[elfary]

I never had the 2007 Classic. I had the 2008 Classic which i liked. Sold it and now have the 2009 Classic which does not sound as the 2008.It sounds better IMO.

 

[lamewing]

Loved my 5th gen, but gave it as a gift. I replaced it with a 6th gen classic, which I sold shortly afterwards. I did the same with a 7th gen Classic. The sound just is too irritating to me.

 

[hybwolf]

I'm so impressed with the Classic 160 as a portable that I went out and bought a 16g Nano for my father. It's last years model so I got it for $130. I'm in the process of ripping all my classical cd's for it. My dad is going to love this!

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfary /img/forum/go_quote.gif When people with JH 13's can not discern a night & day difference between 2009 classic and the iphone 3gs i think the sq issue is pretty clear.

No amount of graphs, testimonials or sworn affadavits will sway the zealots who claim that they will never use anything with the Cirrus DAC in it. Given that many of the Wolfson-equipped 5G Classic models will be 3-4 years old by now, I expect that there will be a solid market in batteries/hard drives and even replacement circuit boards for these models for some years to come - Apple aren't likely to dump a component that they can get for $1.15 per unit.

 

[pez]

Oh, I think I heard this update came out earlier but I just got the 2.0.3 firmware update for my iPod Classic. It's support for Genius mixes. YES! I love that. And I should get my Shure SE530's by Friday!! I'm excited.

 

[boomana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfary /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks a lot for your impressions Boomana. This years Classic is still a keeper for me. I can't quite understand the guys that are bashing its sound quality.

I don't get it either, but to each his own.

I just bought a pair of audioengine A2s to use in my office, and since I can't use my computer as a source there (no headphones either), I'm planning on using my ipod. 160g of music is going to make work soooo much nicer.

 

[xguntherc]

So im curious. are the different ipod versions, and generations really that, that much different. Like are the ipod touch models better than the ipod video's.. etc etc.

I have both a 30GB ipod video, and i have a 80GB classic that I'm pretty sure is the 2008 model.

Is the difference that big. Ive heard a few people say they sold, or quickly returned there Classic. So, is there a better SQ ipod than my 80GB classic. (2008 i think)

 

[kostalex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xguntherc /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, is there a better SQ ipod than my 80GB classic. (2008 i think)

Yes, 5.5 gen 80 GB (iPod Video). And, probably, this new 160 GB Classic discussed here. Though I yet to check this myself in a couple of weeks.

 

[xguntherc]

well what about the touch models?? they not as good, more flash n pretty screen??

What about a sansa clip+ I might snag one of those, amaybe a refurb. add all my FLAC to it

 

[Jack Mono]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pez /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you need EQ, then that means your headphones are the ones lacking .

I am sorry to say this, but that's just ridiculous! It may be that the phones are lacking too, but it may very well be that the iPod (or any other inferior DAP) is just lacking a good amp. Why is that the SONYs have good EQs? I never heard complaining anyone ever about a SONY's EQ. Also I find the CLIP+ lacking in SQ compared to a Sony S (with lossy formats). The Sansa sounds like a tin can into my face. Not too bad if you like that kind of music (notes into your face), but personally I like a bigger sound stage and warmth in my listening. The Clip's EQ is just a joke, nothing more; any settings dulls the player's sound.

 

[elfary]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't get it either, but to each his own. I just bought a pair of audioengine A2s to use in my office, and since I can't use my computer as a source there (no headphones either), I'm planning on using my ipod. 160g of music is going to make work soooo much nicer.

My 160 Classic is making my daytime job so much nicer. It's awesome to be able to recall any album of my whole discography. It's what i dreamed of when i used my Cowon Iaudio X5...the day when storage could fit my whole collection. It really allows me to enjoy, discover & rediscover so many different artists and genres not only at my job but on my daily commute as well.

I holded back in 2007 because of the bugs of that year's 160. 2009 version is absolutely flawless and reliable like it was the 120 gigs 2008 edition.

 

[estreeter]

Jack, I'm completely with you on the Sony EQ, but the EQ presets on the current Classic are abysmal - really best avoided entirely, IMO.

 

[kostalex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by estreeter /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jack, I'm completely with you on the Sony EQ, but the EQ presets on the current Classic are abysmal - really best avoided entirely, IMO.

Even if you MP3Gained your tracks?

 

[elfary]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kostalex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if you MP3Gained your tracks?

Processing files to lower the volume is not a good idea since you are degrading sound quality in the process. You are doing maths with limited bits (decimals) so on the rounding you are losing audio info. Digital audio is all about maths. The less maths you do on it the more integrity you will preserve thus audio quality.

One of the greatest iPod / iTunes features (USED WITH the 3rd party program iVOLUME) is the Sound Check feature. It just writeS a replaygain tag onto the files without processing them and this tag is taken into account by the DAC. With iVolume you can set a target RMS for albums as a whole ( Not on a per song basis like iTunes which render the awful result of a ballad sounding as loud as a rocker). It's fantastic really. I have my 579 (And growing

albums tagged to be replayed off the DAC at 89 Db. It leaves plenty of headroom for use the EQ even if i never use any EQ on any player. I use Sound Check for playlists and Genius Mixes.

 

[kostalex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfary /img/forum/go_quote.gif Processing files to lower the volume is not a good idea since you are degrading sound quality in the process. You are doing maths with limited bits (decimals) so on the rounding you are losing audio info. Digital audio is all about maths. The less maths you do on it the more integrity you will preserve thus audio quality.

Have you ever read how does MP3Gain works before preaching to me?