iPods - do they really sound that good?

[manicm]

JohnNewman:HiFiAddict:

I used the highest bitrates available (320k) to compare the MP3 player to the iPods, then used lossless for my PC vs the iPods.

The speakers I use are about level to £800 worth of speaker (they're DIY, but I've asked several people to listen, and the values given went to £1000). The amplifier is about the same.

Off on holidays now, back in a week.

Chris

Two points: 1) The speakers may be good, but that does not necessarily mean that they work well with the ipods sonic character. 2) I found that through headphones the ipod is fantastic, however through my hifi and speakers using Russ Andrews cable, I (like you) found it disappointing. It did not match my CA cd player for quality. But it could just be that my Onkyo / Mission combo does not work well with the ipod. I should stress however that in terms of detail and separation it was also inferior to the CA player and this should be the case regardless of the partnering equipment. Strange really as the detail and separation through the headphones is not bad at all.

Which is why I stand by the Arcam rDock - it's an excellent device to get the best out of the iPod on the hifi through analogue. I'll bet it's an improvement over your Russ Andrews cable. The top-range CA dock is also supposed to be excellent.

 

[Sliced Bread]

manicm:JohnNewman:HiFiAddict:

I used the highest bitrates available (320k) to compare the MP3 player to the iPods, then used lossless for my PC vs the iPods.

The speakers I use are about level to £800 worth of speaker (they're DIY, but I've asked several people to listen, and the values given went to £1000). The amplifier is about the same.

Off on holidays now, back in a week.

Chris

Two points: 1) The speakers may be good, but that does not necessarily mean that they work well with the ipods sonic character. 2) I found that through headphones the ipod is fantastic, however through my hifi and speakers using Russ Andrews cable, I (like you) found it disappointing. It did not match my CA cd player for quality. But it could just be that my Onkyo / Mission combo does not work well with the ipod. I should stress however that in terms of detail and separation it was also inferior to the CA player and this should be the case regardless of the partnering equipment. Strange really as the detail and separation through the headphones is not bad at all.

Which is why I stand by the Arcam rDock - it's an excellent device to get the best out of the iPod on the hifi through analogue. I'll bet it's an improvement over your Russ Andrews cable. The top-range CA dock is also supposed to be excellent.

I think your probably right, but without taking a direct digital signal I don't think that the quality will ever beat my CD player as the signal is being passed through (or should that be "filtered through") two amplifiers. The ipods and the stereo amp. A CD player doesn't have the second amplifier in the way. Maybe the Onkyo Dock with the digital output and a dedicated DAC is the way to go

 

[manicm]

JohnNewman:manicm:JohnNewman:HiFiAddict:

I used the highest bitrates available (320k) to compare the MP3 player to the iPods, then used lossless for my PC vs the iPods.

The speakers I use are about level to £800 worth of speaker (they're DIY, but I've asked several people to listen, and the values given went to £1000). The amplifier is about the same.

Off on holidays now, back in a week.

Chris

Two points: 1) The speakers may be good, but that does not necessarily mean that they work well with the ipods sonic character. 2) I found that through headphones the ipod is fantastic, however through my hifi and speakers using Russ Andrews cable, I (like you) found it disappointing. It did not match my CA cd player for quality. But it could just be that my Onkyo / Mission combo does not work well with the ipod. I should stress however that in terms of detail and separation it was also inferior to the CA player and this should be the case regardless of the partnering equipment. Strange really as the detail and separation through the headphones is not bad at all.

Which is why I stand by the Arcam rDock - it's an excellent device to get the best out of the iPod on the hifi through analogue. I'll bet it's an improvement over your Russ Andrews cable. The top-range CA dock is also supposed to be excellent.

I think your probably right, but without taking a direct digital signal I don't think that the quality will ever beat my CD player as the signal is being passed through (or should that be "filtered through") two amplifiers. The ipods and the stereo amp. A CD player doesn't have the second amplifier in the way. Maybe the Onkyo Dock with the digital output and a dedicated DAC is the way to go

Ooooh never implied that, but I'll say if Lord Jobs could pay 2 cents to SQ on the latest iPods, on my rDock it would give my Solo Mini's CDP a thrashing.

My iPod touch on the rDock already gives better imaging than the Mini's CDP.

But the iPod touch - whether through earbuds, or on the hifi - has terrible bass - weak and soft and the sound just lacks punch - which my fatty Nano had in spades - but was still crystal clear and had equally good imaging if not better.

 

[idc]

My only comparison is with a first gen classic against a Creative Zen and the ipod wins hands down with detail, clarity and sound stage. But if you amp an ipod it gets better, if you amp it with a LOD it gets better again and if you use lossless files it gets better again. An unamped ipod with lower bit rate files sounds terrible in comparison.

 

[ear]

idc did you compare them using the brand supplied headphones? I love tjhe creative sound but from ipod I only heard them with other headphones( akg and wescl) never heard Ipod with the supplied headphones to know if it really sounds good.

 

[Anonymous]

I've got a Nokia N900 that sounds a lot better than my ipod. And you can surf the web plus make telephone calls with it, too.

 

[Anonymous]

The supplied earphones aren't bad, but, as it says in the magazine, easily bettered.

You guys have pointed out something of interest - is it fair to plug an ipod into a hifi through the headphone socket? I assume there's better quality on tap from the dock part, so perhaps this will improve my ideas on it.

For those who've pointed out that system matching might be a part. I agree, it could be, but at the same time, with a neutral amp and speakers, it shouldn't've made as much difference as it did.

Perhaps I should get an iPod Classic - all I ever need is a music player, and it's my belief that Apple has tried to put too much into one device that the original idea was lost.

Chris

 

[manicm]

HiFiAddict:

The supplied earphones aren't bad, but, as it says in the magazine, easily bettered.

You guys have pointed out something of interest - is it fair to plug an ipod into a hifi through the headphone socket? I assume there's better quality on tap from the dock part, so perhaps this will improve my ideas on it.

For those who've pointed out that system matching might be a part. I agree, it could be, but at the same time, with a neutral amp and speakers, it shouldn't've made as much difference as it did.

Perhaps I should get an iPod Classic - all I ever need is a music player, and it's my belief that Apple has tried to put too much into one device that the original idea was lost.

Chris

Trust me, I've had it, you don't want the latest classic - it's the worst sounding pod of them all currently. Instead be sneaky and do what I'm going to do now:

My friend has the 'big' un before they were called 'Classic' - and this I do believe was one of the best sounding pods - I will entice him to exchange his for my Touch 64GB.

Truth is, unless you connect digitally, big capacity Pods ain't hifi anymore - sad fact of life.

 

[idc]

ear:

idc did you compare them using the brand supplied headphones? I love tjhe creative sound but from ipod I only heard them with other headphones( akg and wescl) never heard Ipod with the supplied headphones to know if it really sounds good.

The comparison was with Senn mx500s and out of the Creatives own speaker dock and a Logitech mm50 for the ipod. The ipod won both, out of the speaker dock by a huge margin. That adds to my original point of how good is an ipod really? It is as good as its source, set up and what you listen to speaker/headphone with it.

Apples supplied buds are terrible and the mx500s at about £20 were a huge improvement. But I dont like in ear, so now all listening is with full sized cans.

 

[Anonymous]

The late-2009 Classic (160gb) sure sounds different to the 120gb version that preceded it - at least from the headphone output. Put simply, its warmer, more musical and much nicer, at least to my ears. Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[fido87456]

I have a 2nd Gen iPod Touch and think it sounds fantastic when played through my Beyedynamic DTX800 Headphones, sounds a bit pants using the original apple earphones though!

 

[manicm]

bennyboy71:The late-2009 Classic (160gb) sure sounds different to the 120gb version that preceded it - at least from the headphone output. Put simply, its warmer, more musical and much nicer, at least to my ears. Your mileage may vary of course.

Well I had the 120gb classic and it sounded too warm and too dull, so for me the 160gb would be a no-no.

Oh, and Sony's latest Nano competitor apparently has 'astonishing' sound quality - go google.

His Lordship Jobs ain't blessin us with good sounding pods anymore.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:
bennyboy71:The late-2009 Classic (160gb) sure sounds different to the 120gb version that preceded it - at least from the headphone output. Put simply, its warmer, more musical and much nicer, at least to my ears. Your mileage may vary of course.

His Lordship Jobs ain't blessin us with good sounding pods anymore.

Thats absolute rubbish mate. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the iPod sound quality, and even if there may be slightly better sounding portables out there (and before anyone says Sansa Clip/Fuze, I've tried both and couldnt see what all the fuss was about), when you factor in the mountain of music you can store on them, its a no brainer. For me at least.

 

[manicm]

bennyboy71:manicm:

bennyboy71:The late-2009 Classic (160gb) sure sounds different to the 120gb version that preceded it - at least from the headphone output. Put simply, its warmer, more musical and much nicer, at least to my ears. Your mileage may vary of course.

His Lordship Jobs ain't blessin us with good sounding pods anymore.

Thats absolute rubbish mate. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the iPod sound quality, and even if there may be slightly better sounding portables out there (and before anyone says Sansa Clip/Fuze, I've tried both and couldnt see what all the fuss was about), when you factor in the mountain of music you can store on them, its a no brainer. For me at least.

Well I've had 4 iPods to build my experience and opinion on - so I'd hesitate to say I'm talking rubbish - which I admittedly do half the time to my friends to get up their nose. I'd like to say that 'for the other half of the time what I say is more important than what anybody else thinks' - alas if only I had Nicky Wire's degree in Political Science.

Now with that out of the way - I maintain filling 8/16GB of goodness is still goodness. Filling 160GB of poop is still poop. And that is what the current Classics are - poop - what's the point if I'm not enjoying the music like I should?

 

[JoelSim]

I've got an iPhone with Sennheiser CX400 buds. Only ever listen to it when I've had a few and have an hour or more journey home. I find it a bit fatiguing and less than satisfying. Travel is 2 hours per day to work and back and never consider listening to it.

 

[DrizztDan]

does anyone know the best sounding mp3 player for the gym

?

im currently using an ipod shuffle 2nd gen, not latest . with

Sennheiser CX300-II Precision ECO Headphones (White)

thoughts i hear this is very good sound quality.

http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/12103178/Sandisk-Sansa-Clip-4GB-MP3-Player-Black/Product.html