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 6

post #76 of 186

Chill out and listen to whatever floats your boat - this ain't a football forum guys

 

Peace.

 

(J3 rips ipod btw jecklinsmile.gif )

post #77 of 186


Ahh, but see, here lay the problem. You are saying the classic is cack comparing it to an EQ'ed Cowon. How can I trust your judgement on this when you are not comparing both players on a level playing ground un EQ'ed?

 

Now if you did that and gave me your opinions on the different sound styles I could then more easily decide which I would prefer as I would better understand what sound signature you prefer! Just like over the years I have come to read certain Hifi pundits in the press and trust their reviews as I have realised they have a similar listening preference to me! This gives me a more balanced approach to choosing equipment then as I know the variable!

For instance here on Headif I usually listen to people like skylab, cooperpwc, headphone addict and David Mahler more due to their balanced and informed approach to testing equipment and have not been steered wrong yet, they have a similar style of listening to me. You don't, that is not wrong, just different!

 

Maybe you think the classic is " craptastic" because you have only ever listened regularly to EQ sources. and thus have a distorted view on sound which after all is what EQing does!

 

If this is the case I can only come to the conclusion not to trust any reviews of equipment by you as they are not quantifiable by me due to your variable parameters in testing. However, if you  gave a review based on source A set with no EQ, fed through Amp B that has been tested by others with non EQed sources and then into Headphone C that has also been tested by numerous people with un EQed sources and Amps then after a while we can all come to much more informed conclusions about what A truly sounds like with each piece of equipment it is matched to!

 

That way we can all be sure that the equipment we get will give us a sound that can then be truly compared rather than, this piece of equimpment sounds crap next to my heavily distorted piece of equipment that I have tuned to my liking!

 

Is it any wonder the Ipod gets such a bad rap with this sort of comparison!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

All well and good mate, but you're using the very same iPod Classic I had recently and which sounds utterly craptastic next to the Cowon J3 I now have. 

 

But then again, I am being a really naughty boy and "resorting to distorting the sound with electronic or digital colourisation" by pressing some of the buttons on the J3's screen.  '''''"  '

 

if the ability to EQ is the sign of a poorly designed piece of equipment then virtually every portable music player out there is a pile of shite, including the Classic.  If you choose not to use those very options your iPod has built in then that's your choice, but it doesn't make you any more or less of an audiophile than the next man.  In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post

Wow guys. I am just trying to put the other side of the argument! You EQ guys are passionate about it being fine to EQ and that it is not a sign of a poorly designed piece of source equipment!

 

My point is and always will be that it is unfair to come to a conclusion about a comparison between source equipment when you colour it with eq that is not comparable to another piece of source equipment.

 

Surely it is fair to compare when each piece is in it's un EQ'ed state. That must tell us more accurately how fundamentally good or bad the source equipment is!

 

If you then want to EQ it after to shape your preferred sound, fine, that is what I am doing after the fact with my headphones amp and cable and is what most folks who are passionate about good sound do with home hifi without resorting to distorting the sound with electronic or digital colourisation which is what eq'ing is after all.

 

The argument has stood the test of time in HiFi and I don't see why the same parameters should not apply to DAP's as it would give us a much more informed view on what is a truly well designed player!

 

We know you EQ guys like that, fine and dandy! But there are a lot of us that think it means an unfair comparison for the reasons I have stated. I guess it is just two worlds who won't find common ground.. Again that has been the case in HiFi for decades!


 

Edited by ianmedium - 1/11/11 at 6:13am
post #78 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.

 


Not necessarily. Some of us Rockbox our iPods/iMods which gives us access to an excellent equaliser (the best that the open source community has been able to create over the years - and I would take that depth and committment over any manufacturer for programing skills). Yet many of us keep it naked. Different approaches... 

post #79 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.

 


Not necessarily. Some of us Rockbox our iPods/iMods which gives us access to an excellent equaliser (the best that the open source community has been able to create over the years - and I would take that depth and committment over any manufacturer for programing skills). Yet many of us keep it naked. Different approaches... 



See, this is why I trust your reviews cooper.. And have not been led wrong yet by them!

post #80 of 186

Yes, but you can't Rockbox any gen of iPod past the 4th, can you?   That's why the current Classic is flawed - ok, its got large capacity and is user friendly, but on the downside that sound quality is just subpar compared to what you can achieve with a Cowon.  Plus the J3 supports flac and doesn't rely on iTunes.

 

As for flat vs flat argument - I'd say the J3 probably sounds about the same as the Classic on that basis, if not slightly better.  But then who really  cares when you can distort the f*ck out of it and make the thing ride your ears to heaven? If you could pimp the Classic like that, then you'd be talking. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.

 


Not necessarily. Some of us Rockbox our iPods/iMods which gives us access to an excellent equaliser (the best that the open source community has been able to create over the years - and I would take that depth and committment over any manufacturer for programing skills). Yet many of us keep it naked. Different approaches... 

post #81 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...If you could pimp the Classic like that, then you'd be talking. 
 


It's coming.

 

post #82 of 186


Good stuff.  About time.

 

That would change matters a lot.  Not that I have much love for Jobs and co. but the storage would be a big plus.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...If you could pimp the Classic like that, then you'd be talking. 
 


It's coming.

 

post #83 of 186


Now that is more like it, thank you Benny! I can now understand the basic sound  of the J3 and seeing as my preference is for an un eq'ed classic sound I can see the j3 is similar only with less capacity. So the issue for me then is capacity and the iPod wins hands down!

 

I appreciate you sharing that, it really helps! When it comes down to it we both enjoy a different sound! As long as what we individually like is spot on we are all happy and the world a better place for the diversity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

 

 

As for flat vs flat argument - I'd say the J3 probably sounds about the same as the Classic on that basis, if not slightly better.  But then who really  cares when you can distort the f*ck out of it and make the thing ride your ears to heaven? If you could pimp the Classic like that, then you'd be talking. 

 

post #84 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

...In fact, I bet you a fiver if the Classic came with the same 20 preset choices not to mention 5 band semi-parametric equalister, a host of JetEffect 3 and BBE+ tweaks and 4 saveable custom slots for your own experiments, you'd be straight in with your sticky fingers, like a kid in a candy shop.

 


Not necessarily. Some of us Rockbox our iPods/iMods which gives us access to an excellent equaliser (the best that the open source community has been able to create over the years - and I would take that depth and committment over any manufacturer for programing skills). Yet many of us keep it naked. Different approaches... 


I also have a rockbox diymod, and I don't use the eq either. The eq in rockbox is one of the best software eq's I've ever encounterd and I still don't use it. I didn't use it before I modded either.

post #85 of 186

Well....yes. You can also rockbox a 5th gen and 5.5gen(which is what I have) also.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennyboy71 View Post

Yes, but you can't Rockbox any gen of iPod past the 4th, can you?  

post #86 of 186

Bennyboy71, Soundmangt4: Perhaps you are right that the Cowons can sound better than the iPods ever have. And specifically to Soundmangt4, perhaps you are right that a "no EQ" rule is foolish. I am merely making a case for how the iPod Classic may well fit all the requirements of an archetypal "true audiophile". 

 

Please note that I consistently use inverted commas when referring to the "true audiophile" because I am not thinking of specific persons, but a collection of characteristics based on my impressions after a year on Head-Fi. On a related note, I don't consider myself an audiophile, and I'm happy listening to the headphone out of my Classic--with no EQ. It keeps things simple for me, and I like it that way.

 

Back on topic with the thread's main discussion: I don't see why a "true audiophile" would be necessarily opposed to the use of iTunes, unless there is some essential difference in quality between FLAC and ALAC that I'm unaware of...

post #87 of 186

well this thread has been an interesting read for me.

and as much as I considered myself in the camp of no EQ while reading this thread, I just happened to download some bootleg live concerts ( legal FLAC downloads)  of Medeski, Martin & Woods and Jack Johnson. The recording sound is quite nice but using RB EQ, (specifically bass boost +2, Channel Configuration and Stereo Width) improves the sound considerably. 

Personally I don't use the EQ with my normal albums and would consider myself on the no EQ camp, but I can see the advantages when needed. 

As for ipods in general, I think they still are one the better DAPs available out there..

post #88 of 186

I reckon I have become less racist since discovering this place,

 

Now, my pmp comes from Korea, my portable amp from Germany and my iems from China.

 

Or maybe I just hate Apple cos I'm anti-American, I dunno.

 

post #89 of 186

I didn't read through the entire thread, but I want to note:

 

Anything with a hard disk is non-audiophile. My Zune 80 makes a ton of noise due to the hard disk spinning up, drawing power from the battery, and the battery giving slightly less energy to the amplifier. In theory and in practice, this is audible, at least with my UE-11's. I has the same problem with the iPod 5.5g 80GB, and to a lesser extent with an Archos 605 Wifi.

 

While this problem may not be audible with your rig (or ears), it means a hard disk makes for a non-audiophile product. Therefore, I can't claim the iPod Classic being the ultimate iPod. The iPod Touch 4g 64GB would be the ultimate then, at least for actual iPods, since it has the same audio-out chip as the iPhone 3GS (my personal favorite iOS product) and no 3G radio to give possible interference.

 

All in all for all DAPs, the Cowon D3 is looking very, very good. That's all I can say.

post #90 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZarakiSan View Post

I didn't read through the entire thread, but I want to note:

 

Anything with a hard disk is non-audiophile. My Zune 80 makes a ton of noise due to the hard disk spinning up, drawing power from the battery, and the battery giving slightly less energy to the amplifier. In theory and in practice, this is audible, at least with my UE-11's. I has the same problem with the iPod 5.5g 80GB, and to a lesser extent with an Archos 605 Wifi.

 

While this problem may not be audible with your rig (or ears), it means a hard disk makes for a non-audiophile product. Therefore, I can't claim the iPod Classic being the ultimate iPod. The iPod Touch 4g 64GB would be the ultimate then, at least for actual iPods, since it has the same audio-out chip as the iPhone 3GS (my personal favorite iOS product) and no 3G radio to give possible interference.

 

All in all for all DAPs, the Cowon D3 is looking very, very good. That's all I can say.


Interesting pov indeed. I  consider myself that the drive noise interferes just in between songs (when it spins and loads the file onto the cache).

 

I do concur though with you hard disk, battery and current assessment. Unfortunately that idea of yours (and of mine) did not translate well into my ears when i listened back and forth to my 09 Classic and 2010 Touch: they sounded the same with AAC 320 Sheryl Crow files (Shure SE530 iems).

 

And i don't think the Touches mount exactly the same audio machinery than the iPhones. My iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 HPO is a little better than the one of any iPod Touch i've come across. It kind of makes sense... if the iPod Touch features a slightly worse screen ,slightly cheaper buttons, slightly worse camera.. i guess something in the audio setup is slightly cheaper as well (Count the classic in here as well).

 

Once again this is just my 0.02

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?