Does the latest iPod Classic sound similar to Clip+?  

Without rockboxing, IPC has more power. Clip+ (rockboxed) sound good and can drive earphones way louder than IPC, but also sounds more aggressive than IPC IMO. But the good thing is you can always EQ it. You can also rockbox IPC too which will make it sound identical and have the same functions as the rockboxed clip.

 

I am sure you heard of that IPC sounds like cold boiled water :) not much of emotions but present music as the way it is.

Edited by tupac0306 - 8/26/12 at 12:54pm

Clip has a darker and warmer sound

IPod has cleaner flatter sound, clip+ is warmer. Rock box the classic

What a bunch of non-sense. I own a Clip+, and iPod Classic and a Galaxy Nexus as well.

The Clip+ and the iPod Classic are both completely neutral and thus sound the same. The iPod has more output power than the Clip+ (not less) [*], but has a higher output impedance (5.5Ω vs. 0.5Ω) which can affect some headphones / IEMs with non-flat impedance curves. Both can run Rockbox, and you can use Rockbox's EQ.

The Galaxy Nexus doesn't measure as well as either of those and has a worse ouput impedance of 12.5Ω.

[*] european iPods are volume capped though, in order to comply with a french law, but that cap can be removed with Rockbox.
Edited by skamp - 1/23/13 at 3:59am

lmao just because a device is neutral does not mean they will sound exactly the same ;). Just as you can't hear a difference between these devices doesn't mean randomkid can't. Maybe it's just a limitation of your hearing or even your gear :P.
 

Edited by lee730 - 1/23/13 at 4:04am

What about the soundstage and imaging skampie babes? How come I hear differences in those areas, and timbre, separation, dynamics, note thickness, detailing levels...etc.

You keep saying that, but you never give any objective, scientific reasons for your empty claims. Keep laughing dude.
Edited by skamp - 1/23/13 at 4:07am

I will keep laughing. ;'-)...

 

There is so much more to it than just squiggly lines on a graph. Even things that can't be appropriately measured yet in relation to human hearing. As H20 mentions there are other factors of sound to take into account such as timbre, imaging, sound stage depth and width, separation, dynamics, note thickness/decay, prat, detailing levels. If one doesn't value these things then one doesn't value music on the level that many of us "supposed audiophiles do". My cousin is a good example of that. Just as most people are. Sound is sound to them. They can't differentiate or more so don't care to. That's ok I could give a rat's-ass what they think. All that matters is the enjoyment I get from my music. After-all it is a hobby for me.

Edited by lee730 - 1/23/13 at 4:15am

Mate, you're kidding yourself.

Do yourself a big favor and learn about audio (the "AUDIO PARAMETERS DEFINED" paragraphs in particular) from people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

If they told you to jump off a bridge would you? ;).

You're just hopeless, if you can't even learn from more knowledgeable people than you. Did you even read that link?

Actually it is your outlook on everything audio that is hopeless. It's almost downright depressing.

I can't believe he thinks they sound the same.