Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod touch Which ipod has the Best Sound Quality?
- Thread starter dazloe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://intellexual.net/bose.html
As promised. A very in-depth and technical look at why Bose products are bad.
As promised. A very in-depth and technical look at why Bose products are bad.
Thats a good read, thanks!
I work with music a lot and most people I know (working with recording music) tell me to stay away from Bose when recording stuff.
thank you.
this is an example of just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's good quality. bose=overrated
I have a pair of Shure e4c in-ear buds that I find vastly superior to the Bose, not that I think the Bose are bad.
Regarding the topic of the OP:
I currently have and have been comparing over the last week the iPod touch 2G, the Nano 3G and the Nano 4G.
First point: If you are using the supplied Apple earbuds, it's highly unlikely you will notice any difference in the sound of any iPod. Apple's earbuds just aren't in the ballpark for the task of critically evaluating sound. I know a lot of people use them and have no complaints, but they are simply missing what their iPod is actually capable of sounding like.
Second: A general discussion of music, sound quality, etc., is a highly subjective and personal topic mostly pertaining to the listener's own ears, not yours - you will never get a reliable consensus about what sounds best. Too many variables in the works regarding basic musical preferences and tastes, equipment, environment, listening habits, and so on.
Third: For my own evaluation, I chose songs that were originally recorded in the late seventies to present, generally as diverse a mixture of rock, pop, jazz and dance tracks as I have in my song library. I wanted to see how each iPod would treat music originally recorded in the analog era, the early digital era, and present day across various styles of music. Needless to say, EQ settings were off at all times on all iPods. When comparing identical tracks on each iPod, I would try to match (as closely as I could by ear) the output level of the vocal (if present) as the default standard for matching overall output volume level amongst all iPods. Using that method, I listened to the songs at low, "normal" and high volume.
Fourth: All listening was done with headphones - Bose on ear headphones are my ear bangers of choice (more on this later in response to the Bose comments in this thread).
Here are the results so far:
iPod Touch 2G - The most pleasant sounding, most balanced of the three across the frequency spectrum. Sounds very good in a variety of listening environments, both indoors and out, with a variety of different songs and musical styles. Doesn't skimp on the lows (to the extent they are present on the source recording), good midrange response (so it's not just highs and lows where the overall mids are left for your equipment to figure out), and great sounding, crisp highs that don't become too shrill or overpowering when the volume is cranked. It's the hands-down leader of this pack
iPod Nano 3G and 4G - The Nano 3G has a warmer sound compared with the Nano 4G and the bass frequencies are a little more pronounced. Not that the Nano 4G can't do bass, it can go as low as all three iPods, but the lower mids and/or upper bass frequencies sound like they weren't invited to the party at times. Thus, the Nano 3G sounds a little more punchier than the 4G, especially at lower volume levels indoors and at normal to louder volume levels outdoors. The Nano 4G brings crisp sounding highs to the table, however, so vocals (generally) and instruments that normally register themselves in the higher ranges have a little more definition on the 4G, but not quite the overall fullness and warmth that the 3G has. Generally, the Nano 4G has more of a shriller sound at higher volume levels with it's emphasis on highs and cranking the volume generally doesn't necessarily help the 4G compensate for the 3G's somewhat fuller low end response.
Which Nano (3G or 4G) sounds better? Well, it really depends on the music your listening to. In my opinion, the 3G generally sounds better with tracks that benefit from dishing out good overall low end response (generally, but not limited to: rock, some pop, and dance tracks) and also gives the perception of better dynamic range largely due once again to better low end, lower mid presence and response. The 4G can sound a little overpowering with electric guitars, cymbals, etc., on some rock tracks when listening at higher volume, but it's sounds better than the 3G on some ballads with it's crisper and more defined treatment of vocals, lush strings sections, and generally subdued rhythm section arrangements which generally benefit from the more articulated highs of the 4G. But it mostly comes down to individual songs (at least in my library). Some sound better on the 4G, but most generally sound better on the warmer sounding 3G. Once again, it's very subjective. For example, some folks would rather have less low end response than more and that may at times, abiet silently, color their opinion about how good or great something sounds in a general discussion. In other words, your music library, taste, ear and listening environment may be produce a different result.
FWIW, I noticed a few other things about the Nano 4G: the battery life for just listening to music is generally horrid compared to the Nano 3G and the Touch; the gee-whiz factor of the Nano 4G's accelerometer wears off pretty quickly and it gets to be a pain to flip the thing over for cover flow, videos, and games - especially when you have to mentally compensate for changed click wheel controls. The iPod touch controls are oriented with the accelerometer changes, so it's much more natural to use, and the Nano 3G's landscape screen orientation makes the 4G's accelerometer bag-o-tricks mostly unnecessary and click wheel control buttons are always just as you see them. The 4G, for reasons I haven't been able to figure out yet, seems to sometimes "forget" which is the right channel and which is the left channel, reversing the two. Comparing the track on the two other iPods and iTunes, the 4G was the culprit. Lastly, the Nano 4G interface is far more pleasant to operate, and it's transitions from one screen to another are much smoother than the 3G's comparatively jittery-looking screen transitions. It's just feels like Apple never got the Nano 3G interface performance quite right, so they just gave up.
Regarding Bose:
I'm not a fan of their speaker systems, and I've ever tried their in ear tri-port buds, but the Bose on-ear headphones, as general purpose consumer-targeted phones, sound fantastic to my ears, and the reviews on Apple's store show that, not only am I not alone in that opinion, those phones are one of, if not the highest rated phones on Apple's store. And Amazon's customer reviews are pretty much consistent with the reviews on the Apple store. For the price, the on ear phones are a great deal, and I've used Senhiesers, Sony MDR studio phones, V-Moda, etc.
Just to make something clear: Bose on ear phones are not intended to be, nor are they designed to be, studio monitors and/or phones that faithfully reproduce a professional, pristine, uncolored, flat frequency response curve. These phones are designed to produce music in a way most people will find sounds great out of the box. In other words, it's meant to be plug and play for portable audio devices (aka, iPods) as if the consumer where at home, sitting in their living room couch, right at the designated sweet spot for their speaker set-up, with the amplifier eq'd just right for the music their listening to. And most people's home stereo listening environment/set-up is a far cry from a professional recording studio sound booth or audio laboratory set up for precise frequency response measurement. As the instructions for these phones empathize, you should refrain from using the iPod's built-in EQ options and make sure it's set to off because using the EQ will destroy the sound these phones were designed to produce. I don't know what Bose did exactly to determine what sound properties generally appeal to most consumers, but the praise these phones have received from users seems to indicate that Bose got it right this time.
I currently have and have been comparing over the last week the iPod touch 2G, the Nano 3G and the Nano 4G.
First point: If you are using the supplied Apple earbuds, it's highly unlikely you will notice any difference in the sound of any iPod. Apple's earbuds just aren't in the ballpark for the task of critically evaluating sound. I know a lot of people use them and have no complaints, but they are simply missing what their iPod is actually capable of sounding like.
Second: A general discussion of music, sound quality, etc., is a highly subjective and personal topic mostly pertaining to the listener's own ears, not yours - you will never get a reliable consensus about what sounds best. Too many variables in the works regarding basic musical preferences and tastes, equipment, environment, listening habits, and so on.
Third: For my own evaluation, I chose songs that were originally recorded in the late seventies to present, generally as diverse a mixture of rock, pop, jazz and dance tracks as I have in my song library. I wanted to see how each iPod would treat music originally recorded in the analog era, the early digital era, and present day across various styles of music. Needless to say, EQ settings were off at all times on all iPods. When comparing identical tracks on each iPod, I would try to match (as closely as I could by ear) the output level of the vocal (if present) as the default standard for matching overall output volume level amongst all iPods. Using that method, I listened to the songs at low, "normal" and high volume.
Fourth: All listening was done with headphones - Bose on ear headphones are my ear bangers of choice (more on this later in response to the Bose comments in this thread).
Here are the results so far:
iPod Touch 2G - The most pleasant sounding, most balanced of the three across the frequency spectrum. Sounds very good in a variety of listening environments, both indoors and out, with a variety of different songs and musical styles. Doesn't skimp on the lows (to the extent they are present on the source recording), good midrange response (so it's not just highs and lows where the overall mids are left for your equipment to figure out), and great sounding, crisp highs that don't become too shrill or overpowering when the volume is cranked. It's the hands-down leader of this pack
iPod Nano 3G and 4G - The Nano 3G has a warmer sound compared with the Nano 4G and the bass frequencies are a little more pronounced. Not that the Nano 4G can't do bass, it can go as low as all three iPods, but the lower mids and/or upper bass frequencies sound like they weren't invited to the party at times. Thus, the Nano 3G sounds a little more punchier than the 4G, especially at lower volume levels indoors and at normal to louder volume levels outdoors. The Nano 4G brings crisp sounding highs to the table, however, so vocals (generally) and instruments that normally register themselves in the higher ranges have a little more definition on the 4G, but not quite the overall fullness and warmth that the 3G has. Generally, the Nano 4G has more of a shriller sound at higher volume levels with it's emphasis on highs and cranking the volume generally doesn't necessarily help the 4G compensate for the 3G's somewhat fuller low end response.
Which Nano (3G or 4G) sounds better? Well, it really depends on the music your listening to. In my opinion, the 3G generally sounds better with tracks that benefit from dishing out good overall low end response (generally, but not limited to: rock, some pop, and dance tracks) and also gives the perception of better dynamic range largely due once again to better low end, lower mid presence and response. The 4G can sound a little overpowering with electric guitars, cymbals, etc., on some rock tracks when listening at higher volume, but it's sounds better than the 3G on some ballads with it's crisper and more defined treatment of vocals, lush strings sections, and generally subdued rhythm section arrangements which generally benefit from the more articulated highs of the 4G. But it mostly comes down to individual songs (at least in my library). Some sound better on the 4G, but most generally sound better on the warmer sounding 3G. Once again, it's very subjective. For example, some folks would rather have less low end response than more and that may at times, abiet silently, color their opinion about how good or great something sounds in a general discussion. In other words, your music library, taste, ear and listening environment may be produce a different result.
FWIW, I noticed a few other things about the Nano 4G: the battery life for just listening to music is generally horrid compared to the Nano 3G and the Touch; the gee-whiz factor of the Nano 4G's accelerometer wears off pretty quickly and it gets to be a pain to flip the thing over for cover flow, videos, and games - especially when you have to mentally compensate for changed click wheel controls. The iPod touch controls are oriented with the accelerometer changes, so it's much more natural to use, and the Nano 3G's landscape screen orientation makes the 4G's accelerometer bag-o-tricks mostly unnecessary and click wheel control buttons are always just as you see them. The 4G, for reasons I haven't been able to figure out yet, seems to sometimes "forget" which is the right channel and which is the left channel, reversing the two. Comparing the track on the two other iPods and iTunes, the 4G was the culprit. Lastly, the Nano 4G interface is far more pleasant to operate, and it's transitions from one screen to another are much smoother than the 3G's comparatively jittery-looking screen transitions. It's just feels like Apple never got the Nano 3G interface performance quite right, so they just gave up.
Regarding Bose:
I'm not a fan of their speaker systems, and I've ever tried their in ear tri-port buds, but the Bose on-ear headphones, as general purpose consumer-targeted phones, sound fantastic to my ears, and the reviews on Apple's store show that, not only am I not alone in that opinion, those phones are one of, if not the highest rated phones on Apple's store. And Amazon's customer reviews are pretty much consistent with the reviews on the Apple store. For the price, the on ear phones are a great deal, and I've used Senhiesers, Sony MDR studio phones, V-Moda, etc.
Just to make something clear: Bose on ear phones are not intended to be, nor are they designed to be, studio monitors and/or phones that faithfully reproduce a professional, pristine, uncolored, flat frequency response curve. These phones are designed to produce music in a way most people will find sounds great out of the box. In other words, it's meant to be plug and play for portable audio devices (aka, iPods) as if the consumer where at home, sitting in their living room couch, right at the designated sweet spot for their speaker set-up, with the amplifier eq'd just right for the music their listening to. And most people's home stereo listening environment/set-up is a far cry from a professional recording studio sound booth or audio laboratory set up for precise frequency response measurement. As the instructions for these phones empathize, you should refrain from using the iPod's built-in EQ options and make sure it's set to off because using the EQ will destroy the sound these phones were designed to produce. I don't know what Bose did exactly to determine what sound properties generally appeal to most consumers, but the praise these phones have received from users seems to indicate that Bose got it right this time.
Save us from Head-Fi 'experts' 
I like my Bose - it does what it does pretty well, and that is a decent sounding, usefully isolated comfy phone for winter commutes + times when I don't want to wear my IEM's. And moreover in a sound-to-buck comparison between many high-end phones from Grado, Audio-Technica et al that I've had, I think the Boses actually fares decently - or better, in terms of meeting their users' relative expectations. Of course there are better, and of course there are open phones for less that sound a heck of a lot better - but that is besides the point.
As some others have remarked, the quality and the tone of the headphones you use will be far more variable than the relative sound quality of the various iPods.
The RP-DH1200 has a 50 ohm impedance, so it's not a bad match with almost all the iPods. I'd say whether you buy a Touch, a Classic or a Nano, it'll be fairly comparable.
I like my Bose - it does what it does pretty well, and that is a decent sounding, usefully isolated comfy phone for winter commutes + times when I don't want to wear my IEM's. And moreover in a sound-to-buck comparison between many high-end phones from Grado, Audio-Technica et al that I've had, I think the Boses actually fares decently - or better, in terms of meeting their users' relative expectations. Of course there are better, and of course there are open phones for less that sound a heck of a lot better - but that is besides the point.
As some others have remarked, the quality and the tone of the headphones you use will be far more variable than the relative sound quality of the various iPods.
The RP-DH1200 has a 50 ohm impedance, so it's not a bad match with almost all the iPods. I'd say whether you buy a Touch, a Classic or a Nano, it'll be fairly comparable.
Thank you VanNess! That's exactly the answer I was looking for!
When I started this thread I had a feeling I wasn't going to get an answer before a good'ol headphone debate was seen through, in relation to the Bose debate:
I think that music is the only medium in which personal judgement is authentic. People judge other people for what they wear or what they look like,
but music is so subjective that there is no right or wrong answer to what headphones suck and what headphones rule the music world - it all comes down to personal opinion and what each user prefers.
Therefore I don't think Bose suck I just prefer Technics and Seinheiser's
No. Bose sound is not incredible in any way shape or form. Ask any audiophile about Bose and they will laugh at you. Google it, there's a million good references for audio equipment that agree. No highs, no lows.... they make crap.
Infact, you can get MUCH better equipment for much cheaper. Bose doesn't make anything worth buying.
Thanks for actually staying on topic.
It's annoying how these threads constantly devolve into "headphones/Bose/retards in general".
I found your comparison between iPods interesting and was wondering how you thought the 1st gen Touch sound chip stacked up against the 2nd gen one? I've already read at the lounge the latter is better, just wondering if it's really noticeably so?
Headphones are the cure
For any audiophile like yourself you need to get yourself a pair of skullcandies http://Skullcandy.com
For any audiophile like yourself you need to get yourself a pair of skullcandies http://Skullcandy.com
I don't think audiophile and Skullcandy should be ever put in the same sentence.
Although I have heard their Ink'd line make a good beater pair that sound pretty decent.
im from headfi actually. headfi is a mish mash of opinion, some fact and mostly: people who hate apple. the 5.5 is a great player but the 6g, new touch and new nano have much better amps for powering low ohm phones.
most of these small 12-60ohm phones cause the dap to suffer severe bass roll off, reduced stereo images and thd increase but that is because the amp has a very small output only mean to power phones loudly but without authority. that goes for any dap, not just ipods.
the new touch, the classic, the old shuffle (1g) and the new nano all have dual cap outputs that have no bass roll off, keep a great stereo image and have low distortion. it is up to you whether you like that sound or not but technically, the new ipod is among a very small elite among dap when concerning sound quality.
there still is no proper eq but im sure that will be addressed by a hacker. i loved my old ipod touch: a nice dry sound, perfect for trance and still reasonable performance with bass etc, but the new one is in a new league.
i hated ipod till last october when i got my touch. i had all the 'best' daps that headfi recommended and after being dissapointed, i sold them after my touch amazed me. yeah: headfi is just an enthusiast site with very few quality opinions. it is like a dorm room. the person with the loudest voice and grossest story will be the one everyone listens to. that is headfi. a great place but hardly a place to check for actual sound quality on dap. rather, it is a great place to get an overall view of which fanboy camp people are in in the non-ipod market.
my phones are in order of pleasure:
futuresonics atrio m5
victor fx-500
audio technica ck-10
westone um2 (but would hiss from the vacuum of space)
etymotic er4s (love but these are uncomfortable and a bit too shrill)
yuin ok2 (damn these are sweet if you can get past the horrid looks and earbud factor versus iem/canalphone)
shure e500 (great but a bit too slow for me)
denon c700 (great but the driver is too small and tends to be a bit more boomy than the victor)
headphones:
beyerdynammic dt880 (great phone. comfortable. good bass extension, treble and sweet mids)
beyterdyammic dt770 (for those times when you need it to be closed)
ultrasone dj1pro - nearly the dt880 signature but closed and cheaper (only 200$)
sennheiser hd600 (a benchmark in every sense but a bit too laidback for trance music (my fav))
i am also not a bose fan but they are not bad. for their market i think they are one of the best. if you really care for quality of the sound, they do not stack up to other brands but for looks and weight they are one of the best im sure.
haha lol
are you kidding i have the smokin' and i love them. You can get the FMJs with 11mm speaker
Frequency range: 16 Hz 20K Hz
Impedance: 16 ohms
and at only 70 dollars
I don't think audiophile and Skullcandy should be ever put in the same sentence.
are you kidding i have the smokin' and i love them. You can get the FMJs with 11mm speaker
Frequency range: 16 Hz 20K Hz
Impedance: 16 ohms
and at only 70 dollars
i own both and if you are very picky and have sensitive earphones (not earbuds unless sensitive and 16ohms) you will notice two things: more bass and less hiss.
other than that it is not a huge difference but those two things are what for some people are very important. separation and thd are not too different but despite measureable differeances in all dap: it would be silly to say any company's player sounded completely different. if it did, it would be or another totally mutilating the sound.
all daps more or less fall within a 5% deviation of performance overall. some are better at bass and some do not hiss while others are hissers but very good at bass. some are not good at both but even those do not necessarily sound bad at all.
i prefer the 2g touch to the first for features mainly but when i use my expensive iems, the lack of hiss is about perfect as well as a sustained bass performance which is lacking in the old touch (the same as 95%) of daps out there.
the volume control is amazing. 2g touch may be the best dap ever made when judging on sq and features for a person who is concerned with audio playback only. no fm of course but i am speaking from a person's personal library, it is nearly perfect. it still only lacks the eq feature that some other companies offer.
ive had cowon: rubbish eq: 5 bands then just like bass boost - poor
meizu: good eq and low distortion but the hiss kept me away
iriver: not into that eq system at all
sony: again, only 5 bands but good enough but has loads of hiss
ipod: distortion full eq but based on 15+ band enhancements. someday i twill be fixed i am sure
shigzeo, thanks for your input -- it's quite helpful (I've been watching this thread and thought I'd respond to your posts with a couple of questions). Have you had a chance to compare the 2G Touch with either last year's Classic or this year's Classic? I've read that the 2G Touch and both versions of the Classic all share the same audio chip/DA converter and that they should sound pretty much the same, but I haven't had a chance to compare this in any real-world situation -- aside from listening to the Touch and the Classic last week in an Apple store, which was difficult to do because the noise level in the store was so high. I'd be curious to know if you have any thoughts about the new Classic.
Also, what bitrate do you usually encode your music at? Since you say that the new iPod is in a whole different league, I wonder if encoding at a higher bit rate would really make a noticeable difference in this case. I have a 5.5G iPod and can't really hear much of a difference between bitrates beyond 192 AAC.
I've purchased a 2G Touch and have heard a clearer overall sound with better bass response compared to my 5.5G iPod. I haven't had time yet to experiment with bitrates on the Touch.
sadly, my experience with the classic has only been in the apple store and no matter how much my audio technica ck-10 or victor fx500 isolate, they do not isolate enough to really get a listen.
the new touch is amazing. ill have to get a better listen soon with some more sensitive phones but so far, i have heard no hiss at all. my phones are not that sensitive (112db) at 50ohm but they are probably not far off from any usual 100-110db at 16ohm for hiss. i hear the same hiss as i have from all 16ohm dynamic phones. i just don't remember with the um2, i will have to borrow my mates and try it out.
impressive to say the least: a great bass rumble and no hiss: the only two things that bothered me by absence in the old touch are strongly represented in the new one. phenomenal.
they should be using the same cirrus logic chip or very similar just slightly renewed. as for bitrate, i have found myself to be a very honest person of late: before, i would not touch less than 192 but i have done many listening tests with decibel matched files of various types and am not reliably able to pass an abx test of double blind sets.
i usually have many of them stringed together so that it really is random and i am not 'thinking' into the song. i will not get into the debate on who can or cannot or make believe they can or cannot: just that i am not reliably able to tell from 160-192 and above. sometimes, not even 128.
no coder is perfect except for lossless but even they have faults: the player has to have a perfect decoder for them to really be useful. cracks, pops and stutters or faulty frequency playback make some lossless a shameful experience.
ipod seems to be quite good or at least on the better end of playing back lossless but im sure it still could use work. i stay with purchased drmless aac or if i rip myself, i generally do 256 vbr aac from max just for my own peace of mind.
cheers.
the new touch is amazing. ill have to get a better listen soon with some more sensitive phones but so far, i have heard no hiss at all. my phones are not that sensitive (112db) at 50ohm but they are probably not far off from any usual 100-110db at 16ohm for hiss. i hear the same hiss as i have from all 16ohm dynamic phones. i just don't remember with the um2, i will have to borrow my mates and try it out.
impressive to say the least: a great bass rumble and no hiss: the only two things that bothered me by absence in the old touch are strongly represented in the new one. phenomenal.
they should be using the same cirrus logic chip or very similar just slightly renewed. as for bitrate, i have found myself to be a very honest person of late: before, i would not touch less than 192 but i have done many listening tests with decibel matched files of various types and am not reliably able to pass an abx test of double blind sets.
i usually have many of them stringed together so that it really is random and i am not 'thinking' into the song. i will not get into the debate on who can or cannot or make believe they can or cannot: just that i am not reliably able to tell from 160-192 and above. sometimes, not even 128.
no coder is perfect except for lossless but even they have faults: the player has to have a perfect decoder for them to really be useful. cracks, pops and stutters or faulty frequency playback make some lossless a shameful experience.
ipod seems to be quite good or at least on the better end of playing back lossless but im sure it still could use work. i stay with purchased drmless aac or if i rip myself, i generally do 256 vbr aac from max just for my own peace of mind.
cheers.
shigzeo -- thanks for all that info. I personally never go below 192 AAC myself, and much of the music I buy online is encoded at 256 or even at 320. When I rip my own CDs, I usually stick with 192 as the happy medium between quality and disk space, but I might begin ripping at 256. For some reason, I've never used VBR (just CBR), but I've been thinking about going that route as well. Does VBR typically result in larger file sizes compared to CBR at the same bitrate?
In regards to iPods in general, I was never happy with their sound quality until I got a 5.5G video iPod. I'm now really pleased with the Touch. In my experience, the iPods from the 5G on have been particularly good with acoustic music (jazz and classical), and I like the way the new Touch provides a very clear and also balanced sound. The bass on jazz tracks always seemed a bit buried on previous iPods, but it's more pronounced now.
As much as I like the new Touch, I've toyed with the idea of getting a Classic -- mainly for the extra disk space. Tough call, though, because I prefer the interface on the Touch and I personally feel that hard-drive-based music players should become a thing of the past.
In regards to iPods in general, I was never happy with their sound quality until I got a 5.5G video iPod. I'm now really pleased with the Touch. In my experience, the iPods from the 5G on have been particularly good with acoustic music (jazz and classical), and I like the way the new Touch provides a very clear and also balanced sound. The bass on jazz tracks always seemed a bit buried on previous iPods, but it's more pronounced now.
As much as I like the new Touch, I've toyed with the idea of getting a Classic -- mainly for the extra disk space. Tough call, though, because I prefer the interface on the Touch and I personally feel that hard-drive-based music players should become a thing of the past.
Hiss is generally not a big problem with any of the iPods unless you're using IEM's, and then especially multi-driver IEM's. I believe the problem is down to impedance mismatch. The current Classic at least doesn't hiss anywhere near as much as the 1G Touch - so much so I'd say it's unnoticeable to most. However with something like the OP's phones - it's not really going to make any discernible difference.
In terms of sound quality once again there's not a huge difference between the current vs previous iPods. There are no longer any major codec glitches, and the general quality isn't all that different.
In terms of tonality, there is a difference especially with low-impedance IEM's - but once again, with the OP's phones the 50-ohm impedance should be serving to begin to flatten out the response curve with the previous iPods in comparison to the current models - so while the response in the low bass will still be less, it remains to be seen whether the phones can render that frequency (most DJ-style phones emphasise the mid-bass) discernibly differently. Bottom line seems to be that if you can't separate tonality from quality, or if you regard a flat response as the main barometer of quality (it is not always) then the newer iPods are better. One element in which the new sound-chipped iPods seem to be really better seem to be in applying the EQ, it seems to smear the sound less. I'd still like something I can control myself though.
The 5G iPod is the point at which Apple (after the 3 and 4G which featured a relatively yawning bass fall-off and some other odd behaviour with low-impedance phones) started rigging players generally like most other MP3 player manufacturers and got rid of some of the most complained about codec glitches. So unsurprising on that point.
RE: the interface, if it worked as positively as the 4G's did I wouldn't have any gripes with the Classic. But both the old - and even the new Classics - still seem to suffer from a good deal of lag which breaks the experience a little. Certainly turning to the Classic is nowhere near as 'naturally whizzy' an experience as I used to get on the 3/4G or the Mini. The Touch on the other hand is a lot smoother and feels as 'natural' in navigation as the early iPods used to.
In terms of sound quality once again there's not a huge difference between the current vs previous iPods. There are no longer any major codec glitches, and the general quality isn't all that different.
In terms of tonality, there is a difference especially with low-impedance IEM's - but once again, with the OP's phones the 50-ohm impedance should be serving to begin to flatten out the response curve with the previous iPods in comparison to the current models - so while the response in the low bass will still be less, it remains to be seen whether the phones can render that frequency (most DJ-style phones emphasise the mid-bass) discernibly differently. Bottom line seems to be that if you can't separate tonality from quality, or if you regard a flat response as the main barometer of quality (it is not always) then the newer iPods are better. One element in which the new sound-chipped iPods seem to be really better seem to be in applying the EQ, it seems to smear the sound less. I'd still like something I can control myself though.
The 5G iPod is the point at which Apple (after the 3 and 4G which featured a relatively yawning bass fall-off and some other odd behaviour with low-impedance phones) started rigging players generally like most other MP3 player manufacturers and got rid of some of the most complained about codec glitches. So unsurprising on that point.
RE: the interface, if it worked as positively as the 4G's did I wouldn't have any gripes with the Classic. But both the old - and even the new Classics - still seem to suffer from a good deal of lag which breaks the experience a little. Certainly turning to the Classic is nowhere near as 'naturally whizzy' an experience as I used to get on the 3/4G or the Mini. The Touch on the other hand is a lot smoother and feels as 'natural' in navigation as the early iPods used to.
I like it that way. Less people to pick nits.
Bottom line is that if you are an:
a) Audionerd who wants to run Lossless portably because he deems himself capable of making out the difference in a portable environment regardless of the realities of the situation
or
b) Someone who is 'point-to-point' and wants the best readily portable platform to run through a dock into higher-quality systems running Lossless music
or
c) One of those certifiably insane Head-Fi types who runs a portable amplifier along with an iPod altered with additional capacitors, tying the two with cryogenically treated, annealed by Zeus himself interconnect using a custom dock connector soldered shakily, er, I mean 'handcrafted with the utmost care' - the resulting effect offering actually a noisier signal than directly from the iPod itself (!), although their choice of Utada Hikaru as their reference tracks may hamper the realisation of this
or
d) Of course someone who wants to carry their entire music collection with them and that is bigger than 32Gb
The Classic is the best bet, because it's the safest bet in terms of the general sound coming from both ends - dock and phone socket - and also in terms of the storage capability allowing a meaningful number of Apple Lossless tracks to be stored.
If you're a sensible guy on the other hand who just listens to a limited number of mid-to-high-bitrate tracks and wants perfectly decent quality - then pick any of the current iPods according to your tastes and functional needs.
Bottom line is that if you are an:
a) Audionerd who wants to run Lossless portably because he deems himself capable of making out the difference in a portable environment regardless of the realities of the situation
or
b) Someone who is 'point-to-point' and wants the best readily portable platform to run through a dock into higher-quality systems running Lossless music
or
c) One of those certifiably insane Head-Fi types who runs a portable amplifier along with an iPod altered with additional capacitors, tying the two with cryogenically treated, annealed by Zeus himself interconnect using a custom dock connector soldered shakily, er, I mean 'handcrafted with the utmost care' - the resulting effect offering actually a noisier signal than directly from the iPod itself (!), although their choice of Utada Hikaru as their reference tracks may hamper the realisation of this
or
d) Of course someone who wants to carry their entire music collection with them and that is bigger than 32Gb
The Classic is the best bet, because it's the safest bet in terms of the general sound coming from both ends - dock and phone socket - and also in terms of the storage capability allowing a meaningful number of Apple Lossless tracks to be stored.
If you're a sensible guy on the other hand who just listens to a limited number of mid-to-high-bitrate tracks and wants perfectly decent quality - then pick any of the current iPods according to your tastes and functional needs.