Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › is the ipod classic the ipod of audiophiles?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

is the ipod classic the ipod of audiophiles? - Page 4

post #46 of 186

aangen, the original 6th gen Classic had a bad reputation. I am glad to hear that the 7th Gen is better. I do the same as you: lossless on my computer (Foobar) and reencoded to V0 for playing through Rockbox on my iMod.

 

In Foobar, I can ABX Flac and V2 and tell the difference most of the time. VO is tougher but I do think that the overall sound is slightly better in lossless. But I love having all my music with me on my iMod.

post #47 of 186

I have recently bought a new 8th Gen iPod Classic to replace an old broken iPod, as I am kind of tied to the iPod brand as so much of my stuff is ripped using the Apple codec, and also with 46 gig of music etc on iTunes, other options will be just too much hassle for me. Also, I have no real problem with iTunes, which some people seem to hate, but I find it easy and straight forward to use, and also even plays my 96khz 24BIT wav files.

Anyway, the real dissapointing thing is the volume of the new iPod's, which is simply pitiful, and needs to be almost flat out to be loud enough for me, using UE TF10's and custom tips. Also, I use my iPod mostly in my car, feeding from the headphone into the line-in socket for the stereo, and is so low now I am having to buy a new cable that charges and gives a line out. Luckily I have a FiiO E7 and line out cable for protable listening, and it sounds fantastic IMO, but for listening without an amp, I would avoid this last generation.

post #48 of 186

Soundmangt4, complain to the European Commission who demand that Apple implement the volume limits within the EU. Those are the same guys that won't let you have raw eggs in your caesar salad or use incandescent light bulbs.


Edited by cooperpwc - 1/10/11 at 4:33am
post #49 of 186

I'd say not because you can't run Rockbox on it, yet.

post #50 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

aangen, the original 6th gen Classic had a bad reputation. I am glad to hear that the 7th Gen is better. I do the same as you: lossless on my computer (Foobar) and reencoded to V0 for playing through Rockbox on my iMod.

 

In Foobar, I can ABX Flac and V2 and tell the difference most of the time. VO is tougher but I do think that the overall sound is slightly better in lossless. But I love having all my music with me on my iMod.



Yes sir, Flac never sounds worse, that's for certain. ;)


My beef with the 6th gen Classic is it clips all the time and with files that are not clipped. Plus it's a bit dull otherwise. The 7th Gen Classic doesn't seem to clip, nor does it sound dull. Hopefully this is real and I am not tricking myself. ;)

post #51 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by moodyrn View Post

I completely agree with that. If you have to eq something for it to sound good, then it's not a good sounding source in the first place. You hardly ever see people eq'ing quality sources. So if it takes an eq to surpass and ipod, I would rather have an ipod. You could always rockbox an ipod video(or earlier) to get a quality parametric eq if you needed to. My ipod is rockbox and still don't bother trying to eq it because it sounds good enough as is.



But if the Cowon sounds better after EQ, wouldn't you still want the better sounding device? I'm not biased in any way, I just believe that the Cowon sounds better.

post #52 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by macrocheesium View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by moodyrn View Post

I completely agree with that. If you have to eq something for it to sound good, then it's not a good sounding source in the first place. You hardly ever see people eq'ing quality sources. So if it takes an eq to surpass and ipod, I would rather have an ipod. You could always rockbox an ipod video(or earlier) to get a quality parametric eq if you needed to. My ipod is rockbox and still don't bother trying to eq it because it sounds good enough as is.



But if the Cowon sounds better after EQ, wouldn't you still want the better sounding device? I'm not biased in any way, I just believe that the Cowon sounds better.


I think the point here is that if something is well designed from the outset it should sound spot on without resorting to adjusting it. If it needs adjusting to make it sound good then surely the device is fundamentally flawed and if so how can one say it is a good player when there is such a variable?

It is interesting how the portable market seems more flexible on this where as the home market is less so I find.

post #53 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I think the point here is that if something is well designed from the outset it should sound spot on without resorting to adjusting it. If it needs adjusting to make it sound good then surely the device is fundamentally flawed and if so how can one say it is a good player when there is such a variable?

It is interesting how the portable market seems more flexible on this where as the home market is less so I find.



Err but manufacturer's can't account for all personal preferences in the product's default config. 

(Unless by "sound spot on" you mean it should sound neutral, then we have a universal standard to work towards)

post #54 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_C View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I think the point here is that if something is well designed from the outset it should sound spot on without resorting to adjusting it. If it needs adjusting to make it sound good then surely the device is fundamentally flawed and if so how can one say it is a good player when there is such a variable?

It is interesting how the portable market seems more flexible on this where as the home market is less so I find.



Err but manufacturer's can't account for all personal preferences in the product's default config. 

(Unless by "sound spot on" you mean it should sound neutral, then we have a universal standard to work towards)


But for years manufactures of home based systems have in fact been doing that! They fully expect one to "tune" their system by careful selection of amp, cables and speakers, at least that has been my experience in over thirty years of this hobby! Surely if one is to compare DAPS it must be done on base settings, then we can have a fair idea of who is producing the most neutral player out there.

 

I wonder if there was a test done which one of all that are on offer would be the one. To compare a player that sounds only good with eq set to the listeners preference is all but useless I think but seems to be the norm here with DAP reviews!

post #55 of 186

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that home-based systems have been fundamentally flawed for years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I think the point here is that if something is well designed from the outset it should sound spot on without resorting to adjusting it. If it needs adjusting to make it sound good then surely the device is fundamentally flawed and if so how can one say it is a good player when there is such a variable?

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

But for years manufactures of home based systems have in fact been doing that! They fully expect one to "tune" their system by careful selection of amp, cables and speakers, at least that has been my experience in over thirty years of this hobby! Surely if one is to compare DAPS it must be done on base settings, then we can have a fair idea of who is producing the most neutral player out there.

 


 

Although I do agree that, most of the time, comparisons should be done at "flat" or "no" EQ. It just keeps things constant.


 

post #56 of 186

Rubbish.  The ability to fine tune a DAP via customisable EQ is fundamental in making that DAP a contender.  The sound signatures of iems and headphones vary so much it's an absolutely crucial feature.  Fine, test on base flat level if you must, but you don't buy a Cowon J3 for instance just to listen on 'normal' setting.  Thats why crApple are so bad - their presets are a joke and until they introduce customisable bands, they're not worth considering in my opinion.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_C View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

I think the point here is that if something is well designed from the outset it should sound spot on without resorting to adjusting it. If it needs adjusting to make it sound good then surely the device is fundamentally flawed and if so how can one say it is a good player when there is such a variable?

It is interesting how the portable market seems more flexible on this where as the home market is less so I find.



Err but manufacturer's can't account for all personal preferences in the product's default config. 

(Unless by "sound spot on" you mean it should sound neutral, then we have a universal standard to work towards)


But for years manufactures of home based systems have in fact been doing that! They fully expect one to "tune" their system by careful selection of amp, cables and speakers, at least that has been my experience in over thirty years of this hobby! Surely if one is to compare DAPS it must be done on base settings, then we can have a fair idea of who is producing the most neutral player out there.

 

I wonder if there was a test done which one of all that are on offer would be the one. To compare a player that sounds only good with eq set to the listeners preference is all but useless I think but seems to be the norm here with DAP reviews!


Edited by Bennyboy71 - 1/10/11 at 11:36pm
post #57 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

Rubbish.  The ability to fine tune a DAP via customisable EQ is fundamental in making that DAP a contender.  The sound signatures of iems and headphones vary so much it's an absolutely crucial feature.  Fine, test on base flat level if you must, but you don't buy a Cowon J3 for instance just to listen on 'normal' setting.  Thats why crApple are so bad - their presets are a joke and until they introduce customisable bands, they're not worth considering in my opinion.
 

 

Benny, stop tiptoeing around the issue. Tell us what you think!  wink_face.gif

 

If you want to EQ an earlier iPod, there is Rockbox. But I too am firmly in the 'EQ is ridiculous' camp. Give me a player with a line out that renders music properly with a good amp and good headphones. It's not too much to ask...


Edited by cooperpwc - 1/11/11 at 1:08am
post #58 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Benny, stop tiptoeing around the issue. Tell us what you think!  wink_face.gif

 

If you want to EQ an earlier iPod, there is Rockbox. But I too am firmly in the 'EQ is ridiculous' camp. Give me a player with a line out that renders music properly with a good amp and good headphones. It's not too much to ask...


Well that potentially demolishes the EQ argument. If a "true audiophile" desires as little colouration as possible, then EQ becomes not only unnecessary, but undesirable in a player. This should be doubly true when the amping function can be outsourced to a dedicated, external amp--which is precisely the case of an iPod Classic. And as I stated earlier, if we assume that an audiophile-worthy player can store and play lossless files, then of all the iPods, the Classic is surely the one that best meets all aforementioned requirements.

post #59 of 186

Some of you may call this bs but actually since i got my um3x i prefer the Nokia 5800xm over RB iPod Video 5g. HO on both since i dont have an amp.

post #60 of 186


What??? 

 

So what happens when you want to tweak a player's sound to best suit your iems? 

 

The whole Flat EQ (or Earth as it used to be known) argument ignores the simple fact that a pair of iems can often be made to sound better with the kind of sound enhancements offered by the likes of Cowon and Sony etc.  All that 'line out always' nonsense is just snobby elitism - for example, my J3 is being piggy backed by an Arrow amp using the headphone out and it sings like a nightingale on steroids. On Normal setting, the RE262 iems I'm using sound fine, but with the addition of some of the many custom enhancements Cowon provide the sound reaches such beautiful heights I can't live without them.  Don't get me wrong - I've had a crApple Classic in the past and used it via a LOD and amp, that was perfectly adequate, but ultimately it just sounded boring and, well, flat.  And as I couldn't Rockbox it, all I had was the crappy preset EQ options, which were clearly designed by a mentally challenged chimpanzee in its sleep. So goodbye Classic, hello J3.  Life is sweet again.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_C View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Benny, stop tiptoeing around the issue. Tell us what you think!  wink_face.gif

 

If you want to EQ an earlier iPod, there is Rockbox. But I too am firmly in the 'EQ is ridiculous' camp. Give me a player with a line out that renders music properly with a good amp and good headphones. It's not too much to ask...


Well that potentially demolishes the EQ argument. If a "true audiophile" desires as little colouration as possible, then EQ becomes not only unnecessary, but undesirable in a player. This should be doubly true when the amping function can be outsourced to a dedicated, external amp--which is precisely the case of an iPod Classic. And as I stated earlier, if we assume that an audiophile-worthy player can store and play lossless files, then of all the iPods, the Classic is surely the one that best meets all aforementioned requirements.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › is the ipod classic the ipod of audiophiles?