Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 8, 2011, 09:45 PM   #1
Muscle Master
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Ipod nano vs Ipod classic.. What sound better?

So I want an Ipod to compliment the Solo HD's (Beats by Dre) I just ordered.. but I'm leaning towards the nano.. cause I mite wanna use it as a watch also.. but I'm more concerned about sound quality... which one sound better?
__________________
Apple Macbook Pro Retina '13 (Late 2012)
OS X Mountain Lion / Intel Core i5-3210M @ 3.1GHz / 8GB DDR3 1600MHz / Retina Display @ 2560x1600 / 128GB Solid State Drive | Apple iPhone 5S
Muscle Master is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2011, 04:07 AM   #2
rgarjr
macrumors 603
 
rgarjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles Area
SQ should be about the same.
rgarjr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2011, 05:23 AM   #3
yly3
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
I recently had a 6G Classic and the sound was mediocre -> acceptable ( I expect the 7G would be a bit better). However I just bought the latest nano and damn ..this thing is miles better in audio quality.

I highly recommend the nano if you don't need the extra space.
__________________
Dreaming about an iPod Pro
yly3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2011, 08:56 AM   #4
puma1552
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
They both probably have the same sound chip, no?

In either case, with every iPod I've ever had (and I've had lots), using the Treble Booster EQ cleans up the sound a LOT--they sound fairly muddy without it.
puma1552 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 01:18 AM   #5
Alistaire
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Well I have used both . I would say that Sound quality in both have the same . There is no difference in sound quality because both have same sound chip in them . So You can get any one .
__________________
Vishal Bhatia
Alistaire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 04:27 AM   #6
bpaluzzi
macrumors 6502a
 
bpaluzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London
Not to be a jerk, but any sound quality difference in those units will be negated by your headphones ;-)
__________________
Mac Pro; Aluminum iMac; Mac Mini (x2); Macbook Pro; iPad; iPhone 4; TV 2 (x2); G4 Tower
bpaluzzi is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 12:11 PM   #7
alexjholland
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Firstly, all Beats headphones are a complete disgrace and universally panned by headphone afficionados. If you want style AND performance, get some AiAiAi - either Tracks or the TMA-1.

I have a brand-new Nano 6G and and iPhone 4 and the iPhone DESTROYS it.

I think it's the EU volume limiter as much as anything; even with the Nano maxed out, I have to have my car stereo so loud (using aux in) that you can hear hissing whenever there is no music.

I can't verify how non-EU Nano sounds, but the UK Nano is certainly a tier below my old Zune and my new iPhone.

IPhone 4 is pumping at very low volume. If anything, I'm sure it sounds better too.

Hence, I'm selling the Nano and ordering a Classic from the US.
alexjholland is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 02:21 PM   #8
malnar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
I will concur with the above: Beats are JUNK. If that's what you're using, there's probably no need to worry about quality difference between a Classic and a Nano.

If you opt for good quality headphones, however, it's going to depend on which Nano. I had the 6th gen Classic and it's sound quality was never very good compared to my wife's 4th gen Nano. Fairly harsh, rough sound, especially compared to my previous iPod, the great 80gb 5th gen - I should have never sold it just for space! Apple switched audio chips between 5th and 6th gens and it was for the worse. I never really liked that Classic, unfortunately, but it was okay if using it through the dock connector, say, in a car.

I can't say how the newer Nano is - I worry about minimizing the size, that Apple may have gone with cheaper electronics to fit it all into such a small space. I haven't heard what audio chip is in the 6th gen Nano. I can definitely say the iPhone/Touch are fantastic sounding. A 64gb 4G Touch has replaced my dying 160gb Classic.
__________________
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
--Albert Einstein
malnar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 04:28 AM   #9
HillaryBen
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
I pod nano carries a flash memory and it is more geared toward music. I pod classic has a hard drive and that is more suitable for watch videos. I prefer classic because I like to watch a lot of movies.
__________________
Web Presenters | Web Presenter
HillaryBen is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 06:16 AM   #10
MrXiro
macrumors 68030
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
I tried the Beats... they are so Blah... I picked up the Sony XB700... probably the best sounding cans I own! Great bass, relatively clean mids and highs. Not the most accurate headphones I own... but I kind of prefer the thumpyness of them. Makes watching movies on the iPad like rocking a home theater system on your head.

You look like Princess Leia though.
__________________
Whole lotta , very little $.
MrXiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 09:55 AM   #11
kwajkat
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Just bought a nano 6th gen and like it. This is my firwt experience with a nano, have always had a ipod classic and touch as well as the ipad.

I have found that the sound quality really depends on what headphones you use. One set I tried made the sound sound really bad. The other set made the sound real rich and clear.

My only fault with the nano is I got the 8GB and should have gotten the 16GB!!
kwajkat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 07:29 PM   #12
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
The nano is definitely cleaner sounding and can get louder than the classic can.
(This was done with Sennheiser HD485s, which value @ $150)

Classic is a bit of a disappointment these days and really needs to get a better chip.

Though when I listen to my Fuze +, neither the nano or classic compare.

If sound quality is truly a goal I honestly would recommend Sansa or Cowon for audio quality as the iPods SQ is fair at best.
iEvolution is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 01:35 PM   #13
Alvesang
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
First, I don't really understand why there's always someone criticizing Monster Beats. I bought the Solo HD as well, because they are small, lightweight, passive (I simply don't like battery-powered headphones) and produce a really deep bass. No, they are not in the audiophile category... so what? I don't need "perfect" sound, I want MY music to sound they way I want it to, and for me the Solo HD Beats deliver. You don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

Second, I have both the 160 GB classic and the nano 6G and I don't really notice a difference when using the Beats (or any other audio equipment for that matter). I would make it a practical choice. I find myself carrying around the nano far more often than the classic, because it's so easily attached to my clothing, doesn't seem to weigh anything and is beautiful to handle. I would love to see its capacity upgraded, though. Yeah, as if I was the only one.
__________________
Macs, iPads, iPhones, iPods and all that jazz...
Alvesang is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 06:33 PM   #14
tablo13
macrumors 65816
 
tablo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvesang View Post
First, I don't really understand why there's always someone criticizing Monster Beats. I bought the Solo HD as well, because they are small, lightweight, passive (I simply don't like battery-powered headphones) and produce a really deep bass. No, they are not in the audiophile category... so what? I don't need "perfect" sound, I want MY music to sound they way I want it to, and for me the Solo HD Beats deliver. You don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

Second, I have both the 160 GB classic and the nano 6G and I don't really notice a difference when using the Beats (or any other audio equipment for that matter). I would make it a practical choice. I find myself carrying around the nano far more often than the classic, because it's so easily attached to my clothing, doesn't seem to weigh anything and is beautiful to handle. I would love to see its capacity upgraded, though. Yeah, as if I was the only one.
Because Beats are way too overpriced, and I don't think you would notice a big difference between nano and classic anyways because Beats Solo (HD?) didn't have too much detail when I listened to them.
__________________
iPod touch 4th gen 32GB (jailbroken with limera1n and greenpois0n)

Last edited by tablo13; May 14, 2011 at 07:49 PM.
tablo13 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2011, 08:31 AM   #15
iEvolution
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvesang View Post
First, I don't really understand why there's always someone criticizing Monster Beats. I bought the Solo HD as well, because they are small, lightweight, passive (I simply don't like battery-powered headphones) and produce a really deep bass. No, they are not in the audiophile category... so what? I don't need "perfect" sound, I want MY music to sound they way I want it to, and for me the Solo HD Beats deliver. You don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

Second, I have both the 160 GB classic and the nano 6G and I don't really notice a difference when using the Beats (or any other audio equipment for that matter). I would make it a practical choice. I find myself carrying around the nano far more often than the classic, because it's so easily attached to my clothing, doesn't seem to weigh anything and is beautiful to handle. I would love to see its capacity upgraded, though. Yeah, as if I was the only one.
For the price you are paying for those head phones you could have a pair that are actually in the audiophile category.

Plus they are made by Monster..the same company that:
a) advertised alkaline batteries as having 25% more power when independent lab results showed otherwise.

b) The same company that tried to promote their HDMI cables as superior by comparing two TVs, one with a composite cable and the other using their super elite special HDMI cable.(aka the same $10 or less HDMI cables you can find online)

c) They've tried to sue various companies for simply having the word "monster" in their name, including Monster Energy Drinks & Monster Minigolf.

There have also been comparisons done online that state their supposed superior audio cables had no distinguishable difference from a 16 gauge lamp cord.

The only thing good about those particular head phones are the bass, but there is more to music than just bass if you listen to ANYTHING other than rap.

As far as the classic vs nano, there is a pretty big difference when you use head phones that give a nice range of highs and lows. nano seems to be more crisp and better overall roundness than the classic.

I wish apple would make the classic into an audiophiles device because as it stands right now I think it is the worst of the batch, even the shuffle sounds better now. Audiophiles would love the capacity and adding a quality sound chip would give the device a bit of a facelift without drastically diverting from the name.
iEvolution is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPod

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
7th generation nano Sound quality better than ipod classic? mattg3 iPod 18 Dec 3, 2013 08:49 PM
Nano Watch Mock Up. Return of Classic iPod Classic Controls jozero iPod 2 Sep 6, 2012 01:09 PM
Is the iPod nano, iPod shuffle and the iPod Classic dead? Retina MacBook iPod 3 Jul 22, 2012 04:36 AM
iPhone 4S/3GS iPod vs. iPod Classic Sound Quality/Volume NewAnger iPhone 1 Jul 1, 2012 06:05 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC