Heard bad things about sound quality....

Question

Level 1

0 points

Heard bad things about sound quality....

Hi to all, i'm a proud new Ipod user ...i'm not Zen anymore...

I received the new IPod Nano 6G (16g) on Christmas which I love for the touch screen, the "lagless" of navigating, the beauty of the device and the excellent sound quality (not using stock earplug by the way). The only concern I have is the size of the "StockRoom" which is 16g. (I encode @ 160kbs - CBR)

I would like to change it for a Classic 160g, but I would like to keep the same sound quality as the new Nano 6g.

My question is:

Are both using the same circuitry output and filter, to ensure the same sound quality? Because I read many reviews saying the the Classic has some issues with the sound quality.

Also, is the menu lagging issue and cover flow have been fix between the first Classic production in 2009 and present one available in the market?

Thank for your help.

PC, Windows XP Pro

Posted on Jan 7, 2011 10:49 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Jan 11, 2011 10:04 PM in response to Musart

I REALLY wish someone would address this subject, because I've read too many customer reviews on the new (and now apparently the only) iPod Classic describing a big drop in the audio quality of the 7th generation. It's maddening to read about how "the music sounds flat" and the drop in audio quality being a "very noticable difference", but then they say they love it.

I loved my 5th generation iPod classic to death before it was stolen, and the fact that I can't replace it is ridiculous! Why won't Apple put out an audio codec package app or a 7.1 generation or SOMETHING to make amends for ruining the best MP3 player in the world? If it isn't true that the audio *****, why won't someone step up and defend Apple?!

It's like trying to get a reaction out of a herd of ruminating cows! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, APPLE--I beg you to put the iPod classic 5th generation back in production!

Reply

Answer 2

Jan 12, 2011 4:59 AM in response to gurgleschlorz

gurgleschlorz wrote:
It's like trying to get a reaction out of a herd of ruminating cows! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, APPLE--I beg you to put the iPod classic 5th generation back in production!

A)You're not talking to Apple here. This is a user-to-user forum. Submit your feedback to Apple here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback

B)There is no such thing as a 5th gen Classic. The 5th Gen iPod is the generation before the Classic.

C)Do you honestly think Apple is going to put back into production an iPod that was discontinued what, three years ago? Seriously?

Reply

Answer 3

tanker1

Level 1

0 points

Jan 12, 2011 11:25 PM in response to gurgleschlorz

If you want all the whiz-bang toys, tiny footprint, and cute features like the tilting screen, get a nano or a touch. If you want some storage capacity then get a classic. If audio quality is such an issue, get decent headphones (here's a clue: tiny and earbuds usually means s**t sound quality. For $20 you can get a set of Sony's "studio monitor" style headphones that will blow your head off at the same settings that sound tinny with ANY earbuds, with BASS to boot. I use my Classic 160 on a Sony head unit in my Kenworth. It basically becomes a slave drive in this form, but the sound quality is excellent, and I no longer have to put up with crates of CD's in the cab. Best of all, my ipod is always charged and ready to roll when I take it out of the truck. I also use it with an audio cable in my Durango. No issues with sound quality here either, other than having to turn up the input level on the deck a notch or two. Maybe I'm getting tone-deaf in my old age, but I have no issues with sound quality. Yes, the original wave files sound the best, but I don't notice loss of subsonics or hear shimmery cymbals unless it's an old file done at 128 or worse. I find 160 to be the best compromise for portability and sound quality.

Message was edited by: tanker1

Reply

Answer 4

Musart Author

Level 1

0 points

Jan 13, 2011 8:30 AM in response to Musart

Thanks for your replies

You know, I've read many review lately and I think sound quality is very subjective. My conclusion is: I can not believe that a mature product like the Ipod (whatever the model) could have a sound quality decreases over the years and between their model (Classico, nano, pico and zozo) . I would tend to believe that Apple did some benchmarking to compare their product quality over the years to improve it.

And what I observed is the fact that people tend to affirm that bass boost equal good quality, which is not true IMHO. I would prefer a device that replicate the frequency response of a song which was defined in the mastering process.

And the other thing I observed is the fact that people are minded with a placebo effect that the Ipod brand is the worst sound ever because it's Apple, hard to understand.

Reply

Answer 5

AJ

Level 5

7,075 points

Jan 21, 2011 7:54 AM in response to Musart

I have a classic 80 ~ 3 years old. my GF has a ~ 1 year old shuffle.
I import at CD quality; hers is limited to 128

Perhaps it is just me, but I prefer the Apple earbuds on either unit.

The silicon ring on my apple buds broke; I bough 20$ JVC (8-22khz range)
Tinny on both ipods, even with bass boost, etc.
She demanded her Apple buds back for that reason.

Point being, I don't think there's much difference in the audio circuitry - it's in the earphones.

Since the current generations are solid state, and the classics are hard drive based, there will be a slight speed difference, but does a couple milliseconds really matter?

Going to a 120gb classic, you can import at a higher bit rate, which will also increase sound quality.

Reply

Answer 6

the fiend

Level 7

23,592 points

Jan 21, 2011 1:48 PM in response to Musart

Musart:
Although you've told us that you don't use the stock earphones, you haven't said what you are using and yet it's the headphones that will probably have the greatest impact on your enjoyment of the music, so much so, that you would probably forget about what type of filter any particular model of iPod has inside it.

Originally I tried a pair of Sony in-ear phones and I thought they were the best I could find for the money I was prepared to pay. Now, I have a pair of Klipsch in-ear phones and a pair of Bose on-ear phones and the poor old Sony pair have been left to sleep in a box somewhere. Plus, I use both an iPod Touch and a Classic.

But in the end, it's you who will decide whether the sound is good or not and as you have realised, people mistakenly associate more bass with improved quality, and as you also probably know, simply adding more bass will just make the sound boomy and difficult to enjoy. You're also right about the placebo effect - these forums see their fair share of posts from people who buy an Apple product and then declare their lifelong hate for Apple. Weird!

Perhaps those reviews you've read (concerning poor sound quality) were written by people who equate bass with quality or who simply don't like Apple. Such reviews need to be taken with a pinch of salt. (I once read a review of a CD player in which the professional reviewer moaned that he was not supplied with the remote for the product and then gave his opinion about a feature he tried which was only available via the remote - which he claimed not to have!)

I know the Klipscgh and Bose are not cheap, but the sound they both produce (to my ear) is fantastic.

So treat the reviews with a degree of scepticism.

Phil

Reply

Answer 7

Jan 18, 2012 4:55 PM in response to Musart

I can't address your question as how the Classic compares to the Nano but I can tell you that the sound quality for the Classic is terrible compared to CDs. I'm from an older generation and I just bought a 160 GB Classic which is my first iPod. My thought was that it was going to be great getting rid of all the boxes of CDs in my car. I never once considered that the sound quality could be bad. After all it’s a digital file. I ripped all my CDs with Apple Lossless. I sure was disappointed when I listened to the iPod for the first time in my car. So I started conducting some tests. I listened to the same songs alternating between CD and iPod and there is a huge decrease in sound quality when playing through the iPod. Then yesterday I noticed that playing a song file with iTunes results in inferior sound as compared to playing the same song file with Windows Media Player. It didn’t matter if I compared Apple Lossless to Windows Lossless, 320 kbps in iTunes to 320 kbps in WMP, etc. 128 kbps versions played with WMP sounded better than Lossless versions played with iTunes. The result is always the same. There is something inherently wrong with the iPod Classic sound reproduction and the iTunes format. I started searching the web on this subject and there are a lot of people complaining about this. I am so disappointed with this that I am considering selling my brand new iPod on eBay and going back to CDs. Sure, storing your music on an iPod is a great convenience and iTunes has a lot of great functions for organizing your music but sound quality is the most important thing to me. I have been listening to music for a long time and I know what it is suppose to sound like. Apple blew it big time.

Reply

Answer 8

Jan 18, 2012 6:15 PM in response to Looking For Answers

This thread has been dormant for a year. I think folks have moved on.

Reply

Answer 9

May 1, 2013 5:48 AM in response to Musart

I just went from a 5th gen. 60gb video ipod to a 7th gen. 160gb video. The first thing I thought when I played the new one was that it sounded worse. Tinny and thin. Not sure if it's psychological or not. I'm a musician who's worked in recording studios, so I know sound is influenced by many different things, including the psychological. BUT, it seems to sound worse...

Reply

Answer 10

May 1, 2013 10:23 AM in response to 55vermeer

Guess we were a little over due for the annual ressurection of this thread.

Reply

Answer 11

May 1, 2013 6:06 PM in response to IdrisSeabright

What does that mean "moved on"? Giving up on trying to solve the problem? If you can't comment intelligently on the subject matter, then you should move on. I don't think people are interested in your cute, self interested and meaningless comments.

Reply

Answer 12

May 1, 2013 6:17 PM in response to Looking For Answers

Looking For Answers wrote:

What does that mean "moved on"?

It means the OP hasn't been seen in these parts for about two years.

P.S. Thanks for calling me cute! 🙂

Reply