Looks to me that in that CNET article, the Editors give the iPod higher marks than the competition.

Keep dreaming, pal.

Did you even read the article? RTFA on cnet, then post again. No one is dreaming, but they are reading carefully.

You call that an article? Looks more like an abstract for an article that simply isn't there, to me.

Look at that incomplete chart.

"Man, oh, man", they don't know what they're reviewing on any of those machines, do they?

And the fact is, their reviews aren't matching up with what the senior editor of cnet says in the "article". Hilarious. Indeed, leave this article posted, to show what a true backfire is.

Also have to point out the oxymoron that is "audiophile" and "mp3 player". Good lord.

In fact, Jonathon, the ratings table has nothing to do with the SQ test featured in the (brief) article. That rating is the overall CNET rating from an earlier comprehensive product test, using the standard CNET review parameters. Tested on sound quality alone, the iPod seems to be doing worse than the competition presented here. It's a shame they just had a short text and not some sort of comparison chart for this specific test, though.

The RIo Karma is without doubt the best sounding MP3 player I've owned - I've had a Ipod mini, Archos av500, IAUDIO X5. The X5 is the next best , but the highs are thin and weak and the bass (if you play around with the eq) can be muffled - This is all in comparison to the Rio which outperforms the x5 even though it is thought to be a great player for music quality.

iriver beats ipod sound quality hands down..i have had the privilege of testing them both. The above article is for sound quality while below it is overall. Screw ipods...go Iriver!

ipods play aac. mp3s are crap gay aweful. even at 320 they suck a donkey.

As an audiophile, someone who has invested significant amounts of cash (not necessary by the way), time, and research building my home theater piece by piece, I must concur that "mp3 players" (any of them) and "audiophile" don't belong in the same discussion. There isn't a single audiophile that would chose an mp3 player as a main source in his or her rig. Period. Mp3 players excel at one thing...convenience. And for that, they can't be beat. But for the discerning listener, listening at home, it's going to be a digital player (DVD/CD) with high quality DAC's (Burr-Brown, Cirrus Logic, et. al), or a quality turntable with a great cartridge. Sorry, but 'dems the facts.

I think Cowon's sound quality sounds the best yet
Next is Samsung with DNSE format
Then it is iRiver tied with Creative

Further down
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sony, Phillips
.
.
.
.
.
It is iPod

Hello everyone!

I fully agree that "audiophile" and "MP3" do not belong to the same discussion.

But, as a music lover and musician, I always look for quality and flat responses on the music I hear. So I can hear what the artist has conceived for his work.

My first iPod was a 10Gb 2nd Generation iPod and, truly, I love hearing music on it (I still own it). But, looking for an iPod to hear while working-out, I bought a 8Gb Ipod Nano. Oh, it was a big bad surprise. I simply cutted of the lows. I've compared it to the old one in every possible way. Hearing the exact same song with the exact same earphones, and it sound creepy! And if you turned on the bass bost EQ, it messed up the bass freqs and didn't deliver the expected sound quality you'd expect from a product Apple manufactures. Anyhow, I've performed the very same test with over 10 people, and they were all surprised. The Nano sounded very poor, specially compared to the 2nd Gen.

I've searched the net and found some articles on it. Well, no wonder the Nano sounded poor, Apple has decreased its size and, increased battery duration. If you give it a thought it becomes very clear. You have a smaller battery but with a longer duration. Which is the secret??? Of course, they have sacrificed the bass frequencies on its amplifier circuit. This lower frequencies are the ones which draw most of the power from the batt.

So my story goes on: I sold the Nano and bought a second-hand 40Gb iPod Photo (don't quite know which gen it is).

I've compared it to the 2nd Gen. I think it is not quite the same. But still it gave me a lot pleasure hearing. I can identify some bass freq loss.

Well, looking forward to increase my Gb capacity, I sold the Photo and bought a 80Gb Ipod Video.

And now I regret I did that. I wish I could buy back my iPod Photo. The 80Gb Video sounds like the Nano. No bass frequencies. And, when you turn on the Bass Bost, the bass freqs gets messed up.

It is very sad that Apple has sacrificed sound quality to create a smaller player with longer batt duration. They could keep two main product ranges:

- iPod Nano: for the people who are after very small players with long batt duration. People which will hear to it while working-out, in the subway etc etc

- iPod X: for the people which would like to put their entire music library in one gadget and use it while in their living room, in their car sound system or while reading by the pool.

I'm frustated with the 80Gb iPod sound quality and I'm not an audiophile.

I'll defintely look for other player which can deliver some good sound quality. Meanwhile I'll listen to my 2nd Gen iPod which doesn't have USB connection, no color display and only 10Gb capacity.

If anyone has some good player suggestion, please mail me (fezao74@hotmail.com)

I sense no bias toawrds putting down ipod at all. Though from an industry point of view, the ipod which uses a higher quality sound insert than the iriver would clearly sound better.

but hey; I'm just a stupid professional. Bagging on ipod is just not rebel any more. Get with it!