iPod touch Question on sound quality

[shigzeo]

great sound - completely normal

the touch has incredible sound quality. it has good bass production (i should show my rmaa scores to affirm this but i haven't internet space) even with low imp phones like the kenwood c711.

the hiss is completely normal - it hisses no more than any other normal player that hisses like mad if you use sensitive phones like um2 or denon c700. most players will not hiss however with the included buds and the touch is the same for this.

if you want reference that no player can actually reproduce bass, check this link out with research done by the great headfier (www.headfi.org) named dkft.

the sony players a600-900 and the new sansa express and clip as well as the old shuffle and the first iriver hd players could produce bass well even with hard to drive low imp phones, but other than that, no one can. even the players renowned for sq.

sq is all just a rubbish pursuit as they all have different opinions.

 

[Tosser]

So you have no experience of digital audio portable players apart from the iPod while making the above comments? Seems inconsistent.

He's talking about not using formats such as MP3 and other lossy ones. Hence the differentiation. My music isn't in a lossy format either. One can perfectly enjoy portable music without having 10/11ths of the information tossed out.

Also, when it comes to quality and EQ-settings, I wonder what the OP will think can tell the most: The person that thinks that lossy formats not only are good, but apparently doesn't know that one can use a portable music player, such as the iPod for more than MP3s (or MP4, as it were).

the touch has incredible sound quality. it has good bass production (i should show my rmaa scores to affirm this but i haven't internet space) even with low imp phones like the kenwood c711.

You cannot run a software test to check the analogue part of the an D/A converter (or A/D, for that matter). This is the reason why you can buy a cheap-arse 24bit/192kHz >98db recorder where the actual noise floor is just 40dB down (you get hiss, when you normalise a conversation), and pay through your teeth for 48kHz, 24bit recorder, that sounds much better. It's the analogue stage that counts the most. The chips are 25 cents a pop for the most part (okay, a tad exaggerated, but the chips are very, very cheap by themselves).

the hiss is completely normal - it hisses no more than any other normal player that hisses like mad if you use sensitive phones like um2 or denon c700.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. First you say it has "incredible sound", but the reality is, it shouldn't hiss. Full stop. At least not the product itself. If the headphone amp hisses on its own (i.e. not the file), that means that the noise floor is up somewere between -40 to -20 db. That's way too high.

if you want reference that no player can actually reproduce bass, check this link out with research done by the great headfier (www.headfi.org) named dkft.

What do you mean "no player can do bass"? Of course they can, just not as low as when using an external headphone driver. There's more to sound quality (or lack thereof) than "not the deepest bass".

sq is all just a rubbish pursuit as they all have different opinions.

Exactly for that reason, it's an excellent pursuit. That means you can actually get something that you'll like. Hissing equipment included ;-)

 

[Sesshi]

the touch has incredible sound quality. it has good bass production (i should show my rmaa scores to affirm this but i haven't internet space) even with low imp phones like the kenwood c711.

the hiss is completely normal - it hisses no more than any other normal player that hisses like mad if you use sensitive phones like um2 or denon c700. most players will not hiss however with the included buds and the touch is the same for this.

if you want reference that no player can actually reproduce bass, check this link out with research done by the great headfier (www.headfi.org) named dkft.

the sony players a600-900 and the new sansa express and clip as well as the old shuffle and the first iriver hd players could produce bass well even with hard to drive low imp phones, but other than that, no one can. even the players renowned for sq.

sq is all just a rubbish pursuit as they all have different opinions.

Whether it is a rubbish pursuit is debatable, but the 'great' dkft's sample is far too small. There are players capable of reproducing a flat or a comparatively (to the Cowons and iPods of this world) response curve into a low-impedance load, it's just that he hasn't bought them since the HDD iRiver. There are also degrees of bass fall-off.

Anyway, whether that is the problem is not really under discussion. The Touch has median sound quality - that is, it doesn't sound bad yet it suffers from all of the negative attendant issues of the second-tier also-ran players in terms of the way the sound is delivered, and also has a broken EQ as well, which is something all iPods share. It (the state of the eq) would be allowable for say three years since large numbers of iPods started shipping. But not 5 - that's more than enough time to fix it, and virtually everyone else has (Like Rio / Trekstor, Creative's EQ is a bit pants in terms of what it does to the sound, but it does actually work for example).

And as far as quantifiable SQ is concerned, other players have been steadily improving while the iPod Touch remains more or less where Apple was in late 2005. No-one is disputing that the Touch is an OK choice I think, and as I said I use it as my main player, although for reasons of convenience more than sound quality. It is a great Podcast / audiobook player for example but actually, if you take away the spiffy touch gestures and Coverflow (does anyone actually use that in real life?), I think it's a pretty mediocre music player in 2008.

Anyway - I'm out. It's gotten way too esoteric beyond 'it's OK, but not that great these days'.

 

[shigzeo]

i would be very interested to hear what players that are not professionally oriented in today's world have better sound. what do you mean by better sound? you have to define it. i have tested many players myself and so have others, but only dfkt has his online right now.

the fact is to say great sound means nothing. you have to define it since sound quality is completely a personal taste. i have not seen a single portable other than the iriver 340, the sansa clip and express, sony a600-900 and the ipod shuffle perform well with low imp phones.

every portable have rubbish dacs inside. at least compared to proper dedicated ones. but that goes for every peice of any equipment that is made. they just have to be good enough to satisfy the lowest denominator.
if you want, there are many hardware modifications to the ipod and even separate machines to take the audio out of the ipod that either improve the output pathway from the dac or bypass the dac if you are really worried.

the fact is that most people even audiophiles would ever hear it. apple have not made a rubbish article. their bass performance in the touch is above average and so too is their thd performance. in fact, the touch outperforms the grace m902 for thd and that is a nice dedicated dac and half a way headphone amplifier.

all daps hiss with sensitive phones. i have heard portables that are claimed to be top of the pack for sq hiss like mad from um2 phones. but then the um2 hisses with anything except for the sharp auvi md player and non amped line outs from very small weak sources.

you will not get this non hiss from any portable. the zune has low hiss, the ipod nano has low hiss. most players share one or two different dacs - the output stage is the only real difference: that and internal wiring to and from various equipments.

if you want to argue, you can do that but the touch is no more or nor less a performer than any other player. if eq is the bother, that is true, it is not that well implemented, but at the same time other players implement it in a way that the sound is processed so that it does not clip. i am sure there are better ways to approach eq for instance but you cannot just make an adjustable eq like that without having some adjustment to gain and other players do this automatically, in effect affecting sound more than just barring up the 30hz region.

finally to the tosser: of course it is more than bass - but this test is performed testing all frequency range as well as the players ability to sustain both treble and bass over an intense 60 seconds. it is a full test of hardware ability. after that, it is only up to your ears. all players will or should get perfect when connected from headphone out to the line in of any soundcard unless the soundcard is rubbish. but, you split from the headphone out with headphones attached and by by separation, by bye noise floor, by bye thd. they all take a hit.

the players renouned for sq, trekstor, rio for instance take more a hit than does the nano 3g for instance and ipod touch holds its own against them. if you want perfect reproduction you must either be doing line out (which only the ipod has of good quality) amplification. but then as i am sure you know, the amplifier then has to be up to snuff. there are many dedicated amplifiers that cannot extend treble into headphones or bass for that matter. or they introduce mass hiss for instance or have problems separating signals into left and right channels.

i know that test does not wrap up everything but it tests headphones from 16 to 600 ohms of varying senstivities and shows how other players and especially ones that people rave about sound quality for and basically you see that they fall short. sound quality is just how you like it to sound. many people like the neutral sound of the ipod. most prefer a hip hop sort of truncy bass expander sort of sound.

that is why i said it is not good to pursue it - no matter how good actual performance is, it comes down to so many psychological reactions or hearing from others that something sounds good for instance.

cheers
shigzeo

Whether it is a rubbish pursuit is debatable, but the 'great' dkft's sample is far too small. There are players capable of reproducing a flat or a comparatively (to the Cowons and iPods of this world) response curve into a low-impedance load, it's just that he hasn't bought them since the HDD iRiver. There are also degrees of bass fall-off.

Anyway, whether that is the problem is not really under discussion. The Touch has median sound quality - that is, it doesn't sound bad yet it suffers from all of the negative attendant issues of the second-tier also-ran players in terms of the way the sound is delivered, and also has a broken EQ as well, which is something all iPods share. It (the state of the eq) would be allowable for say three years since large numbers of iPods started shipping. But not 5 - that's more than enough time to fix it, and virtually everyone else has (Like Rio / Trekstor, Creative's EQ is a bit pants in terms of what it does to the sound, but it does actually work for example).

And as far as quantifiable SQ is concerned, other players have been steadily improving while the iPod Touch remains more or less where Apple was in late 2005. No-one is disputing that the Touch is an OK choice I think, and as I said I use it as my main player, although for reasons of convenience more than sound quality. It is a great Podcast / audiobook player for example but actually, if you take away the spiffy touch gestures and Coverflow (does anyone actually use that in real life?), I think it's a pretty mediocre music player in 2008.

Anyway - I'm out. It's gotten way too esoteric beyond 'it's OK, but not that great these days'.

 

[Tosser]

Even though you think that "quality" is totally subjective when it comes it audio, I have a few of words for you:

Flat response. Resolution. And yet again: Flat response.

A bass roll-off alone isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not at all, in fact. Yet, it stuns me you utterly fail to recognize a thing like flat response. And that, all the while linking to pictures where you can easily see it. I of course, some might like a well placed boost somewhere, be it in the higher freqs, bass, or mid tonal area, but it should still be as flat as possible from the get-go. If not, it's simple not precise. The flatter, the more precise. Then you can EQ the hell out of it afterwards if you want to.

Further, you say it's all about the lowest common denominator … Well, yes, but that doesn't mean that some aren't better or worse than the next out there. With your argument, one could use 8bit/32kHz DACs in there, with the crappiest of the crappiest headphone amp with hiss around -20db and it wouldn't matter. Well, that's not how it really is, now is it?

Then of course, there's the claim about the low impedance headphones: It's simply not true that you get a lot of hiss on any headphone amp, because the headphones are low impedance.

But you go on, you still think that it's all about being able to run a software check on these things, although you do concede that there are difference, all the while arguing there aren't. Confused? "Well, you will be, after this next episode of Soap")
You state that most use the same DACs (well the same two or three), and you're absolutely right. However, you then go on to say, that the "only" difference being that they wire it up differently. Then I'd like to add, that they also use different amps. And those amps are a bloody big part of it all. Even if all the wiring were the same.

But speaking of wiring, take a look at the link after this paragraph. It's about the podcaster-recorder Zoom H4. Not only does it bleep when diodes go off and on, there's an audible hiss way up there and at certain frequencies. Now, Zoom's response is that that is what you have to live with, if you run it from the batteries (I'm not kidding). The fix? Do a bit of soldering and change a few capacitors.

http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=8856&view=next
http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=7886
http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=8000

So much for your argument that they all must sound the same, because all that is different is the wiring and the preamps (essentially the whole of the analogue stage)

Frankly, to me it sounds like you have read a bit here, a bit there, and now try to come off as some sort of expert. Especially considering your links.

Now, being such an expert, please do explain why a little amount of cross-talk is actually good, instead of complete separation between left and right can?

 

[shigzeo]

okay, so you are now just rude. i never attacked anything but you are coming here tossing shyte at me. you use english like come off and think you are an expert and missquote me.

you say the output amp makes a difference, so did i. i said the output stage. unless i am using totally outmoded english for an obvious professional as yourself, please tell me the correct one hundred percent only use for amp.

i am glad we had this conversation. i am sure any reader will be happy to learn that while i was talking about portable players versus portable players you are talking about recording equipment versus portable players.

also,it is nice to have your input as a knowledgeable and reasonable person to help the consumer with such tips as soldering.

cheer mate, you destroyed both my and your argument, tosser. don't ever respond the way you did to me - it is shyte, has no encumberance on the discussion at all as we are comparing bricks and stones. try using your knowledge of not only the english language but of electronics to help with other consumer dap's, perhaps i can direct you to look in companies such as meizu, cowon, iriver and apple.

thanks for draggin me in to this slinging war you ****. i reckon i won't be back to discuss unrelated hardware with you anymore, just a waste of time - thanks for the professional advice with only a little of condescention and helpful advice. you warrant your name mate!

 

[Tosser]

okay, so you are now just rude. i never attacked anything but you are coming here tossing shyte at me. you use english like come off and think you are an expert and missquote me.

I didn't misquote you. You're saying that apart from the DACs used, it's just the "wiring". And it does seem you'd prefer to come as an expert, all the while stating that the analogue stage doesn't matter, that audio is all subjective.
I actually gave you some slack. I could have dug deeper into your

you say the output amp makes a difference, so did i. i said the output stage. unless i am using totally outmoded english for an obvious professional as yourself, please tell me the correct one hundred percent only use for amp.

Yes, you did state that, however, you also stated this, which, made me make the "confused? You will be after …"-comment:

every portable have rubbish dacs inside. at least compared to proper dedicated ones. but that goes for every peice of any equipment that is made. they just have to be good enough to satisfy the lowest denominator.
[…]all daps hiss with sensitive phones.[…]you will not get this non hiss from any portable. […]

Which, is saying they're the same, no?

Then you go on, but suddenly state this:

the output stage is the only real difference: that and internal wiring to and from various equipments.

Now, colour me, pink, but if that is not saying that there are physical differences in the analogue stages, you claim that there are no difference. That all hiss, and it's all subjective.

i am glad we had this conversation. i am sure any reader will be happy to learn that while i was talking about portable players versus portable players you are talking about recording equipment versus portable players.

You do realise it was an example on what the analogue stage can mean. And that the analogue mic stage can be directly compared to the analogue output of a music player, right? Apparently not. But let me restate: It was an example, that even though that thing has an average adc/dac, it's the analogue stage that produced these noises. What makes you think the exact same thing cannot happen to the headphone amp?
Did you know, that a dynamic microphone is technology wise, just a small speaker? It's just at the opposite end of the chain.

also,it is nice to have your input as a knowledgeable and reasonable person to help the consumer with such tips as soldering.

Hmm, once again you miss the point completely, all in an effort to use sarcasm: My point was, that how that thing was wired made a difference to the audio quality. Hence your argument about them using the same DAC must mean they have the same audio quality was yet another falselihood. In other words, it proved you wrong.

cheer mate, you destroyed both my and your argument, tosser.

Haha, what a joke.

don't ever respond the way you did to me

Or what? I tell it like it is. You think that by linking to some pictures, and making obviously false claims that that somehow should make you right. You completely dismiss the analogue stage to mean anything to the audio quality. Besides, don't "ever" tell me not to"ever" respond to you in a given manner – that can be construed as a threat, and only people with nothing to say ever threatens over the net.

- it is shyte, has no encumberance on the discussion at all as we are comparing bricks and stones. try using your knowledge of not only the english language but of electronics to help with other consumer dap's, perhaps i can direct you to look in companies such as meizu, cowon, iriver and apple.

To help other consumers? And you recon that the misguiding attempt you just did all in effort to make people belive the analogue stage meant nothing, so they might as well buy something that is known to hiss is doing "the consumer" any good? Do a google search on ""iPod Touch" Hiss".

thanks for draggin me in to this slinging war you ****.

Well, I know it's always easier to play a victim, rather than actually arguing your position. The fact is, you have just used a post, _not_ to respond to anything that matters. But it must be the only way out, if one's arguments just doesn't cut it.


___________________________________________
Nice add:

. i reckon i won't be back to discuss unrelated hardware with you anymore, just a waste of time - thanks for the professional advice with only a little of condescention and helpful advice. you warrant your name mate!

You don't think it's a bit preschool to try "namecalling" by using one's nick? Frankly, it looks like someone can't handle being proved wrong.

 

[macspudster]

The iPod Touch sound is the worse of all iPods

The sound from an iPod Touch is the worst of all iPods.
Especially the low Calendar alert sounds.

EQ is abismal.

I've owned every iPod since they've come out; all still working.

I've compared the sound output from each with sonic / audio analyzer, and the iPod Touch is 3x worse than the 2nd Gen iPod (which scored 2nd to last).

The best iPod for sound is the iPod Nano 3rd Gen. Of course, one thing to realize is that the "OS" in the Shuffle, Nano, and Classic (and all similar prev models) is different than the OS in the Touch or iPhone.

The touch/iPhone may be 'smarter' in other areas, but sorely lacks in sound quality.

And, yes, a $30 set of earbuds will have better sound than the apple-supplied ones. But, why should you have to spend $30 on earbuds when you want to spend $30 on music or a case for it? Fix it, Apple

Oh, and this post is from an Apple employee who thinks Apple is purposely screwing over its customers on the incapable aspects of the touch.
(Who wants to have to click 4 times to back out of an email to get to the main Mail screen to go to another account? Or set a calendar alarm that you can't even hear, yet spend EXTRA time setting a Clock alarm that are 11x louder than the calendar alarm?)

 

[bsb0085]

i have no interest in the touch, at all... i can't see the point. i just purchased an iPod Classic to replace my old 30gig iPod (i can't remember the generation).

So... IS the audio quality worse on my brand new Classic? I'm a poor college student so buying something like this is a big deal for me, it didn't occur to me that they would have taken a step DOWN in sound quality... it's the only thing the device is built to do!

Please someone say it isn't so...

 

[Tosser]

i have no interest in the touch, at all... i can't see the point. i just purchased an iPod Classic to replace my old 30gig iPod (i can't remember the generation).

So... IS the audio quality worse on my brand new Classic? I'm a poor college student so buying something like this is a big deal for me, it didn't occur to me that they would have taken a step DOWN in sound quality... it's the only thing the device is built to do!

Please someone say it isn't so...

I'm not sure about the classic, to be honest. At least not five am (I'm in Europe), but using inferior parts later is an Apple speciality. Hell, they even stepped down the quality of the FW-chips in their laptops (I don't know if they did the same in the desktops).
Also, they nixed disk mode in the Touch and iPhone. So, I'd say that it's more than likely your classic is worse than, say, a third gen iPod.

However, if you care about audio quality, you can either get a Samsung YP-P2, or even better, A Cowon D2 - the later being superior to almost anything out there. It has - at most - 16GB flash, but it has an SDHC-slot, granting you the possiblity to add 32GB as it is right now.
Oh, and especially the D2 will drive anything you throw at it, including the hardest driven IEMs.

 

[Sesshi]

Curious in what way you think the D2 is better than the Touch, especially as there is no such thing as 'hardest driven IEM's' in a practical sense, i.e. the output of either is sufficient to drive any IEM to ear-bleeding level, both have a pretty comparable bass fall-off and both suffer from varying amounts of 'IEM hiss' with a variety of balanced-armature phones.

 

[Tosser]

Curious in what way you think the D2 is better than the Touch, especially as there is no such thing as 'hardest driven IEM's' in a practical sense, i.e. the output of either is sufficient to drive any IEM to ear-bleeding level, both have a pretty comparable bass fall-off and both suffer from varying amounts of 'IEM hiss' with a variety of balanced-armature phones.

If you notice, I wasn't comparing volume, but quality. Quite the difference. The closer to the limit you drive an amp, the more distortion it introduces. Hell, the Touch aren't even able to drive my HD25-1s properly. Low volume, but more importantly: Low quality while doing it.

Oh, and you better do some research, if you think that one pair of IEMs can't be harder to drive than the next (if we're talking about portable audio players).
It's funny you mention "varying amount" of hiss. That's the crux, isn't it? The Touch has much more hiss when they have to drive some hard driven IEMS. Try finding some IEMs the D2 will have problems with.

 

[Sesshi]

If you notice, I wasn't comparing volume, but quality. Quite the difference. The closer to the limit you drive an amp, the more distortion it introduces. Hell, the Touch aren't even able to drive my HD25-1s properly. Low volume, but more importantly: Low quality while doing it.

Oh, and you better do some research, if you think that one pair of IEMs can't be harder to drive than the next (if we're talking about portable audio players).
It's funny you mention "varying amount" of hiss. That's the crux, isn't it? The Touch has much more hiss when they have to drive some hard driven IEMS. Try finding some IEMs the D2 will have problems with.

I don't know what you consider 'driving properly' - are you deaf? - but the HD25-1's impedance curve, response profile and efficiency makes it ideally driven by players like the Touch. The 25 is one of the easily driven headphones that can contribute to a slight flattening-out of the Cowon D2 and iPod Touch's bass fall-off. Even players with significantly less power drive the HD25-1's properly. Simply because Cowon states a mw rating in the 70's does not mean the amp is hugely more powerful - especially as it's measured into 16 ohms or less. As far as quality is concerned, there is a very minor advantage to be had by the D2 but it's not a world-changing aspect, especially if you ally it to the fiddlier touch navigation, the larger number of readily-encountered bugs/feature compromises, etc.

Too many people read too much into hearing sounds as opposed to listening to music. The iPod has pretty top-notch playlisting, decent navigation (especially with properly tagged music) among other features which makes it easier to do the latter. It's not that I wouldn't welcome an iPod Killer, but I buy a heck of a lot of them and so far only the newest Sony's have come close as an overall product to whatever Apple churns out. I don't believe it's rocket science and given the limitations of various iPods I'd love to make something else a "daily use", but so far none have made the grade.

I'd also like to know what you consider 'hard to drive' from an IEM in an electrical sense.

 

[Tosser]

I don't know what you consider 'driving properly' - are you deaf? - but the HD25-1's impedance curve, response profile and efficiency makes it ideally driven by players like the Touch.

LOL, not even by a longshot. My audio sounds awful on the Touch, no matter if I use my HD25-1s or my ER·4s. But then again, I don't listen to MP3, nor MP4.
Oh, and I'm not anywhere near close to being deaf. One of the skills I employ to make a living is my hearing.

Have you even tried the HD25-1s? Or proper IEMs? And tried listening for details with uncompressed audio such as wav, aiff, flac or other lossless formats? It sure doesn't sound like it.

Even players with significantly less power drive the HD25-1's properly.

Surely, you're not talking about the HD25-1s but the HD25-SPs.

Simply because Cowon states a mw rating in the 70's does not mean it's amp is hugely more powerful - especially as it's measured into 16 ohms or less.

Sorry to burst your pretend bubble, but the thing is, with the touch (while listening to something that isn't recorded loudly, something that isn't pumped), the Touch has to be all the way up, giving quite a lot of hiss while it does so, while not being able to separate properly, nor giving details properly, whereas my D2 never goes above 60 percent. The D2 doesn't resolve as well as my Sound Devices 722 (obviously), but quality wise it's in a whole 'nother league than the Touch – or any iPod for that matter.

I'd also like to know what you consider 'hard to drive' from an IEM in an electrical sense.

I could find many more, but there's no need to go anywhere, since I already own some that are pretty hard to drive: ER·4 (and no, I'm not talking about the "P" version they made for portable players).

Oh, you added:

Too many people read too much into hearing sounds as opposed to listening to music.

Sorry, but you're speculating here.

The iPod has pretty top-notch playlisting, decent navigation (especially with properly tagged music) among other features which makes it easier to do the latter.

LOL, what a cop-out. I guess if I went with that argument, I shouldn't use my SD722 as a reference for portable audio quality because it doesn't have a filebrowser akin to most DAPs. The thing is, none of that has anything to do with audio quality. You're entitled to compromise on the quality, because you'd _rather_ have a neat file browser than better audio. But it sounds mre like you're "hearing" music, as opposed to "listen".

It's not that I wouldn't welcome an iPod Killer, but I buy a heck of a lot of them and so far only the newest Sony's have come close as an overall product to whatever Apple churns out.

Well, Sonys sucks as well. But again, I was never talking about any "iPod Killer", I'm well aware that people want different things, but I responded to a bloke who inferred that audio quality was the only thing that mattered, and you have to view my response in that light.

It's not rocket science and given the limitations of various iPods I'd love to make something else a "daily use", but so far none have made the grade.

You know, it's a matter of which you prioritize the highest ("most"?). Do you want quality or not? Do you think that people like me carry around a recorder that weighs almost two kilos (four pounds) plus heavy microphones and bigbish headphones, because we like to? No, it's a compromise we have to make because we choose to prioritize the audio quality. Hence we do not run around with, say, an Olympus LS-10.

I noticed you also added to the first paragraph:

As far as quality is concerned, there is a very minor advantage to be had by the D2 but it's not a world-changing aspect, especially if you ally it to the fiddlier touch navigation, the larger number of readily-encountered bugs/feature compromises, etc.

Again, you choose to compromise on the quality, even if the bloke I responded to was saying that audio quality was all that mattered. Btw, I don't find the D2 hard to use, nor awkward and certainly not buggy. I find it different, but that's a good thing in my book. Especially since I consider it a true audio player, and not something that's trying to be everything BUT an audio player.
If I want to go on the net, upload to ftp, mail and so forth on a handheld, I use my PPC. It's much better at that than any touch, and the D2 is a much better audio player. yes, the Touch does so many more things than the D2, but I bought it as a DAP, not as a pseudo PDA. Looks like you prefer the pseudo pda-features over audio quality and that is fine. Just don't pretend that your priorities somehow means that the Touch is then better when it comes to audio quality, because it has a different filebrowser and, say, wifi.

 

[Sesshi]

My current headphone inventory includes the HD25-1, HD650, SE530PTH, UE-11Pro and the HE/HEV90 among others.

I think we have a disconnect in terms of genuine experience as opposed to speculative fanboyism - which is possibly the most ridiculous kind to have for a class of music player - and if you do genuinely turn up the HD25-1 to full volume on the Touch with anything which is recorded as you say without 'pumping' at reasonable volumes - say older classical or Jazz - I think you should go and have a hearing test unless you're doing most of your listening next to a jet engine.

 

[Tosser]

My current headphone inventory includes the HD25-1, HD650, SE530PTH, UE-11Pro and the HE/HEV90 among others.

I think we have a disconnect in terms of genuine experience as opposed to speculative fanboyism - which is possibly the most ridiculous kind to have for a class of music player - and if you do genuinely turn up the HD25-1 to full volume on the Touch with anything which is recorded as you say without 'pumping' at reasonable volumes - say older classical or Jazz - I think you should go and have a hearing test unless you're doing most of your listening next to a jet engine.

You know what. I just realised why we might have a discrepancy in how loud the touch sounds to us: I'm in Europe. The Ipods sold here are sold by the french standard: They're limited in volume as opposed to the US-iPods.
Anyway, the volume doesn't matter that much, it's how well they resolve. But even if you really have the headphones you claim to have, It's quite telling that you think of "listening" and "audio quality" with parameters such as "file browsing" and so on.

P.S. I have some operas that are pretty low at places, on the Touch, they more or less go silent, and also, if I listen to some recorded ambience (no, not music), the Touch fails utterly. If you notice, I have talked quite a deal about "audio", and while that obviously include music, it doesn't preclude anything besides music.

 

[Sesshi]

Check my location. There's more than one clue in it. By the way you phrase your posts, I'm still yet to be convinced that you aren't lumping in your opinion of all iPods by some euro-crippled 3/4G that you had a long time ago.

Also let it not be said that I'm huge in defence of the iPod Touch here. The sound quality is merely decent, but the levels to which some people hype up other players which are in reality barely better is the real problem here - It's the inconsistency of opinions of those who're so erroneously definite in their outlook. Also, nerds like these fail singularly to take into account the key factor of usability and attention to detail and not just the matter of sound quality - touches that only Sony and Microsoft are genuinely starting to get so far, with iRiver rapidly catching up. And it's partly because many nerds still buy players like these with reduced usability and argue pointlessly for them that there isn't a definitive iPod-Killer.

Not only does a player which can be fairly considered better than the iPod have to have better sound quality, it has to have better usability as a system - and that takes far more development effort than fudging your figures to be better in your garish ad copy so that your rabidly anti-iPod fanboys use it as gospel. And if you don't have that, you'd better have some stonking specs to roll out, and many simply don't.

I bench every player I get (which is practically every player that gets any blips of interest in the intarwebs) and listen to them critically as well, but I also spend the greater bulk of time with them in casual use. If they don't pass the third test in terms of making my music as accessible overall, they don't get a thumbs up. And if I have a fairly in-depth opinion on IEM's, it's because I've owned a huge swathe of them and have worked with manufacturers to develop them.

Trying to be a smartass from a position of easily-told inexperience really isn't very smart. And if you don't actually have much first-hand experience of many of what you conjecture about, I'd advise that you read more and say less.

PS: I mean it about the hearing test.

 

[whiteness]

if u want Sound Quality u can buy Walkman NWZ A829

 

[dasikes]

Speaking of sound quality, does anyone recommend a relatively cheap pair of headphones? I just want superior sound to the Apple buds, while being comfortable to wear. Something ≤$40

Any suggestions?

Note: To specify, I'd kinda like to avoid in-ear styled buds. Just concerned about my hearing. I need to maintain it, as I work in video productions.

 

[whiteness]

use sony ex series....

 

[Sesshi]

Speaking of sound quality, does anyone recommend a relatively cheap pair of headphones? I just want superior sound to the Apple buds, while being comfortable to wear. Something ≤$40

Any suggestions?

Note: To specify, I'd kinda like to avoid in-ear styled buds. Just concerned about my hearing. I need to maintain it, as I work in video productions.

In-ear buds, by providing varying degrees of isolation, helps to protect your ears.

However it's very possible for them to be misused - as perhaps Tosser above is doing - by playing them back too loudly. In-ears with relatively unnatural frequency response such as the Etymotics, especially the supposedly flat ER-4S which he seems to have, can be especially bad for people who don't know what they're doing because they will tend to increase volume to dangerous levels to emphasise the dynamics of the music that the compromised phones just can't deliver.

Fortunately with most <$40 in-ears you're unlikely to come across this problem, as the drivers used in these actually gives a fuller sound than many $100 - $200 'professional' in-ears, just with inferior resolution. But as a tradeoff, these phones provide significantly less - but still useful - isolation than those 'pro' in-ears. The effective isolation of whatever in-ears you buy means that you can hear more music at a lower volume given any particular level of background noise than a pair of buds like the default Apples. All that remains is for you to listen at a sensible volume, and keep it that way.

The Sony EX71's are the earliest and probably the least developed example of this sort of budget in-ear phone. They provide the same isolation as all other phones of this type but the sound is quite ragged. I'd suggest the Sennheiser CX300, which you can probably get for $40 if you shop around. TSRP is $50, but they do come with a solid 2-year warranty.

 

[Tosser]

Check my location. There's more than one clue in it. By the way you phrase your posts, I'm still yet to be convinced that you aren't lumping in your opinion of all iPods by some euro-crippled 3/4G that you had a long time ago.

Great. More conjecture from you.

Also let it not be said that I'm huge in defence of the iPod Touch here. The sound quality is merely decent, but the levels to which some people hype up other players which are in reality barely better is the real problem here - It's the inconsistency of opinions of those who're so erroneously definite in their outlook. Also, nerds like these fail singularly to take into account the key factor of usability and attention to detail and not just the matter of sound quality - touches that only Sony and Microsoft are genuinely starting to get so far, with iRiver rapidly catching up. And it's partly because many nerds still buy players like these with reduced usability and argue pointlessly for them that there isn't a definitive iPod-Killer.

You keep on harping on that "iPod killer", and speculate that I must be talking of such a beast. I'm not, for crying out loud. I'm talking about QUALITY, not about file browsing, not about market share or anything like that. How hard can it be for you to get that?

Not only does a player which can be fairly considered better than the iPod have to have better sound quality, it has to have better usability as a system - and that takes far more development effort than fudging your figures to be better in your garish ad copy so that your rabidly anti-iPod fanboys use it as gospel.

Again with your strawman about this almost mythical "iPod Killer". I am NOT talking about that. I am talking about audio quality ONLY!

Sheesh!

And if you don't have that, you'd better have some stonking specs to roll out, and many simply don't.

Who gives a flying feck!? I'm NOT talking about what it takes for a company to take the market share away from Apple. I'm ONLY talking about audio quality! Stop with the strawmen.

I bench every player I get (which is practically every player that gets any blips of interest in the intarwebs) and listen to them critically as well, but I also spend the greater bulk of time with them in casual use. If they don't pass the third test in terms of making my music as accessible overall, they don't get a thumbs up.

Again, someone who thinks that "file browsing" is a parameter when considering "audio quality", really shouldn't be taken seriously, no matter how many IEMS/headphones he purport to have.

And if I have a fairly in-depth opinion on IEM's, it's because I've owned a huge swathe of them and have worked with manufacturers to develop them.

Sorry, but with what you have said up until now, I highly doubt that, unless we're talking about choosing colours and so on. You obviously haven't worked much with the audio-aspect of it. Or perhaps it's just that you gave some feedback to what you think of a product consitutes "working with manufacturers to develop them".
Your "in-depth opinion" really doesn't matter much, when you earlier claimed there were no such thing as "hard driven IEMS", only to ignore things entirely when I mentioned the high impedance ER-4s (100Ohms). You really are the expert you make yourself out to be …

Trying to be a smartass from a position of easily-told inexperience really isn't very smart.

Haha, how low can you go? Who's trying to be smart arse around here? Just take a look at the quote just above – I think that emphasizes it more than your claim that AUDIO QUALITY also depends on how the file browsing is working, or the market share(i.e. your continued focus on the "iPod killer").

And if you don't actually have much first-hand experience of many of what you conjecture about, I'd advise that you read more and say less.

Amateurs ·

I'm making a living where I have to use my ears, and you try to pretend I have no real exprience. Good lord, how daft can one be …

PS: I mean it about the hearing test.

Of course you do

Let me say it again: There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with my hearing. Your attempt to make me look like a deaf fanboy has become pathetic to say the least.
Next you'll be telling me if I can't hear any difference between some "exotic" signal cables and proper dimensioned no-brand cables I must be deaf …

In-ear buds, by providing varying degrees of isolation, helps to protect your ears.

However it's very possible for them to be misused - as perhaps Tosser above is doing - by playing them back too loudly.

Ah, another ill-guided attempt to pretend I don't know how to use headphones. You seriously need to stop making unfounded strawman argumentation.

In-ears with relatively unnatural frequency response such as the Etymotics, especially the supposedly flat ER-4S which he seems to have, can be especially bad for people who don't know what they're doing because they will tend to increase volume to dangerous levels to emphasise the dynamics of the music that the compromised phones just can't deliver.

Ha ha, are you in all seriousness trying to argue that a flat response is "unnatural"? That playing the audio on gear that doesn't colour the audio is somehow "unnatural"?
Oh and how many times do I have to say that I don't use my audio equipment solely for music, but for AUDIO in general?

I think you need to speak to some audio engineers. You'll benefit greatly from such a talk.

 

[Sesshi]

I really don't know what you're hoping to get out of this. Especially as your counterarguments, if they can be called that, are mired in complete ignorance, exacerbated undoubtedly by cutting and pasting whatever you've read on the web.

The fairly efficient 100-ohm ER-4S is a negligible 'driving' load on a Touch or any other player of it's class - and in fact, the ER-4S is, if you consider solely in terms of the least electrical compromise when used directly with a player, one of the best IEM's to use on the D2/Touch/Clix2/etc. By loading the output with a constant impedance closer to a range that the players measure flat (200+ ohms), the headphone circuitry performs better. It also eliminates hiss on even the hissiest players (by no means the Touch). That may seem counterintuitive to the neophyte that you undoubtedly are, but it happens to be the case. The real measure of how hard a phone is to drive is it's efficiency, not it's impedance. And IEM's are invariably highly efficient.

In terms of it's tone however, the somewhat distortion-laden highs gives the inexperienced - or an ear that should know better - the impression of detail, with the seemingly incisive tone assisted by the lack of bass. EQ out the bass on a quality studio monitor and you'll immediately discern more incisiveness in the mids, while not necessarily being any more revealing in reality. This is the effective phenomenon of the ER-4S, and to a lesser extent, the 4P (and many other single-driver armature phones). The multi-driver IEM's feature reduced distortion in all bands, and also deliver a better balanced frequency response. They are overpriced of course, but that's the compromise you have to make to have a highly isolating phone with a balanced sound with some semblance of real quality - not just reasonable sound with a few compromises which serves to make it sound (to some) better than it actually is. Something I believe you have not yet encountered in IEM's, Tosser, if you're continuing to use the 4S's.

My advice regarding reading more and posting less if you have no idea what you're talking about still applies, as does my advice to get a hearing test if you are in an audio related business and your experience as you posted is the truth.

 

[Tosser]

I really don't know what you're hoping to get out of this. Especially as your counterarguments, if they can be called that, are mired in complete ignorance.

Ah, yes, first you pretend I don't "read" enough about this, and then you try the route of pretending I don't have any exprience, and now you've come to the conclusion that you have nothing to say, except to _claim_ my arguments are ignorant?
You really are a treat.

The fairly efficient 100-ohm ER-4S is a negligible 'driving' load on a Touch or any other player of it's class - and in fact, the ER-4S is, if you consider solely in terms of the least electrical compromise when used directly with a player, one of the best IEM's to use on the D2/Touch/Clix2/etc.

I'm sorry, but you really need to get som real world experience. That's not merely "inaccurate", but directly untrue. The ER·4 (not the "P") is a hard to drive headphone, even to the D2, but they kill the Touch. At least if you care about audio quality. Of course you can listen to them, but, hey, people listen to MP3s, and they even do it on the standard headphones. Considering you were the one earlier in this thread who seemingly had no idea about lossless and uncompressed, I reckon it's pretty easy to tell which "camp" you're in.

By loading the output with a constant impedance closer to a range that the players measure flat (200+ ohms), the headphone circuitry performs better. It also eliminates hiss on even the hissiest players (by no means the Touch). That may seem counterintuitive to the neophyte that you undoubtedly are, but it happens to be the case.

You don't get it, do you? P-R-E-C-I-S-I-O-N is the name of the game. Hence a flat un-equalised response is desireable. But, oh no, that's "unnatural and it kills your ears"!

In terms of it's tone however, the somewhat distortion-laden highs gives the inexperienced - or an ear that should know better - the impression of detail, with the seemingly incisive tone assisted by the lack of bass.

Oh, haha, you get better and better with your speculation. The ER·4s are precise (not as good as the HD25-1s, but still), and you making claims that it's just a placebo effect is, quite frankly, laughable.

EQ out the bass on a quality studio monitor and you'll immediately discern more incisiveness in the mids, while not necessarily being any more revealing in reality.

Yes, but you remind me of erasmus montanus here. Yes, it's a known effect, and it's eaily reproduced. The thing you do (and where you go Erasmus Montanus on me), is that you think that since the ER·4s lack bass, then they cannot possibly be precise.
Yes, again, they lack bass, but it's easier to monitor that on a flat response, than it is to use headphones/IEMS that colour the sound, making it "natural" (which, in my book, is simply another word you have for "sloppy" and "unprecise").
Please get some real world experience with monitoring before you make you claims.

This is the effective phenomenon of the ER-4S, and to a very slightly lesser extent, the 4P. The multi-driver IEM's feature reduced distortion in all bands, and also deliver a better balanced frequency response. They are overpriced of course, but that's the compromise you have to make to have a highly isolating phone with a balanced sound. Something I believe you have not yet encountered in IEM's, Tosser.

One of the reasons I don't use multi-driver IEMS, is that I have not been able to find anyone with the precision of the ER·4s. They tend to lack precision, tend to be muddy, but as you mention, they do tend to have more bass. But then again, I'm all about precision, not about "natural response curves" and other bollocks sales marketing speak to cover up that they're unprecise and in reality are just up-market ordinary in-ears, not monitors.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were the sort of fellow who gained most of his "insight" on forums like "head-fi". Bought any silver cables recently?

Great, you decided to add bits here and there. How swell of you

[…], exacerbated undoubtedly by cutting and pasting whatever you've read on the web.

You really are a laugh, considering you're the bloke who consider a 100Ohm headpone to perfect for a Touch, that you're the bloke who claims that parameters such as market share defines which player has the better audio quality, that you're the bloke who claims that parameters such as easy file browsing mean anything when we are talking about audio quality. Yes, you certainly are "the man".

[…]The real measure of how hard a phone is to drive is it's efficiency, not it's impedance. And IEM's are invariably highly efficient.

Oh, haha, and you're the one accusing me of lack of real world experience? Please go get some experience with monitoring audio, instead of all your "file browsing".

They are overpriced of course, but that's the compromise you have to make to have a highly isolating phone with a balanced sound with some semblance of real quality - not just reasonable sound with a few compromises which serves to make it sound (to some) better than it actually is.

Yes, I have become aware that you want a response curve to emphasize certain frequencies, colouring the sound, making it sound "natural", not to mention that you apparently even LIKE non-precise headphones.

My advice regarding reading more and posting less if you have no idea what you're talking about still applies,

Haha, you can continue to restate that ridiculous argument, all the while trying to pretend you actually know of what you speak, using strawman argumentation while you do so, but your statement never applied, and it never will, no matter how much you want it to.
You see, there's a difference between you and me: I actually work with audio for a living, depending on my headphones as monitoring tools out in the field, where you seem to harp on about how file browsing matter to the audio quality (in my book, audio quality is all about precision and a flat response/as little colouring as possible), wereas you like colouring, like a response curve which boost the top and bottom, and let stuff like market share influence your definition of audio quality.

as does my advice to get a hearing test if you are in an audio related business and your experience as you posted is the truth.

Nope. Like the above, you restating your utterly ignorant statement, doesn't make it apply. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still cheap rhetorics, and still as ignorant as the first time you posted. In fact, one could argue that it's even worse, as you don't learn from your mistakes.

 

[Sesshi]

You amaze me a little, Tosser. There's not much more I can say. I'll leave you to it. May your armour of - whatever it is - serve you well in further verbal entanglements with others.