Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Does the latest iPod Classic sound similar to Clip+?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does the latest iPod Classic sound similar to Clip+? - Page 3  

post #31 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post


Do you consider making hollow claims all day long to be more rewarding than actually proving their claims?

This isn't an isolated case. Audiophiles almost never back-up their claims. Funny how both of them vanished as soon as I challenged them. They usually try to save face by mocking the challenge, the challenger or the methodology, and that's the end of that.


Well just as you don't take us seriously. We don't take you seriously either. Here's a few tests for you. I'd like to see you do as well ;).

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/633360/test-your-ability-to-hear-pitch

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/590632/poll-can-you-hear-sound-over-20khz/270

post #32 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Well just as you don't take us seriously. We don't take you seriously either. 

 

 

I take skamp seriously.  You should too.  You may not care for his attitude, but hes a very knowledgeable person and it makes no sense to dismiss someone's argument just because you dislike them personally.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

 



 

 

Now those tests I would not take too seriously.  Its actually fairly hard to measure the limits of someone's hearing without a well controlled test.  I've used a well calibrated setup to measure my hearing, and I top out at 17.5k.  But if I take that test, it says I can hear 20k, which is simply wrong.


The reason for this is that to actually measure the limits of your hearing you have to very carefully control for distortion.  Even 0.1% distortion can easily turn a loud ultrasonic tone into an audible lower frequency tone.  Probably if you took a good mic and 96k A/D and recorded the output of that test, you'd see that the "22kHz" test tone you found you could hear contains a lot more lower frequency tones too.  

post #33 of 60

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one tell the difference between the iPod Video 5G and the iPod Video 5.5G?

 

In nearly every test I've done with my iPod Video 5_G, my songs sound richer and more lively than with the Clip Zip with a 32-ohm headphone. The soundstage is also larger both in terms of depth and width.

I've heard that the Clip+ sounds warm, but I personally don't hear it especially compared to the Video 5_G. I find it fairly neutral/slightly analytical but the soundstage is quite small; maybe it's just me, I dunno.

 

I'm going to post in the sound science forums about measurements and soundstage since that seems to be of interest here.

 

 

Back on topic, I have no idea how the Classic sounds next to the Clip+ unfortunately. I was considering getting the new Classic though because apparently you can install Rockbox on it even though it's not on Rockbox's official list. I'm having second thoughts though because I don't like the "click wheel" too much and prefer the "old-school" navigation with the Clip Zip's media buttons.

post #34 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one tell the difference between the iPod Video 5G and the iPod Video 5.5G?

 

In nearly every test I've done with my iPod Video 5_G, my songs sound richer and more lively than with the Clip Zip with a 32-ohm headphone. The soundstage is also larger both in terms of depth and width.

I've heard that the Clip+ sounds warm, but I personally don't hear it especially compared to the Video 5_G. I find it fairly neutral/slightly analytical but the soundstage is quite small; maybe it's just me, I dunno.

 

I'm going to post in the sound science forums about measurements and soundstage since that seems to be of interest here.

 

 

Back on topic, I have no idea how the Classic sounds next to the Clip+ unfortunately. I was considering getting the new Classic though because apparently you can install Rockbox on it even though it's not on Rockbox's official list. I'm having second thoughts though because I don't like the "click wheel" too much and prefer the "old-school" navigation with the Clip Zip's media buttons.


The 5.5G is most definitely warmer to my ears as well.  Plus its sound stage is quite vast for an ipod. The Fuze does sound more clinical in direct comparison. But comparing my Sansa Fuze directly to my iphone4 the Fuze is warmer sounding IMO.

post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post

 

 

I take skamp seriously.  You should too.  You may not care for his attitude, but hes a very knowledgeable person and it makes no sense to dismiss someone's argument just because you dislike them personally.

 


 

 

Now those tests I would not take too seriously.  Its actually fairly hard to measure the limits of someone's hearing without a well controlled test.  I've used a well calibrated setup to measure my hearing, and I top out at 17.5k.  But if I take that test, it says I can hear 20k, which is simply wrong.


The reason for this is that to actually measure the limits of your hearing you have to very carefully control for distortion.  Even 0.1% distortion can easily turn a loud ultrasonic tone into an audible lower frequency tone.  Probably if you took a good mic and 96k A/D and recorded the output of that test, you'd see that the "22kHz" test tone you found you could hear contains a lot more lower frequency tones too.  


How would we know your setup is truly "well calibrated"? See my point? I could give a million and one excuses myself like yours. It goes nowhere.

post #36 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one tell the difference between the iPod Video 5G and the iPod Video 5.5G?

 

 

 

They're the same device aside from the hard disk.  

post #37 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one tell the difference between the iPod Video 5G and the iPod Video 5.5G?

 

In nearly every test I've done with my iPod Video 5_G, my songs sound richer and more lively than with the Clip Zip with a 32-ohm headphone. The soundstage is also larger both in terms of depth and width.

I've heard that the Clip+ sounds warm, but I personally don't hear it especially compared to the Video 5_G. I find it fairly neutral/slightly analytical but the soundstage is quite small; maybe it's just me, I dunno.

 

I'm going to post in the sound science forums about measurements and soundstage since that seems to be of interest here.

 

 

Back on topic, I have no idea how the Classic sounds next to the Clip+ unfortunately. I was considering getting the new Classic though because apparently you can install Rockbox on it even though it's not on Rockbox's official list. I'm having second thoughts though because I don't like the "click wheel" too much and prefer the "old-school" navigation with the Clip Zip's media buttons.


The 5.5G is most definitely warmer to my ears as well.  Plus its sound stage is quite vast for an ipod. The Fuze does sound more clinical in direct comparison. But comparing my Sansa Fuze directly to my iphone4 the Fuze is warmer sounding IMO.

Ah, I just found out I have the 5G. My impressions of the 5G vs Clip Zip still stand. tongue_smile.gif

*why can I not subscribe to this thread.....? It doesn't appear on my profile page*

post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post


I take skamp seriously.  You should too.  You may not care for his attitude, but hes a very knowledgeable person and it makes no sense to dismiss someone's argument just because you dislike them personally.

That's the thing though, there's other ways to approach things, skampie babes take rudeness and blatant attitude to the extreme, why would we want to work with him and learn? If so, he has knowledge I can't take him seriously. Lee and I have spoken via PM about his challenge set infront of us, we both came to the conclusion we won't even try.. skamp should reconsider the way he approaches things. he needs to concentrate on other areas like social behaviour rather than measurements.
Edited by H20Fidelity - 1/27/13 at 4:56pm
post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


How would we know your setup is truly "well calibrated"? See my point? I could give a million and one excuses myself like yours. It goes nowhere.

 

No I don't see your point.  Why do you need to know that my hearing test was well calibrated? Even if it wasn't, yours wasn't either, so your results are by definition no better then mine, and perhaps much worse.  At best, we're both wrong!  Which was my point, if you do a test like this in a web browser you shouldn't take the results too seriously.  


FWIW though, I calibrated using a good microphone in a sound dampened room.  I used a 1 MHz D/A to generate the test tone, and recorded on a 200kHz 24 bit A/D to verify that the test tone was > 100 dB above any distortion tones.  I used the high sampling frequencies to exclude any possible aliasing or passband effects in the DAQ.  Then I measured the outputs and checked that what I'd programmed was actually being produced via spectral domain methods.  I used both pure tones and sweeps, and both gave consistent results.  I don't see any obvious problems with this methodology, so I think its pretty good.   

post #40 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by H20Fidelity View Post


That's the thing though, there's other ways to approach things, skampie babes take rudeness and blatant attitude to the extreme, why would we want to work with him and learn? If so, he has knowledge I don't want to learn from him because he is just so rude about it. Lee and I have spoken via PM about his challenge set infront of us, we both came to the conclusion we won't even try.. skamp should reconsider the way he approaches things. he needs to concentrate on other areas like social behaviour rather than measurements.


Plus even if we pass his test with flying colors we'll still be met with skepticism that there may have been error in the tests done lmao. Which further illustrates my point in my previous post. rolleyes.gif

post #41 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Plus even if we pass his test with flying colors we'll still be met with skepticism that there may have been error in the tests done lmao. Which further illustrates my point in my previous post. rolleyes.gif

Exactly, mate exactly. I think he can be a good boy if he really tried though. wink.gif
Edited by H20Fidelity - 1/27/13 at 4:59pm
post #42 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post

 

No I don't see your point.  Why do you need to know that my hearing test was well calibrated? Even if it wasn't, yours wasn't either, so your results are by definition no better then mine, and perhaps much worse.  At best, we're both wrong!  Which was my point, if you do a test like this in a web browser you shouldn't take the results too seriously.  


FWIW though, I calibrated using a good microphone in a sound dampened room.  I used a 1 MHz D/A to generate the test tone, and recorded on a 200kHz 24 bit A/D to verify that the test tone was > 100 dB above any distortion tones.  I used the high sampling frequencies to exclude any possible aliasing or passband effects in the DAQ.  Then I measured the outputs and checked that what I'd programmed was actually being produced via spectral domain methods.  I used both pure tones and sweeps, and both gave consistent results.  I don't see any obvious problems with this methodology, so I think its pretty good.   


Well why shouldn't I? You pretty much say these tests are not reliable? How would I know yours are? That is my point. We will never truly know. This **** never goes anywhere but down the toilet!

 

deadhorse.gif


Edited by lee730 - 1/27/13 at 4:59pm
post #43 of 60

Even FWs that measure identically flat sound different. Easily done with 2 clips *28 and *31 as well as Rockbox can easily be distinguished in an AB. I think the proper response is 'whatever' from here on out. Skamp is absolutely correct about output power and impedance. Not so much that the simplest measurements tell you everything.

post #44 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Well why shouldn't I? 

 

 

Why should you do what exactly?

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


You pretty much say these tests are not reliable?   How would I know yours are?

 

 

 

 

Why does how good my test was even matter?  Like I said above, even if mine is broken too, it doesn't change anything.  

 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


That is my point. We will never truly know. This **** never goes anywhere but down the toilet!

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this.  Measuring the highest frequency you can hear isn't easy, but its certainly possible, and many people have done so before.  

post #45 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Even FWs that measure identically flat sound different. Easily done with 2 clips *28 and *31 as well as Rockbox can easily be distinguished in an AB. I think the proper response is 'whatever' from here on out. Skamp is absolutely correct about output power and impedance. Not so much that the simplest measurements tell you everything.


I agree. I'm a stickler for impedance issues for the most part. As I'm also well aware of output power having a profound effect on Cans and even IEMs depending on the model (I'm talking about you Studio V! ;). But saying if an item measures ruler flat that it will sound exactly the same as different unit with a similar frequency responses is comical at best. There is so much more to it and it is sad that some can't seem to get past that. But I guess in that we truly love music and we analyze those subtle differences. Then again those subtle differences add up to be a whole lot to us and how we interpret sound.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Does the latest iPod Classic sound similar to Clip+?