iPod Classic - Is the sound any good or not?

[admin_exported]

Hi,

Would love to buy a 160Gb ipod classic as am sick of having to keep changing the music around on my 8Gb Sony NWZ-S618. Problem I have is the decidedly mixed reviews of the new classic's sound quality so I was hoping for some advice.

WHFSV obviously gave the classic a product of the year award and rate its sound quality very highly but if you search the internet the general theme seems to be that as a result of moving to a new sound chip the sound is noticably worse that the previous generation ipod. A lot of people are saying they have returned the players as a result. A lot however seem very happy with the new ipods but I am always wary of people's opinions as they depend so much on what they have heard before and how they have ripped/ downloaded the music they are playing.

My Sony sounds great and these new non-ATRAC Sony players seem to have rave reviews for sound quality in general (not so rave from WHFSV interestingly though) so I am reluctant to swap for a new ipod unless the sound is anything other than excellent.

I rip all my music to FLAC using EAC for use on my home squeezebox system and then transcode to mp3 320kbps for use on any portable player. I listen on Shure SE210 headphones (again rave reviews everywhere apart from WHFSV!).

Has any one any experience of the new ipod classic. Any advice would be much appreciated as I really want a 160Gb player but don't think I could put up with anything that sounded worse than my Sony as sound quality will always edge convenience for me.

James

 

[Joe Cox]

Well you know what we're going to say, don't you?! The iPod Classic was the best sounding digital music player we'd ever heard, when we first set our ears on last year. Nothing yet has arrived to surpass it - though a luxury MP3 players test in our May issue could yet throw something up - so we can only offer up our whole-hearted recommendation once again.

If you're ripping in FLAC your tunes should sound pretty good, though you could consider sticking to Apple Lossless were you to go down the iPod route - the format is compatible with the Squeezebox, too.

 

[John Duncan]

Can anybody give any definitive information on the volume limiter though? Clare mentioned recently that you can double the volume of your mp3s in iTunes, but my mate (who has a newer, volume-limited one, mine is an old 15gig without) said it doesn't work. Any clues, without resorting to third party hacks?

 

[Anonymous]

So you guys would completely disagree with any comments that it doesn't sound as good as the 5.5 gen ipods?

I fear that a lot of the problems with perceived sound quality come from this article below which suggests that the audio circuitry is badly engineered in the new ipods.

http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/ipod/comparison/measurements/measurements.html

I guess once sound quality is called into question it is easy to listen out for problems that may not even be there. This is my concern, if I think it may have less than perect sound quality then I will never be completely happy with it!

Would ideally like to avoid the Apple route completely as have so will avoid Apple Lossless, only really considering the ipod becasue of its capacity and WHFSV reviews on sound quality. I figure that if the sound is ok then I can put up with using iTunes etc (especially if given the capcaity I won't have to transfer files as often as I currently do). Generally intend to stick to FLAC and mp3 so I don't get tied into Apple.

I take it you'd buy one then Joe?

 

[John Duncan]

[quote user="JamesBernal"]Would ideally like to avoid the Apple route completely[/quote]

Why?

 

[Anonymous]

Nothing against Apple, just want to stick with more widely compatible file formats (so more wanting to avoid AAC and Apple Lossless than avoiding Apple themselves as I appreciate ipods play mp3 files) and also don't particularly like i-tunes as music management software (though again to be fair I haven't used any of the more recent versions and I believe I could use MediaMonkey instead though not sure how well this actually works in practice with an Ipod).

Ideally, I'd like a player than offered drag-and-drop music management, 120Gb+ capcity, small form-factor, FLAC/Mp3 compatibility, an FM radio and of course excellent sound quality. Have no interest or need for video/ photo support though this seems fairly standard these days.

160Gb ipod, plus Apple radio remote seems closest match to this requirement albeit without drag-and-drop or FLAC support (not really critical on a portable though I guess as I would use 320kbps mp3 in the main).

 

[Anonymous]

Just my two cents....I own an ipod nano, listened to the sony Sony NWZ-A818 on a brief comparison- and I must say I definitely prefer the sony over my ipod! (ipod playing lossless, sony playing mp3, same sennheiser PX 100 headphone) After that I listened for a prolonged time with some good quality sennheisers to the latest ipod classic on display at the local apple store. (They actually had a load of songs downloaded on it ) I'd say my general impression is it gives detailed sound, but lacks warmth and bass.The preference of WHFSV for the ipod really puzzles me, especially considering I usually agree on their verdict, and believe they're completely impartial.Maybe, just maybe, I'm only guessing here, the ipod has a cleaner headphone out that would show it's qualities when connected to a proper hifi? My best advice to you:go to your local apple store -take your headphones with you-and ask if you could have listen to the classic. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if sony will soon introduce some mp3 players with a higher storage capacity, that would be more to your taste.

 

[Joe Cox]

[quote user="JamesBernal"]

I take it you'd buy one then Joe?

[/quote]

I certainly would. At the moment I'm still on a nano, which doesn't work well when you rip in Apple Lossless, so I may well be buying one very soon.

Our only gripe with the Classic, as with all the iPods, and indeed many other MP3 players, is the poor quality of the headphones. I can only guess this might be clouding some listeners' judgement.

 

[Anonymous]

Out of interest (and apologies if already covered elsewhere in the forums) but how does WHFSV actually test an MP3 player such as the classic?

Are all tests undertaken with the supplied headphones? Do you test with various after-market headphones? Do you test connected to an external amplifier and speakers?

Assuming that all of the above are covered - the 5* rating would be based on overall performance in a variety of listening situations. Is that correct?

Going into an Apple shop and actually listening to the player using my own headphones is probably the best way for me to make a call on this. Problem there is I'd have no idea what file format/ bitrate I was listening to. Would have to hope that Apple had been sensible and loaded up the demo machines with lossless files to make the players sound as good as possible.

 

[Joe Cox]

We listen to all MP3 players with their supplied headphones - hence we know Apple's are stinkers. We also then listen with a better, price comparable pair, so we can see how the supplied headphones are limiting the player, if at all.
We would also listen with different bitrates to. We have a vast selection of music, ripped primarily in Apple Lossless, but also with files at 320kbps and 192kbps. This would be the bulk of our testing, but we do now connect players to an external system, too. After all, why not?

 

[keneddy]

Hi James, Like you I value sound quality before other considerations ( I still use my Sony CD Player from 16years ago and the sound still cant be bettered by any MP3 player!), but with new weight restrictions on airlines I have just bought the Classic 80G for the obvious weight advantage-and the sound is quite acceptable. HOWEVER-the volume limit is much too low! I know you can set the volume output but it still doesn't go high enough. Maybe there is a way to increase the volume of the recording of the source material, but I doubt it. If volume isn't such a problem then I would say go for it, but if you like music at a higher volume then I'm not so sure. Ken Speed.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes it always amazes me too that WHFSAV rate the 'pod so highly. In direct comparison I much prefer the sound of my Sony NWZ A806 and 818...so I guess that shows its always a good idea to listen before you buy.

 

[Andy Clough]

[quote user="oeurf"]so I guess that shows its always a good idea to listen before you buy.[/quote]

Couldn't agree with you more! We always urge anyone buying new kit to listen to it before they buy.

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have any experience of the new Microsoft Zune 80?

Not sure if its officially available in the UK but seems to be easy enough to pick up. Looks like a contender for my next player as meets a lot of my requirements (80Gb, FM radio etc).

Lots of internet posts seem to suggest the sound quality is good but given its relative rarity a lot of the people posting are obviously zune-fans. Given that I can't buy one in a shop very easily it would be difficult to try before I buy.

Has anyone out there actually heard one and have a view on sound quality?

 

[Anonymous]

As I have both the 8gb nano and the 80gb classic ipod, may I suggest that all owners invest in a small portable headphone amp; this will increase the volume out of the ipod by a considerable margin, enough to satisfy all your volume requirements.

 

[mattc76]

I have a sony nwa808 (with lame vbr) and ipod classic (apple lossless). Listening with my shure se530's there really is no contest - the sony wins by far. At low to medium vols the sony is better, but at higher vols the sony is a million times better. Maybe the shures just work better with the sony than the ipod - i don't know - but i can't listen to my ipod knowing that i could be listening to my sony. I don't know what i'd think if i didn't have the sony to compare to - maybe i'd think the ipod was amazing!? Maybe its my ears or something but i cannot believe that WHFSV rate the ipod classic as the best - maybe the best with mediocre (definition??!!) earphones, but with the SE530's - No Way! The Sony is warmer, more detailed, plays the highest highs, the lowest lows, but is only 8gb and uses soundforge which is rubbish. The ipod sounds too digital ie a bit "bitty" (bitty mummy bitty!), doesn't play the lowest lows or the highest highs, but most noticeably at higher vols it physically hurts! ie just too harsh! Thats what i think anyway....

One more point...even sony's bundled earphones are way way better than apples rubbish ones that not even my cat will fling around when left on the floor! So, WHFSV, do you really think that the ipod classic sounds better than the sony!!?? (I agree that the ipod has more memory can hold more songs, has a bigger screen that can display better video BUT costs twice the price, but for pure sound quality - NO WAY!)

Rant over...

 

[Clare Newsome]

We've consistently given the Sony's five stars of late, so we're not disputing they sound great (or that the headphones are better. Cans and string are better than Apple headphones).

But how many uncompressed tracks can you get on an 8GB player? And how good is it docked via a hi-fi? And how many people listen to it via a £330 pair of headphones?

Yes, it's a great portable player - but not the best all-rounder you can buy for the money. (And if you've got an Apple Mac you're shafted...)

 

[Anonymous]

Went into the Apple store at the weekend to compare the Classic to my current Sony using my own headphones. What a waste of time.

The Classic sounded awful (harsh at high volume, tiring to listen to) but to be honest given that all the players in store were loaded with 128kbps aac files it probably was an unfair comparison to the 320kpbs files on my Sony. I can understand why Apple would want to store lots of files on the in-store players and I assume they have used low bit rates so that they can use the same files on each player and therefore give a comparison between the nano and the classic but it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity in terms of demonstrating sound quality. I don't see why they could load a selection of lossless files onto the classics so people can actually evaluate the sound quality (unless of course they don't want you to do that ).

Anyway, given that the sound seemed unexceptional and the interface was so slow (especially using coverflow which granted is a bit pointless), I think I am stuck with my Sony for now and will have to accept that I will be changing the music over on a regular basis.

 

[mattc76]

[quote user="JamesBernal"]I don't see why they could load a selection of lossless files onto the classics so people can actually evaluate the sound quality.[/quote]

Wont make any difference - it'll still sound harsh and fatiguing (i've tried it). Lame VBR on my sony with my shures sound SOOO much better than lossless on the classic with the shures (and ER6i's as well and stock apple phones and stock sony phones etc). It doesn't matter what you listen with the overall impression of harshness and fatiguing is still there with the classic. I've got about 80 albums in my 8gb sony (with still 1gb left). My advice is don't encode in 320kbps CBR because the file size will be significantly bigger - use vbr (you'll get slightly wierd bit rates eg 223kbps or 163kbps etc but it is an average ie it'll encode with greater resolution when the music is more complicated and lower when its simpler (sorry if you already know this). The overall effect is identical to 320kbps sound quality but much lower file sizes so you can fit more on!

 

[mattc76]

Incidently I have scrutinized vbr (lossy) vs. atrac lossless vs. wav on the sony with all my different headphones and honestly couldn't tell the difference - and I was really wanting and hoping that the lossless files would sound better but they just didn't compared to the lame encoded vbr mp3s which are obviously massively smaller files!!

 

[mattc76]

Sorry to labour this...

[quote user="Clare Newsome"] But how many uncompressed tracks can you get on an 8GB player? And how good is it docked via a hi-fi? And how many people listen to it via a £330 pair of headphones?[/quote]

I accept this and don't disagree (although this is a slight, if you like, dixons/comet/currys point of view, as opposed to an audiophile magazine view) but....

[quote user="Joe Cox"]Well you know what we're going to say, don't you?! The iPod Classic was the best sounding digital music player we'd ever heard, when we first set our ears on last year. Nothing yet has arrived to surpass it - [/quote]

The best sounding digital music player!!?? What, through headphones?? Maybe docked through a hi fi yes but when the original poster asked if the ipod classic sounded any good or not it is not an unreasonable assumption that he might be listening to it via headphones since that is what its for (my cd player didn't come with headphones). Therefore to say it is the best sounding is frankly misleading...It just isn't! I'm not talking subjectivity or preference or the fact that my ears might be different...I'm saying it flippin' well hurts to listen to it!!!

Please humour me WHFSV team and get an ipod classic with some half decent headphones (anything but the apple ones) crank it up and tell me that your ears don't hurt!!!!

Incidently I had a particularly bad day at work today!

 

[JoelSim]

I have an iPod Nano and it sounds rubbish, even through improved earbuds. Mind you I'm used to listening to hifi. Have had the Nano for about a month and it's pretty much packed away, and will be used with the equally rubbish Bose Sounddock when I next go away and need something for the hotel/cottage/apartment.

and the Solitaire game is nigh on impossible too, whatever the Yankee Doodles have called it! I'll stick to reading the paper.

 

[Andrew Everard]

OK, time for my late night 2p's worth.

Haven't yet heard a digitayul moo-sic playuh - and here I'm talking pocket machines, not CD players, just to avoid confusion - that didn't have something of the angry wasps about it So I'll give them the swerve, ta very kindly.

And have recently moved desks back into the WHFSV office, where there's constant iPoddage going on via a B&W Zeppelin speaker thingy, and that sounds like several huge hornets on helium, 'at it' inside a barrage balloon.

Mostly playing the latest deeply cool things, all of which sound like the flller tracks from a 1960s Dave Clark Five or Herman's Hermits LP. Ugh!

Must get some headphones and find Radio 3 and 4 on BBC Listen Live, much though I hate sitting in an office insulated from the outside world. And don't even get me started on constantly turning a corner in an office corridor or staircase and getting an accusatory glare from someone having a deep personal conversation on their mobile.

On a lighter note, anyone catch the rerun of Grumpy Old Men this evening on the telly...? Even that was a bloody repeat - I don't know where our licence money goes, etc., etc....

 

[professorhat]

Well, I use my iPod Touch regularly with Shure SE110s (well I did till I lost them a few days back!) and think the sound quality is excellent (don't even use lossless, I use between 192 - 320kbs quality depending on the music). The Apple headphones are dreadful, mainly very quiet for me as the damn things kept falling out my ears!

Let's be realistic here, we're not talking audiophile. The whole point of an iPod is mobile music e.g. on the train, on the bus, when exercising etc. I'm not going to sit in my living room and think, hmm, I'll listen to my iPod. In these mobile conditions therefore, I'm not looking to hear every nuance of sound, I'm generally looking to block someone's incessant chatting on their mobile phone about how they are on the train out of my head.

And I also think it's only fair that part of an MP3's star rating comes into how good they sound through a dock / connected up to a hi-fi and the functionality e.g. how many songs they store on them. Many, many of my friends don't have a stereo any more, they just hook their iPod into a speaker dock. How this sounds is therefore very important to them. And many of them insist they must get their entire music collection on this mobile machine as well (though lord knows why). Those that read the full review (rather than just look at a star rating) will therefore get the necessary information on which particular aspect the MP3 player excels in i.e. mobile music playing, playing through hi-fi / dock and functionality in terms of size etc. and can decide from this.

And it may just be personal preference too!

 

[Joe Cox]

[quote user="mattc76"]Please humour me WHFSV team and get an ipod classic with some half decent headphones (anything but the apple ones) crank it up and tell me that your ears don't hurt!!!![/quote]

Err... that was certainly part of the review process Matt! Not sure what you're comparing the Classic too, but when using headphone - agreed, we'd rather not use Apple's - we think this is a great sounding portable. It's all relative, though, so we wouldn't claim it's the last word in hi-fidelity.