An hour comparing iPods and iPhone with Grados (spoiler: skip the Classic!)

[Stoney]

It was time I listened for myself.

The first one I tried was the 160GB Classic, at the Los Gatos Apple Store (talked with Michael Fisher, really knows his audio, being a film and sound student at UCSC and a recordist). I had hoped the large-capacity models would sound better than they do. I plugged in my SR-125 Grados (with minor mods), and was immediately aware of a few things:

- solid bass
- too bright midrange
- elevated treble
- poor imaging (flat depth, in-your-ear backup vocals)
- unconvincing instrumental and voice timbres.

This was clearly unacceptable to me at any price. Not with my tastes, which require a neutral if not gloriously blooming midrange, and delicate not hard or harsh treble.

Next up was the iPhone. Again, I settled on comparing the store's encoding (160k AAC) of Josh Groban's fairly natural recording of You Are Loved (Don't give Up). They would not let me upload a couple of CDs I brought (said the pods were locked).

The iPhone, and the iPod touch (which sounded identical) were more than acceptable:

- Treble was relatively clean, a bit reticent, in a nice balance, graceful not forced.
- Midrange was neutral (think good solid state) and had enough coherence and realism to satisfy me.
- Bass was solid and deep.

The iPod Nano was a bit annoying to operate, the track wheel being a bit jumpy and small for my medium fingers. But the sound was close to the iPhone and touch, but not quite as good across the band. Still, pretty neutral if not quite as detailed or controlled.

All iPods bother me in that there is no custom EQ (for my Shure E500, I'd like a more subtle adjustment than their stock curves). I did suggest a "custom" EQ that could be set in iTunes and downloaded to the iPod, even if it couldn't be adjusted on the pod itself. Michael said he'd note the suggestion for Cupertino to consider.

Turning my attention back to my Mini 6GB hard disk model, I found my old unit to have:

- A glorious bloom to the midrange, like a tubey tube amp, which I actually like well.
- The bass is a bit vague and weak.
- The treble, starting at the top of the vocal sibilance range, is splashy and therefore overdone.

This must explain in part why I find my E500s so disturbing on some recordings. Yes, there is a problem in the treble of the E500 (a peak and then a slope off), plus some sort of resonance in my ear canal (which I've written about elsehwere, fixed somewhat by the new absorbent black foam sleeves). So, now, I am going to be even more dissatisfied until I replace my Mini.

So, am I a convert? Well, the touch is very slim and attractive. But, I'm an iPhone customer in waiting... waiting for it to be a better phone and PIM. Today's software upgrade helped.

My wish list includes:

- voice dialing (I talk a lot while driving winding highway 17)
- cut-and-paste, and
- memos that sync. Long memos, not some measly 4kb.

I played with the iPhone as a phone, and found that I could call favorites with just several button presses, probably doable while driving carefully. But, it still isn't a PIM replacement adequate to displace my 6-year-old Handera 330 Palm organizer, synced with the Mac OS X application, Chronos Organizer (the pre-SOHO version, which was a major change and a disappointment).

But, given that the iPhone is such good iPod, I may move soon, even before my wish list is satisfied. All my desired features can be fixed in software, and probably will.

I'll wait until about Thanksgiving, when I expect a 16GB iPhone. Don't quote me. Just credit me when I'm right!

 

[Ricey20]

did you use the headphone out or the line out dock + amp?

 

[Stoney]

I used only the HO. While I like what some amps do, I've tried a couple that were louder and "cleaner," but in an artificial way, hyping details or treble. Or, hazy musicality as in some tube amps. In the long term, I like it unadulterated. My speaker system uses a passive line stage, having sold my gorgeous, luscious-sounding MFA Luminescence C because it was just not quite as neutral or transparent as the passive.

But the main reason I go au naturel is convenience of portability.

I use E500 or SR-125 for the most part, neither of which goes begging for an amp.

 

[flashbak]

Good to hear more and more people are finally realizing the Touch has pretty darn good sound! It has been taking a bad rap by a few on this board.

 

[Pangaea]

Touch is a nice sounding DAP, but the classic is better.

 

[tomjtx]

I have a 160gb classic that sounds very good with ALAC files.

Both by itself using HO and through an amp LO it is a BIG improvement over previous models.

I have listened with my AKG701, Ety4S and Yuin PK1.

Perhaps the lossy 160AAC files you had to use are more responsible for your poor impression of the classic ?

For me, the classic is a very good sounding DAP.

As usual, IMHO, YMMV etc.

 

[bigshot]

I have absolutely no complaint about my 160 classic. It sounds just as good as my 5.5 80 gig. I bet the rips you were comparing were different.

See ya
Steve

 

[Stoney]

No, the same rip of the same song was used on all.

Just because you don't hear a difference, or get it backwards, doesn't mean it isn't so. The differences were not on the subtle scale of judgments I have to make reviewing amps or other home audio equipment.

I make judgments on sound quality using live music as a reference, the sound of the best replay equipment in the case of non-acoustic music. True, headphone listening is plagued with more significant variations in phones and in ear anatomy... So, when I hear bright or dark, I take that as relative. But when something is distorted, or imaging is lost, or timbre is wrong, or the musical realism is seductive versus irritating, these are absolutes that can be distinguished from mere linear errors, at least if you know what to listen for and have a headphone both resolving enough and familiar enough.

 

[Duncan]

Hi Stoney,

I agree with your overall thoughts re the classic, but feel you had the worst (or best depending on your point of view

) set of cans for the audition in the SR125... Of course, i must add that this is 'imo', yet I found the 125s to have the brightest, over extended treble of any cans I've ever heard...

Like I say though, am not disagreeing with you, my E500s are sounding brighter than they have up to now

 

[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....I plugged in my SR-125 Grados (with minor mods), and was immediately aware of a few things: - solid bass - too bright midrange - elevated treble - poor imaging (flat depth, in-your-ear backup vocals) - unconvincing instrumental and voice timbres. This was clearly unacceptable to me at any price. Not with my tastes, which require a neutral if not gloriously blooming midrange, and delicate not hard or harsh treble. ...

Seems strange given your "tastes" your choosing equipment with a bright treble.

 

[tomjtx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, the same rip of the same song was used on all. Just because you don't hear a difference, or get it backwards, doesn't mean it isn't so. The differences were not on the subtle scale of judgments I have to make reviewing amps or other home audio equipment. I make judgments on sound quality using live music as a reference, the sound of the best replay equipment in the case of non-acoustic music. True, headphone listening is plagued with more significant variations in phones and in ear anatomy... So, when I hear bright or dark, I take that as relative. But when something is distorted, or imaging is lost, or timbre is wrong, or the musical realism is seductive versus irritating, these are absolutes that can be distinguished from mere linear errors, at least if you know what to listen for and have a headphone both resolving enough and familiar enough.

Just because you hear (imagine) a difference doesn't make it so either.
Do you think other people here don't listen to live music?
I am a professional classical musician (30 years) and have spent my life listening to live concerts.

I have also been an audiophile my entire adult life and have a very hi end system as I am sure most others here do as well.

Finally, the headphones you were using are hardly resolving enough to tell a difference compared to AKG701, etys4S , HD650 or many of the other headphones people use here.

People have disagreed with you, get over it, trying to establish your mythical superiority based on your listening experience or equipment won't fly.

And finally, you are basing your opinion on a very limited audition in less than ideal circumstances.

Why would anyone give your unfounded opinion credence?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, the same rip of the same song was used on all.

Did you make the rip and load the exact same file onto the iPods yourself? Did you balance the output level so your impressions aren't influenced by slight volume differences? Did you use amped line out so you were sure you were hearing differences in sound quality, not just the differences in how the impedence of the headphones was handled? All of those things would help a lot.

See ya
Steve

 

[tomjtx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did you make the rip and load the exact same file onto the iPods yourself? Did you balance the output level so your impressions aren't influenced by slight volume differences? Did you use amped line out so you were sure you were hearing differences in sound quality, not just the differences in how the impedence of the headphones was handled? All of those things would help a lot. See ya Steve

X2

 

[Stoney]

Quote:

the headphones you were using are hardly resolving enough to tell a difference compared to AKG701, etys4S , HD650 or many of the other headphones people use here.

I know the heaphones you mention well. I also know the files, while all the same, were not ideal. So.... The fact that differences were so apparent means they are large differences. I have tons of experience hearing subtleties, and I find I am slow to judge, and not susceptible to placebo effect. But, I can hear the channels reversed on a distantly recorded piano recording... twice I've identified this, double blind, in high end studio systems where channels were reversed accidentally. On the other hand, I don't hear many "tweaks" touted by high-end vendors, whereas Dave Wilson and J. Gordon Holt sitting with me did. I'm skeptical, and have a high threshold for concluding there is a difference.
Quote:

Just because you hear (imagine) a difference doesn't make it so either.

Quote:

People have disagreed with you, get over it, trying to establish your mythical superiority based on your listening experience or equipment won't fly.

So, you shift to personal attacks because I don't agree with your assessment. Nice. Let's just say you don't hear what I do, and vice versa. The main point is people are warned to listen for themselves first, and what to listen for. Our dialog should be a service to others, not breast beating and self justification.

Enjoy your tastes, but keep them to yourself, now that you have made yourself clear. Me too. Let's yield the floor to others.

Quote:

Why would anyone give your unfounded opinion credence?

Well, it is founded. But you have a right to disagree. Maybe you should question whether you have a right to impose yours on others with such vehemence. I offer mine to those who care. Those who don't can disagree... but, please, just once. More than that just exhibits their personality "quirks" for all to see.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know the heaphones you mention well. I also know the files, while all the same, were not ideal. So.... The fact that differences were so apparent means they are large differences.

Or it could mean that the problems you were hearing were due to the encoding of the tracks, the impedence match of the cans, the volume level... or a bunch of other things not related to the sound quality of the iPod itself.

See ya
Steve