Wow, just got my 2009 Classic today. I synced 140GB of ALAC files, charged for 4 hours & started listening. It beats the pants off my 1st Gen. iPod touch (16GB) in terms of sound quality. More impactful bass, just sounds like there's more...I dunno the right word, weight. It is similar to my iPhone 3G S...but honestly, I think it may be a BIT different than my iPhone...gonna have to listen more & compare.

BTW, this is using only the headphone out (Klipsch Image S4)...I don't own any LOD's or external portable amps....

Just got a new 160 classic to replace my 5g 30gb ipod... I'm very happy! Not only is the OS much more responsive, but it definitely has a better headphone out. Using my HD438s (and ALAC files), I don't have to turn my ipod up quite as high to get a reasonable level of volume, the bass is fuller, and it seems to have more detail and separation than my 5g. That, combined with over 5 times as much storage makes me a happy camper.

If I have any complaints, it seems that the scroll wheel isn't quite as responsive as my 5g's, and it doesn't play the games from my 5g.

I just got a 3rd gen touch (2009 one) and the way I'd describe it compared to my old 5th gen is sort of the same as the two posts above ^^^^^

The bass has much more impact and the whole sound is much more "Full" sounding. It's also a bit clearer especially on the vocals and has better seperation of instruments.

I was looking for a new portable player to hold my library of lossless files, so obviously the 160GB of the Classic fit the bill. As an audiophile, I wanted to find some well-informed opinions of the sound quality of the newest Classic, so I stumbled on this thread.

After reading through the whole thing, I was extremely excited about the prospect of a new high-capacity DAP. So I made my way to Best Buy with my LOD, amp, and IEMs. First I plugged into the Classic and... wow... who put the wool blanket over everything? The highs were rolled WAY off, the vocals sounded like the performer had a blanket over his or her head, and the bass was just rubbery soft. I tried about 10 TOTALLY different songs in varying genres, all with the same result. For comparison I plugged into a 64GB 3G iTouch. The sound was excellent. Crisp, expressive highs, present mids, and tight, rich bass.

Dang it! I don't want to spend $150 more on the Touch! I want the capacity and not all the *bling*. I want a music player, plain and simple. So I went home to brew...

I read some more, and some more... and debated.

Two days later (yesterday) I finally decided that all the Head-Fiers couldn't be THAT wrong, the display unit must be a dud, and who knows how many grubby kids have had their hands on it, smacked it around, etc. So I chose to take a chance and buy what I really desired, the Classic. If it was as disappointing as the display unit, I'd return it.

So I got home, plugged it into my MacBook, synched, and plugged my IEMs into the headphone port while it charged for a sonic preview. Well Head-Fiers, I was NOT disappointed! Even the HP out was superior to my 3G square Nano with the RSA Tomahawk thru the LOD. The Classic's sound signature is very appealing to me, it's detailed and crisp, very analytic in all spectrums of the sonic range. Once it charged and I had the Tomahawk powering things, I laid back with a grin on my face. I have yet to fully explore, so I'll have to update once I can fully crystallize my thoughts on the unit.

I just wanted to say Thanks, Head-Fi. If I didn't have the forum support I wouldn't have given the unit a second chance after hearing it in the store.

Quote:



Are you sure this wasn't just a case of the files on the display unit (iPod Classic) being encoded with a really low quality, poor lossy codec?

Had the chance to compare a mid 2009 120GB Classic (Mine) with a late 2009 160GB Classic (Girlfriends) via Line out/Amp/hd650, I listened to a few different tracks which are present on both machines at the same bit rate, I couldn't hear a difference at all which I was glad about!

The thing I did notice was that the 160gb version seemed to operate quicker and the scrollwheel never locked out once, unlike my 120gb version which can be problematic at times.

I will have to spend some time listening/comparing them via the headphone out.

Kinda funny, once I got the 160G Classic, I discovered Apple Lossless. Now I know there are all kinds of different ways to encode music, but I have a huge library and I kinda like to keep things simple. I have been very happy so far with my music that I am re-encoding with Apple Lossless. Now I really can't go back to anything less, even though the Lossless eats up so much space!

Quote:



and destroys battery life (at least it has for me), but I still get around 18 hours, I think, last time I actually bothered to keep track.

Quote:



I've stayed away from Apple Lossless ever since I got an Ipod, as its apparently not the best codec for lossless. I always encode into aiff, even though the files end up much larges than alac.

This is a good site that explains things simply enough:
In What Format Should I Rip My Music? | Computer Audiophile

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I was always rubbish at science.

Ok, so this evening after work, I popped down to Tottenham Court Road and got myself a 6.5th Gen 160gb iPod Classic. The date on the box was 15th March 2010, so no doubt at all of its provenance.

I got home and installed it, and put a few tracks on it that I knew really well.

As I've aldready got a 6th Gen 120gb iPod Classic (that was bought in early 2009), , it was easy enough to place it next to the new iPod, set the volume to the same level, making sure there was no EQ on it and that the volume limit level in settings was set to maximum. Then using my Audio Technica ATH-CK10 iems through the headphone out port, I did an A/B test.

Yep, the new Classic definitely sounds different, and in a good way. I'm rubbish at describing what I hear - at least in the kind of audiophile terms banded around on sites like this - but I know what I like and I tell you what, I like the sound signature of the new Classic more than the previous version. It's richer, warmer, creamier and more luxuriant in every sense - the bass and drums sound heavier and more resonant, vocals seem more real and human, the slightly hard edges of the 6th gen seem more rounded without losing detail, and the soundstage seems more 3 dimensional.

Don't get me wrong, we're not talking seismic continental plates shifting here, more a degree of deepening and enriching of the whole musical landscape in a way that renders it more enjoyable, more emotional, more 'silly grin on face' than it was before. Truth be told, it rendered the whole experiment of moving between the players a bit of a struggle, given that I just wanted to sit there and soak up this lovely sounding noise.

I dig it baby. Yeah. Makes me glad I forked out the cash now - I needed the extra hard disk space anyway, but this takes the sting completely out of the bite my credit card's just received. Good stuff.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but it does seem at least a few of us are driving the same vehicle.

Oh, and I've just tried the line out, via my Headsix amp, and it doesnt seem to be any different than the 120gb Classic in SQ, but thats only from a cursory listen. Perhaps, as the OP suggested, only the HP has seen a noticeable change? Interesting.

Having done some more testing, it seems the line out from the new Classic is equally as improved as its headphone port when compared to the preceding 120gb version. Just sounds so much more musical and less sterile and boring - a massive bonus and a complete recommendation for those 6th gen owners looking to upgrade for either space or sound quality reasons. Go for it and kill two birds with one stone.

Quote:



You must have fantastic ears then!

I couldnt tell any discernable difference (via line out) that would make me run out and spend another £180 - I wouldnt call the 120gb version sterile and boring either, even compared to my old iriver IHP120 which I believe to be a great sounding player.

(For testing I used several lossless tracks via a dedicated amp and HD650's)

Cleaner contacts on your new players Line outs maybe?

Quote:



Fair enough. I wasn't really saying the 6th gen was sterile annd boring, per se, just that in comparison to the musicality of the 6.5, thats how it comes across in contrast. I've had my 120gb classic for 9 months and loved it all that time, so I'm not complaining about it, rather proclaiming this new iPod as having better (to my ears) SQ. And I really do doubt its down to the contacts being dirty - only 9 months old after all, and the change I'm hearing echos that of the headphone port.

Maybe its completely the placebo effect, but hey, if its working for me why should I knock it? As Steven Wright said, "I'm addicted to placebo pills. I'd give them up, but it wouldnt make any difference...."

Quote:



It would be nice on these sorts of subjects to have more in depth explanation from the manufacturer as to exactly what changed in the revision from 6 to 6.5 gen, on the face of it they just swapped the HD spec but maybe they did make more changes under the hood - I doubt that somehow though, but its possible.

Maybe the subject requires some more in depth testing?

I only mention the contacts as I have seen the state of some peoples ipod dock connectors after a few months of the machine being in pockets and stuff, the state of some of them its a wonder any electrical contact can actually be made!

FWIW...

I posted in this thread back in the early pages, and was one of the very few people who were totally unimpressed with the 7G iPod SQ. I bought and quickly returned 2 of them. I wanted to update that situation a little..

Recently I have found myself in need of a high capacity ipod. I decided to give it one last crack. I purchased another 7G iPod because for $223 I think it's a great deal considering what the 64Gb touch goes for.

Anyway, I have no scientific explanation for it. I'm using the exact same LAME mp3 encoded -V0 files and the same Senn PX-100s straight from the headphone out, and for whatever stupid reason as bad as the first 2 sounded, this thing sounds absolutely fantastic!

It's very clear and natural sounding even with my lowly PX100s. I have owned two of the 3rd gen touch iPods and 2 of the 5G Nanos as well as a 2G shuffle, a much loved 2G Nano, a Sansa Clip+ and I never thought I'd say this, but this thing is the king of iPod SQ as far as my ears are concerned.

As a bonus, don't even get me started on the sweetness of having 160GB under my thumb. I have 434 complete albums (LAME -V0) and room for 1,000 more before I fill this thing.

My iTunes library is kept exclusively on a 1Tb external drive and the thought it could be lost was rather scary and I have so-so faith in my backup DVD-Rs. Being able to keep all the albums on the 7G iPod, plus the external drive, plus the backup discs has me sleeping better than ever and will for the next 1,000 CDs I purchase.

I myself have argued nobody needs a iPod over 16GB no matter how they use it, but I gotta say I was wrong. The ability to be able to cue up any of the 5300 songs in my arsenal in a few seconds is pretty darn cool. I have seen the time with my 32Gb touch that I would be all comfy in the recliner and have the urge to placy a certain album only to discover I hadn't sync'd it last time. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! That's a thing of the past now.

There's no disputing the versatility of the touch, but if you are in the market for a super high capacity player with a very true and natural SQ, try one out.

It's a shame it took me 3 of them to get one that lived up to the hype here, but this one does and then some.

-Eric