ipod classic 160gb..bad sound quality?

[rgill90]

Hi All

After 5ish years i've finally filled up my 4th gen 32gb ipod and need to get another.

I was about to take the plunge on amazon on a brand new 160gb one but was quite startled on some of the reviews where I read lots of people complaining about deterioration in sound quality on the brand new ipods compared to early models.

I use my ipod in the car or just walking to work and never connect it to a hifi or anything, hence all my music on my ipod is ripped at 128kbps, which for my use does me fine. Has anyone who uses their ipod in the same way as me (ie not for hifi) recently done a similiar upgrade and are unhappy with the results? Should I be overly concerned about this 'sound quality deterioration?'

Thanks for reading.

 

[Clare Newsome]

I'm going to be brutally honest here. If you're listening at 128Kbps, the quality of your player is one of your least concerns! In fact, the better the product, the more likely it is to show up the ultra-compressed music files.

If you re-ripped all your music in Lossless (even 320Kbps) format and upgraded to that 160GB Classic (with decent headphones), you should hear a massive performance upgrade.

Sorry if that's not the advice you're after (sounds like you've got a big library to rip!), but i'm being cruel to be kind

 

[bemahler1]

Agree with Clare. Take the plunge, download with 360kps and enjoy.

 

[Lee H]

Also, consider adding a cheap amp like the Fiio E5 with a LOD. You can get the lot for about £20 and that should improve things no end. If you're just using an aux jack in the car, this will help there too.

 

[manicm]

I'm going to differ with our resident expert Clare

and say that even with lossless/uncompressed files, the current Classic 160gb does not cut it sound wise. It's expensive I know, but if you're of sound mind

and using the iPod as a, um, iPod, then save up for a 64GB Touch and load up 320k MP3s or AAC. I have the previous generation iPod touch 64Gb and 320k MP3s sound great.

Or even try one of the Sony or Creative players (gasp!)

 

[rgill90]

Hi All

Thanks for your responses but i'm happy with my current quality coming out of my current ipod - I know 320kbps will be better, but considering the time it will take and how i use my ipod i'm not sure i'll reap the gains. I'm not unhappy with my tunes at 128 as all i do is
stick them on in the car for a short journey to supermarket or a mates or the
occasional long journey in the car (in which case i've got other people in the car and invariably we talk so the music just becomes background music!). Or i'm just listening to tunes at a very low
volume at work or on public transport / on the beach / on holiday by the swimming pool whilst i'm reading a book. In short I suppose my ipod provides mostly quiet background music to other things i do, therefore the music doesn't get the attention to warrant a rerip of about 320 CDs (But having said that i wouldn;t want the music to deteriorate in quality after purchasing a brand new one!)

So i'm just wondering if anyone uses an ipod in a similar capacity as i do and has noticed this supposed reduction in sound quality from the brand spanking new ipods in comparison to the older ones?

Cheers

 

[macipod]

Hi,

I have nearly ever ipod released ,yes i know why you ask... well i just got into collecting them, my latest purchase was the new 160gb classic and i use lossless and i do think the sound quality is not as good as my 5th gen ipod video or iphone 4 also the click wheel is the least responsive of all the ipods i have.

I would go with the 64gb ipod touch, and you get so much more functionality i know its more but its worth it, i wish they would make a high capacity
solid state player but flash is to expensive at the moment.

Luke

 

[rgill90]

Hi

Thats good to know - thanks. In what capacity do you use your ipod - ie for hifi use or like i use mine? Is the sound quality a lot worse or just not quite as good and do you notice it all the time? Do you think if i did go for it i'd be forced to rerip everything at a higher bit rate to compensate?

Ipod touch would be good but i just can;t afford almost double the price for almost half the capacity and i've no need for the extra features on the ipod touch.

Yeap - high capacity SSD ....only a matter of time!

Rich

 

[manicm]

rgill90:

Hi

Thats good to know - thanks. In what capacity do you use your ipod - ie for hifi use or like i use mine? Is the sound quality a lot worse or just not quite as good and do you notice it all the time? Do you think if i did go for it i'd be forced to rerip everything at a higher bit rate to compensate?

Ipod touch would be good but i just can;t afford almost double the price for almost half the capacity and i've no need for the extra features on the ipod touch.

Yeap - high capacity SSD ....only a matter of time!

Rich

I use my iPod touch for hifi - and I'm ripping in AIFF, but you might like ALAC and save some space as well. 320k MP3s sound just great too.

 

[manicm]

Clare Newsome:

I'm going to be brutally honest here. If you're listening at 128Kbps, the quality of your player is one of your least concerns! In fact, the better the product, the more likely it is to show up the ultra-compressed music files.

If you re-ripped all your music in Lossless (even 320Kbps) format and upgraded to that 160GB Classic (with decent headphones), you should hear a massive performance upgrade.

Sorry if that's not the advice you're after (sounds like you've got a big library to rip!), but i'm being cruel to be kind

Hand on heart Clare, this having being said, on my very first iPod, the Mini way back in 2004, I ripped to 128k AAC and the sound was brilliant - you should have The Who's Tommy on it - the imaging was unbelievable. The fact is Apple has over the years shoved in inferior DACs onto their iPods - and admitted the very first Shuffle was at the time the best sounding Pod!

I truly believe the 'fatty' Nano was the last truly great sounding 'Pod, haven't heard the latest one though.

 

[Anonymous]

This is a bit late, but to answer the OPs original question...

...IMHO, the classic 160gb sounds good and potentially great. I only use lossless files and use it via my hifi (see sig). Now vie only used it in isolation rather than vs a different iPod but these were my findings.....

I had it docked for a couple if years via the apple dock and it sounded very good, not as good as my £500 Arcam CDP but not a million miles away. This, I thought was pretty good considering it's a basic dock and using the internal DAC. It wasn't as open and clear as the Arcam, not as much detail, but probably 80% there, for well less than half the cost.

Now I have the Pure i-20 dock* with internal DAC and the sound is a revelation. I haven't done a back to back with the CDP yet but the sound is much more open and detailed, but very forward.

So, I'd surmise that e classic 160gb out of the box is good, but not perfect. It won't disgrace itself in a relatively high end system using the most basic of docks. However with a decent dock, offboard DAC, lossless files, it sounds great!

*my review of the pure dock: http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/583489.aspx

 

[Anonymous]

I can also vouch for the Pure i20 though I am guessing that the iPod Classic may perform differently, and therefore perhaps worse, than the Nano, and Touch because it has a hard drive rather than solid state memory. I thought about a Classic though have bought a 4g 32GB Touch for this reason.

 

[DavieCee]

manicm:

in inferior DACs onto their iPods - and admitted the very first Shuffle was at the time the best sounding Pod!

Cool! That is what I am still using for out & about

 

[Anonymous]

Childs1962:

I can also vouch for the Pure i20 though I am guessing that the iPod Classic may perform differently, and therefore perhaps worse, than the Nano, and Touch because it has a hard drive rather than solid state memory. I thought about a Classic though have bought a 4g 32GB Touch for this reason.

Hang on!

Are we now saying that solid state sounds better than a hard drive!!? :S

If that really is a concern Childs1962, fear not because the ipod classic doesn't stream its audio direct from the HDD in real time, rather it buffers it into - wait for it - Solid state Random Access Memory modules.
AKA - RAM

Which should sound just as good as any flash based devices ;P

 

[Anonymous]

ashworth_rich:Childs1962:

I can also vouch for the Pure i20 though I am guessing that the iPod Classic may perform differently, and therefore perhaps worse, than the Nano, and Touch because it has a hard drive rather than solid state memory. I thought about a Classic though have bought a 4g 32GB Touch for this reason.

Hang on! Are we now saying that solid state sounds better than a hard drive!!? :

No not at all, I am just saying in response to the OP that it may be different and if so therefore it could be worse.

I have been using a 5th gen Nano which is solid state and have now bought a Touch rather than a Classic, partly in case there is a difference between SS and H/D and partly for the touch screen controlability.

 

[manicm]

I would still say, unless you absolutely need the 160gb capacity, avoid the current Classic. It's too stodgy, slow and outdated.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:
I would still say, unless you absolutely need the 160gb capacity, avoid the current Classic. It's too stodgy, slow and outdated.

Ouch!
(as a classic user)

Still I cant argue that its overkill for 128kbps tracks and yes a touch is much "cooler" - for the kids and that.

Still comparing the experience of using my classic against my iphone for music, I'd hardly call the classic slow or outdated.

IMHO - of course!

I mean you cant play games on it or use spotty-geek-fi/lastfm

 

[Clare Newsome]

manicm:Clare Newsome:

I'm going to be brutally honest here. If you're listening at 128Kbps, the quality of your player is one of your least concerns! In fact, the better the product, the more likely it is to show up the ultra-compressed music files.

If you re-ripped all your music in Lossless (even 320Kbps) format and upgraded to that 160GB Classic (with decent headphones), you should hear a massive performance upgrade.

Sorry if that's not the advice you're after (sounds like you've got a big library to rip!), but i'm being cruel to be kind

Hand on heart Clare, this having being said, on my very first iPod, the Mini way back in 2004, I ripped to 128k AAC and the sound was brilliant - you should have The Who's Tommy on it - the imaging was unbelievable. The fact is Apple has over the years shoved in inferior DACs onto their iPods - and admitted the very first Shuffle was at the time the best sounding Pod!

I truly believe the 'fatty' Nano was the last truly great sounding 'Pod, haven't heard the latest one though.

No iPod has sounded as good as my first MP3 player, in pre-Apple, late-1990s times - or so my nostalgic brain tells me. It sounded amazing with 128Kbps files...at the time, because there was nothing to compare it to

Wouldn't swap back to it from my iPod Touch, though

 

[Andy Clough]

Ooh, I had one of those too! Was a bit cumbersome for the gym, mind.

 

[Anonymous]

Before becoming an apple bore (or should that be who*e?) I had real faith in creative.
I bought two of the tiny NuVo Mp3 players and really avoided Apple like the plague.

Sadly, they never really took off. The interface on the device was clunky (three menus deep to pick a playlist), software was a pain and there was little support for the device (docks, etc) outside of Creative.

In the end I succumbed and went Apple and I've never looked back.

Sometimes its just too much effort to buck the trend!

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:
I would still say, unless you absolutely need the 160gb capacity, avoid the current Classic. It's too stodgy, slow and outdated.

It's great, massive capacity with ripped lossless and I love it! Horses for courses.....

 

[Anonymous]

ashworth_rich:Before becoming an apple bore (or should that be who*e?) I had real faith in creative. I bought two of the tiny NuVo Mp3 players and really avoided Apple like the plague. Sadly, they never really took off. The interface on the device was clunky (three menus deep to pick a playlist), software was a pain and there was little support for the device (docks, etc) outside of Creative. In the end I succumbed and went Apple and I've never looked back. Sometimes its just too much effort to buck the trend!

Likewise, even down to the two Creative Nuvos, what I do like about them is the USB compatability.

I also have a Creative X-Fi sound card which is great.

 

[Anonymous]

Childs1962:
ashworth_rich:Before becoming an apple bore (or should that be who*e?) I had real faith in creative. I bought two of the tiny NuVo Mp3 players and really avoided Apple like the plague. Sadly, they never really took off. The interface on the device was clunky (three menus deep to pick a playlist), software was a pain and there was little support for the device (docks, etc) outside of Creative. In the end I succumbed and went Apple and I've never looked back. Sometimes its just too much effort to buck the trend!

Likewise, even down to the two Creative Nuvos, what I do like about them is the USB compatability.

I also have a Creative X-Fi sound card which is great.

Yep, looked at one of those too (the soundcard), nice spec on them. Not sure they are HiFi? But they must be as close as you can get in a PC (except for using the USB out and a DAC).

I no longer even own a personal PC (I use work laptop to sync itunes on and to rip CDs). I survive with an iphone and ipad for typing.

But I digress....

Back on topic, I'd recommend a classic. Is the DAC as good as previous models - cant say, but the consensus seems to be no. If you dont need the capacity or like playing games, get a Touch. Then again, why not jsut get a 32GB iphone 4 on contract? Less outlay, same hardware (I assume) and its one less thing to carry/sync.

 

[Lee H]

ashworth_rich:Then again, why not jsut get a 32GB iphone 4 on contract? Less outlay, same hardware (I assume) and its one less thing to carry/sync.

Which is why I have one. It's just one less device to carry. There are better sounding portable music players from other manufacturers out there, but for me the compromise was only needing to carry one device. If you don't mind carrying two, then the world doesn't have to be Apple shaped.

 

[justintuijl]

I have finally sold my 7th generation ipod classic as for years it has been getting me down with the lack of bass.

I used to have a creative zen which, with the same mp3's, was a far superiour sound quality, not just bass but the whole shibooble.

I do not do music on the move and if I did I would go with mp3's on my Samsung Gallaxy (which by the way does sound better than the ipod)

At home I have my laptop running through an m-audio fast-track pro external soundcard and into my proper stereo. I used to have just the ipod inplace of the lappy and soundcard, but after comparing ipod with lappy/sound card there is no doubt that bass and general soundquality are poor from the ipod. One thing that did improve the ipod was to have it plugged into aa official apple dock. But the improvement was not enough.

I tried many things but in the end the best option is to let the ipod go.