Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › 7th Gen (2009) iPod Classic 160 SQ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

7th Gen (2009) iPod Classic 160 SQ - Page 9

post #121 of 528
Ok, I bought them haha. I really couldn't pass up that offer. They should be here by the end of next week. . Hello the high-end IEM world. I'll also offer some comparisons with those headphones unamped.
post #122 of 528

But what about the (crappy) preset EQ

Does the EQ still sound terrible on the 2009 Classic, as it does on the previous ones? And for that matter, what about their others, like the iPhone etc?

Mark
post #123 of 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by tardinha View Post
Does the EQ still sound terrible on the 2009 Classic, as it does on the previous ones? And for that matter, what about their others, like the iPhone etc?

Mark
The EQ should be fine, provided your mp3s are run through mp3gain which will decrease their loudness and eliminate EQ distortion. Still no custom EQ though, and that method mentioned around here doesn't work, the one where you overwrite the presets in iTunes and sync them to your iPod.
post #124 of 528
TBH, the EQ has always kinda sucked on iPods. If you need EQ, then that means your headphones are the ones lacking .
post #125 of 528
I just picked up the 7th Gen 160 GB Classic due to my 2007 80 GB click wheel failing. Maybe, it just needs time to burn-in, like other audio equipment. However, at this point, I'm finding the SQ on the 7th Gen to be trebly, thinner, harsher, and lacking body and texture. My previous 80 GB was much fuller, engaging and warmer with a properly recorded and downloaded song.

I got the 7th Gen, presently, running continuously to burn it in. I'll get back in a few days with an update comparing the SQ from when it came straight out of the box.
post #126 of 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckturtle View Post
I just picked up the 7th Gen 160 GB Classic due to my 2007 80 GB click wheel failing. Maybe, it just needs time to burn-in, like other audio equipment. However, at this point, I'm finding the SQ on the 7th Gen to be trebly, thinner, harsher, and lacking body and texture. My previous 80 GB was much fuller, engaging and warmer with a properly recorded and downloaded song.

I got the 7th Gen, presently, running continuously to burn it in. I'll get back in a few days with an update comparing the SQ from when it came straight out of the box.
I had the same experience. I bought a 7G a few weeks ago, kept it 3 days and took it back for refund. It sounded terrible to me. My 32GB touch stomped all over it SQ wise. Be advised, I'm a noob compared to you guys and I never tried it with an LOD either. I imagine an amp strapped to that thing would roughly be the weight and price of some home stereos so it didn't appeal to me... LOL

That was my first classic and the first full size iPod I ever bought. I was surprised how heavy it actually was. The Touch isn't exactly featherweight either. Now my clip+ on the other hand, people aren't joking when they say you could accidently lose it. Not 160GB though.
post #127 of 528
Guys, to me its pretty simple - the Classic makes a lot of sense for a bedroom rig, where you CAN hook it up to a DAC/amp/whatever, but for portability (unless you really need to carry that much music around) there are better options. For those who only want one player to do it all, I'd say you are in about the same place you were before the Sept release : Rockboxed/modded older model with larger aftermarket hard drive. Given that most of those rigs seem to include an amp, I suspect that its going to be the 64GB Touch for those who don't like the Classic. When I look at the price of the 64GB Touch here, its a sizeable chunk of the purchase price of a very good amp from someone like RSA.

That said, there are a lot of Head-Fiers who carry the player+amp around with them - I guess it comes down to what you are willing to sacrifice to get the sound you want.
post #128 of 528
Yeah, I intend to use mine more as a desktop rig or my rig away from my computer. It still sounds fine though. Seems some people like the 7G better than the 6G, and vice versa. Guess I'll have to hook it up to my Grado's and see.
post #129 of 528
I just purchased a Classic 160 a few days ago. High end audio has been a hobby/passion for 20+ years. So because of this I was always reluctant to purchase a DAP figuring it wouldn't compare to my main stereo.
For what it's worth, I hooked up the ipod via the headphone out to my main system. The main consists of Cary Audio tube amp and pre-amp, both Von Schweikert VR4 and Vandersteen 3A speakers, I change them out from time to time, and a Marantz SACD player. I must say, I was highly impressed. I didn't really expect the ipod to sound this good in the sysytem. Was it perfect, no. Sound staging was a bit congested and the highs rolled off a bit but still very nice sounding. I need to order a lod, I'm hoping that will improve the sound some.
But I must say, I'm highly pleased with the sound as a portable player whether I use the ipod in the main system or not.
post #130 of 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfary View Post
I'm really looking forward to read your impressions on the new classic...I saw at the JH-13 appreciation thread that not only Pfillon but another Headfier regarded the new classic as sounding as good as the iPhone 3GS.
Though I wasn't doing any kind of serious comparison, I did spend a couple hours the other day going back and forth between the iphone 3G and the new classic. I can't hear a difference. I was using JH13s and listening to a variety of genres.
post #131 of 528
Hybwolf, my own experience with the Classic into my CA integrated is that its better from the LOD connector. Happy to hear that you are enjoying it - many will argue that an amp will only magnify any deficiencies in a player, but the sound that emerges from my (cheap) Dali speakers is transformed. I dont have any EQ on the Classic, but the bass coming out of those little speakers is enormous : too close to the wall, no question, but its obvious from my Grados that it isnt just the speakers that benefit from the signal being fed into a decent amp. I mentioned earlier in this thread that Apple have been sued for causing hearing loss - for me, the amp in the Classic is its weak point.

As an all-round entertainer, the Touch is hard to beat : I downloaded an ep of 'True Blood' last week and watched it on my 1st Gen Touch - still blows me away that you can get such a fantastic result on that tiny screen. Also used it as the remote control for my Mac Mini with a free app from Apple, and I've used the browser in shopping centres and airports all over Asia - from that POV its great. Where it didnt tick my boxes was that it didnt let me store album after album losslessly for (AUD) $2 per GB. For US Head-Fiers, that number is even more attractive (I paid AUD 320 from an Apple Store, and I assume that most of you are getting the Classic for a little over USD 200), and the pendulum swings futher away from the Touch when you start storing something other than music. I'm ripping everything as WAV using EAC and I usually just transfer these files straight onto the Classic - that's a luxury that I've never enjoyed with any other player.
post #132 of 528
Thread Starter 
Thanks a lot for your impressions Boomana. This years Classic is still a keeper for me. I can't quite understand the guys that are bashing its sound quality.
post #133 of 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfary View Post
Thanks a lot for your impressions Boomana. This years Classic is still a keeper for me. I can't quite understand the guys that are bashing its sound quality.
I guess you need to address that to Vinnie at Red Wine Audio - he refuses to iMod the 6G because he believes the Cirrus Logic DAC isnt good enough, and he's not alone : I suspect that a great deal has flowed from that. I still maintain that too much focus has been placed on the DAC, but I'm not an electronics whiz.

End of the day, what matters more - the opinion of others or what our ears are telling us ? I dont claim that the 6/6.5 has the best SQ of any player on the market, but it doesnt need to for my needs.
post #134 of 528
Thread Starter 
Well i think that the Classic perception is still marred by some measurements that a dutch guy named Marc something posted all over the internet. He found a couple of spikes at the very end of the audible range so he concluded that the 2007 Classic sound was awful and defective. And this perception got so big that it has stigmatized the Classic model ever since. When the truth is that this year model sound it's fantastic and the day that somebody is able to RMAA it and post the results it is going to score great figures. When people with JH 13's can not discern a night & day difference between 2009 classic and the iphone 3gs i think the sq issue is pretty clear. Of course in the end you may not like clean and neutral sound but that's about taste i regard sound quality as an accuracy and fidelity issue. I dislike daps that color the sound with cheap dsps everywhere.
post #135 of 528
Personally I owned a 2007 classic, didn't like it and sold it on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › 7th Gen (2009) iPod Classic 160 SQ