelity, but when MiniDisc was popular (sic.) most MP3s were recorded at 128 kbps or even 64 kbps with Joint Stereo. Even Apple's AAC was encoded at lower quality bitrates for years. It wasn't until OGG and lossless WMA seemed like they might put a little pressure on Apple's business model that they increased their bitrates and made it possible to remove the DRM. Of course the upshot of all this movement was that MiniDisc was no longer viable for prerecorded content. It still was an adequate poor man's DAT for my live recording purposes.

Jimma 11y ago

MiniDisc does indeed sound considerably better than iPod even when comparing MP3 at 320 kbps with MiniDisc SP at 292 kbps and there are several reasons for this including the quality of the later versions of the ATRAC codec itself and the fact that better quality components were used in the manufacture of MiniDisc players than are used in iPods. MiniDisc players were effectively designed and built by companies that specialise in high quality audio equipment whereas iPods were designed and built by a company that is an expert in computing. Many other MP3 players on the market are built very cheaply indeed and are often worse in sound quality to iPods.