New iPods released!

[Gil_Hamilton]

Not to mention Creative's players generally have far better quality output than Apple's(the iPod line is apparently infamous among audiophiles for it's really bad analog side).

Bullshit, I say.
Edit: Check this out too, in this case the Shuffle gets the prize.

COWON A2 for the win, BTW.

Your second link also places the "real" iPods at the bottom of the list, by a fair margin it seems(and with an utterly DISMAL performance from the iPod Mini), as well as focusing on a specific frequency range(though some attention is given to general performance).


Also: Raw numbers also don't really give you an idea of what it SOUNDS like('s why every 5$ pair of headphones has really impressive-looking numbers on the back).
Especially not when they're generated under a loadless situation, which is totally unlike the real world, where you have, you know, headphones attached.
http://hifiipod.co.uk/?page_id=52
Check out what happens when the iPod is actually driving headphones. The numbers change radically.
And that's the ONLY loaded test he's made.

SPEAKING of headphones... no iPod yet made supports an adjustable equalizer, which is NECESSARY to compensate for headphone response variation. Different models of headphones respond quite differently to the same input(exaggerating some frequencies while damping others down), and without an EQ, there's no working around that.
No EQ = auto-fail.


The Shuffle(at least, the original one) seems to have rather impressive audio, though.
Too bad it's, you know, a Shuffle.







The A2 is sexy.
Was gonna buy one a few weeks ago. But some other stuff came up, and the cash I'd earmarked for it went to said other stuff. I was saddened.

But hey, maybe the A3 will wind up falling to my price range by the time I scrape more cash together(or drive A2 prices down further).

[ReRuss]

I used to use iTunes but found out ml_ipod is just fanfokintastic

I kinda wished ml_ipod worked with itunes on cell phones , I got a V3i thinkin "Oh wow it's like ipod in my phone and I'll have 512mb to use for music" and turned out to be a nightmare , they still to my knowlage havn't hacked V3i iTunes past 50 songs , and you have to use iTunes... Which is why I installed DAP on it...

Companies really need to take a look at some 3rd party apps and notice why so many people use em...

[Mike]

I don't know I had a Creative Zen, I just think the Ipod is better and more organized.

Still thinking of the iphone,
But I sort of want the Zune.

[DOLLS (J) [!]]

Also: Raw numbers also don't really give you an idea of what it SOUNDS like('s why every 5$ pair of headphones has really impressive-looking numbers on the back).

These numbers actually do, it's an objective measurement.

Especially not when they're generated under a loadless situation, which is totally unlike the real world, where you have, you know, headphones attached.

iPods can't drive most great sounding headphones anyway, almost no portable player for that matter.
I'd run the line through a portable headphone amplifier if I was so inclined, which puts considerable less stress onto the output circuit, or I'd plug it into my receiver which itself is connected to a preamp then to a power amp and finally to a couple of great sounding speakers, which puts the device in a similar situation where load is greatly diminished... In the worst case, I'd get a pair of good sounding low-impedance headphones knowing that they'd lessen the impact beforehand.

http://hifiipod.co.uk/?page_id=52
Check out what happens when the iPod is actually driving headphones. The numbers change radically.
And that's the ONLY loaded test he's made.

The only considerable alteration being that of the stereo crosstalk measurement, which is not too bad an impact since it consists on a bit of channel crossfeed.

I didn't say every iPod was great sounding, I just pointed out that such a generalization was bullshit.

[snkcube]

SPEAKING of headphones... no iPod yet made supports an adjustable equalizer, which is NECESSARY to compensate for headphone response variation. Different models of headphones respond quite differently to the same input(exaggerating some frequencies while damping others down), and without an EQ, there's no working around that.
No EQ = auto-fail.

FYI, those new iPods that came out does include an EQ. I checked on my friend's iPod Nano.

[sweener2001]

it may be a different EQ that he's referring to, because my 4G had EQ. and 4G's are OLD.

and so far, the battery does incredibly well for audio, at least. once you get stuff playing, it goes into this minimalist state, and my battery indicator hasn't really moved, and I've been listening for about 4-5 hours today. video obviously drains much faster, but i'm still going off of the factory's initial charge. i've been messing with it since tuesday, besides the initial sync, it's only been plugged into my pc once since then, and only long enough to re-sync.

i'm trying to drain it so that I can have a full charge and then see how it really performs.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Also: Raw numbers also don't really give you an idea of what it SOUNDS like('s why every 5$ pair of headphones has really impressive-looking numbers on the back).

These numbers actually do, it's an objective measurement.

Especially not when they're generated under a loadless situation, which is totally unlike the real world, where you have, you know, headphones attached.

iPods can't drive most great sounding headphones anyway, almost no portable player for that matter.
I'd run the line through a portable headphone amplifier if I was so inclined, which puts considerable less stress onto the output circuit, or I'd plug it into my receiver which itself is connected to a preamp then to a power amp and finally to a couple of great sounding speakers, which puts the device in a similar situation where load is greatly diminished... In the worst case, I'd get a pair of good sounding low-impedance headphones knowing that they'd lessen the impact beforehand.

Which nicely evades the issue that your results are utterly meaningless, as your second link showed even the stock iPod ear buds do very bad things to iPod audio, or at least, to the bass portion.

http://hifiipod.co.uk/?page_id=52
Check out what happens when the iPod is actually driving headphones. The numbers change radically.
And that's the ONLY loaded test he's made.

The only considerable alteration being that of the stereo crosstalk measurement, which is not too bad an impact since it consists on a bit of channel crossfeed.

But your other link shows square waves crashing precipitously on TWO iPod models.
So who are we to believe?

I propose that BOTH are right. But the numbers presented don't paint the whole picture. It's a common problem with audio stats.
As is noted here, where he notes the flaws his numbers hide.

Also, the numbers show 20x variance on "IMD + Noise", over double the THD, and "frequency response" skews 5x in one direction and 23x in the other. That's NOT a considerable alteration? Dynamic range and noise level are the only 2 that DON'T show a large change.

Also note that frequency response shows the peak and bottom frequences attained, but not how stable they are.
I gather that the iPod has a lot of variation across the board. I KNOW the bass collapses under load, though it doesn't show in frequency response tests, because there's still SOMETHING there.

He conveniently omits the response curve for his single loaded test. And here he makes reference to a performance issue in his then-unpublished G4 review. The PUBLISHED, review, of course, contains no such comment. And omits the response curve that would show it.

I didn't say every iPod was great sounding, I just pointed out that such a generalization was bullshit.

A generalization I identified as a generalization. I didn't say every iPod sounded like crap, just that they have a reputation.

And you haven't really made your case, except in the specific instance of the Shuffle.
Which admittedly surprises me greatly, but I've seen it backed up several other places. How they can pull it off on the Shuffle and NOT the larger players is baffling.

SPEAKING of headphones... no iPod yet made supports an adjustable equalizer, which is NECESSARY to compensate for headphone response variation. Different models of headphones respond quite differently to the same input(exaggerating some frequencies while damping others down), and without an EQ, there's no working around that.
No EQ = auto-fail.

FYI, those new iPods that came out does include an EQ. I checked on my friend's iPod Nano.

it may be a different EQ that he's referring to, because my 4G had EQ. and 4G's are OLD.

USER-ADJUSTABLE EQ.
Not predefined "rock", "pop", and "ZOMG BASS" settings. One of those things with a couple of sliders on them.
Even the 5th Gen doesn't have one. And given that it's been on the top of feature request lists since the FIRST iPod, I doubt the new crop have them either.
On top of that, the predefined EQ settings have been known to cause significant distortion all through the line, making the feature useless even if it DOES happen to offer a setting that more or less matches your hardware.

[DancemasterGlenn]

USER-ADJUSTABLE EQ.
Not predefined "rock", "pop", and "ZOMG BASS" settings. One of those things with a couple of sliders on them.
Even the 5th Gen doesn't have one. And given that it's been on the top of feature request lists since the FIRST iPod, I doubt the new crop have them either.
On top of that, the predefined EQ settings have been known to cause significant distortion all through the line, making the feature useless even if it DOES happen to offer a setting that more or less matches your hardware.

My limited use of itunes left me with the impression that the equalizer in itunes itself was overly sensitive and cause sound distortion... I don't know if that was ever fixed, but assuming it hasn't been (and that it wasn't just me to begin with), I'm not surprised they can't get a nice equalizer on an ipod.

[sweener2001]

USER-ADJUSTABLE EQ.
Not predefined "rock", "pop", and "ZOMG BASS" settings. One of those things with a couple of sliders on them.
Even the 5th Gen doesn't have one. And given that it's been on the top of feature request lists since the FIRST iPod, I doubt the new crop have them either.
On top of that, the predefined EQ settings have been known to cause significant distortion all through the line, making the feature useless even if it DOES happen to offer a setting that more or less matches your hardware.

That's what I thought you were talking about.

[DOLLS (J) [!]]

Which nicely evades the issue that your results are utterly meaningless, as your second link showed even the stock iPod ear buds do very bad things to iPod audio, or at least, to the bass portion.

No, I mentioned a real world scenario in which iPod's (Shuffle, Nano, 4G+) output is actually top-notch, that is, the use any serious audio enthusiast or 'audiophile' would give to their portable players, which is with a pocket amplifier along with a pair of good sounding cans. Compare the graphs from the iPods to those from products of the other brands, every single one of them distorts pretty badly, except for the Shuffle.

But your other link shows square waves crashing precipitously on TWO iPod models.
So who are we to believe?

Again, as I made you notice, the products perform differently. If you could get ahold of some of Creative's players and made a comparison I bet you'll get pretty similar results.

Also, the numbers show 20x variance on "IMD + Noise", over double the THD, and "frequency response" skews 5x in one direction and 23x in the other. That's NOT a considerable alteration? Dynamic range and noise level are the only 2 that DON'T show a large change.

It's not considerable, as it is not perceptible. THD below 0.7% is imperceptible, most headphones have figures ranging from 0.3% to 0.9% anyway. As for the frequency response figure (frequency vs amplitude), differences in sound pressure below 6 dB across the board are acceptable for most listening purposes. Get me a single person who can notice a 2.31 dB attenuation at any frequency, let alone 15KHz which is inaudible to half of the adult population, and I'll take everything back.

He conveniently omits the response curve for his single loaded test.

No, the link is down, the figure you're looking for (iPod 4G under load) can be accessed via this link. Which in the worst case gets a 4.5 dB attenuation at 30 Hz, which I deem impossible to spot with most headphones.

A generalization I identified as a generalization. I didn't say every iPod sounded like crap, just that they have a reputation.

I was talking about the Creative player's output quality generalization, I still think you pulled that one out of nowhere.

And you haven't really made your case, except in the specific instance of the Shuffle.
Which admittedly surprises me greatly, but I've seen it backed up several other places. How they can pull it off on the Shuffle and NOT the larger players is baffling.

The hard drive based iPods have a considerably higher power draw than others, and no room to spare in much needed condensers or more demanding opamps, so yes, it's baffling that they're not giving up a 0.1" in thickness for a better whole performance.

[darkbenny]

My 2GB Ipod Nano never leave my side....