Apple "7G" 6G revision 2 2009 iPod Classic vs. Sony X 1060 Walkman vs. Sansa Fuze v2. - Part 1

[purrin]

This is a quick comparative mini-review of the "7G" 6G revision 2 2009 iPod Classic, iPod, Sony X1060 Walkman, and Sansa Fuze v2. The scope of the review will be very narrow henceforth the results are only applicable in the way the equipment was used, i.e., I am not using IEMs. To give you some background, the Sony X I've owned for more than six months, and I was looking for another relatively cheap portable source to attach to my homemade desktop amp sitting on my nightstand. I've recently purchased the Grado PS1000 and found the sound of those phones to be a bit warm and thick, and combined with the Sony X, which itself was a bit on the overly warm side (not withstanding the Grado mid-treble spike), made the sound way too warm and even a little muddy. (It turns out this is no longer an issue as the PS1000s after being broken in now sound much less thick and not muddy at all).
 
After hearing great buzz about the 2009 iPod Classic, I was looking very much forward to trying it out. I didn't care much for the 2007 iPod Classic with its broken stuttering Coverflow and thin sound. And I was wishing for something with gapless album playback - something that the Sony X unbelievably does not support with mp3 or aac files. In other words, I was very much hoping that the 200 iPod Classic would prove superior to the Sony X. I also picked up a Sansa Fuze to throw in the mix because so many folks have commented about great it sounded; and that it sounded a bit on the cool side, which would have complemented my set up well. I would have loved to test each with an LOD, but I didn't have an LOD for each unit. I figured keeping them all on their headphone outs would result in fair comparison. (LODs in my experience don't change the overall qualities of the sound, but do tend to improve clarity and detail.) I burned in the 2009 iPod Classic and Sansa Fuze for 24 hours before I performed my listening tests.
 
Sony X1060
 
Some folks have remarked that they found the sound of the Sony X to be excessive exciting and punchy. I feel that the Sony X is very slightly restrained in its dynamics. The iPod (and an old iRiver H120 I had lying around) are both more dynamic than the Sony X. If there was an exciting aspect to it, it may be been an emphasis on the human voice (both male and female), which may come at the expense of the Sony sometimes sound more closed in. But I wouldn't say the Sony X sounds forward at all.
 
As I mentioned above, I found the X to be overly warm - a bit too warm for my setup. It has a bumped up volume slightly below and above the typical mid-bass region. It was warm, but didn't sound boomy at all. Finally, I felt the uppermost treble octave a tiny bit bumped up. It would seem that Sony voiced the X to play well with typical IEMs.
 
The resolution and clarity of the X could be described as good, with the resolution being a little better than the clarity (again I'm comparing everything with the HP out). The X has a very smooth quality. You can listen to it for hours and hours without fatigue. (I paired the X a lot with my GS1000s which are known to have some treble issues). Music from the X does have a certainly level of seductiveness to it.
 
2009 iPod Classic and Sansa Fuze in next post...
I felt the Sony was very slightly restrained in its dynamics.
 
If there was an exciting aspect to it, it may be been an 
overemphasis on the human voice, which comes at the expense 
of it sounding more closed in.
 
In addition, I found the X to be overly warm – 
a bit too warm for my tastes – with a bumped up volume 
slightly below and above the typical mid-bass region. 
In other words, it didn’t sound boomy. Finally I felt 
the the uppermost treble a tiny bit bumped up.
 
It would seem that the designers voiced the X to play 
well with typical IEMs.
 
The resolution and clarity of the X could be described as 
decent, but the X has a very smooth quality. You can listen 
to it for hours without fatigue. The X does have a certain 
level of seductiveness to it.
exciting and punchy (using with an external amp). 
I felt the Sony was very slightly restrained in its dynamics.
 
If there was an exciting aspect to it, it may be been an 
overemphasis on the human voice, which comes at the expense 
of it sounding more closed in.
 
In addition, I found the X to be overly warm – 
a bit too warm for my tastes – with a bumped up volume 
slightly below and above the typical mid-bass region. 
In other words, it didn’t sound boomy. Finally I felt 
the the uppermost treble a tiny bit bumped up.
 
It would seem that the designers voiced the X to play 
well with typical IEMs.
 
The resolution and clarity of the X could be described as 
decent, but the X has a very smooth quality. You can listen 
to it for hours without fatigue. The X does have a certain 
level of seductiveness to it.

 

[purrin]

Apple "7G" 6G revision 2 2009 iPod Classic vs. Sony X 1060 Walkman vs. Sansa Fuze v2. - Part 2
 
The first thing my wife remarked about the iPod was "ssssss, zzzzz". I'm not a big believer in burn-in, but this assessemnt was after I broke the iPod in with music continuously for
overemphasis on the human voice, which comes at the expense of it sounding more closed in.
In addition, I found the X to be overly warm – a bit too warm for my tastes – with a bumped up volume slightly below and above the typical mid-bass region. In other words, it didn’t sound boomy. Finally I felt the the uppermost treble a tiny bit bumped up.
It would seem that the designers voiced the X to play well with typical IEMs.
The resolution and clarity of the X could be described as decent, but the X has a very smooth quality. You can listen to it for hours without fatigue. The X does have a certain level of seductiveness to it.
If there was an exciting aspect to it, it may be been an overemphasis on the human voice, which comes at the expense of it sounding more closed in
Before I begin on the iPod, I am warning all readers and particularly happy owners of the "7G" iPod classic that I will not necessarily have very nice things to say about it. Please keep in mind that my comments are not an assault on your personal dignity. It's just that my setup may not have played well with it. IMHO, component matching in a system with separate source, amp, and headphone accounts for at least 50% of the resultant sound quality. Also keep in mind that I am listening with very resolving headphones (Grado PS1000) with a mid-treble and treble emphasis that many find unbearable.
 
The first thing my wife remarked about the iPod Classic was "ssssss, zzzzz". I'm not a big believer in burn-in, but this assessment was after I broke the iPod in with music running continuously for 24 hours. There is sibilance inherent in all voice recordings, you cannot get around this. But there is also sibilance that hurts the ears. My wife had a slight problem with this from the 7G, but I didn't necessarily. My issue with the iPod was with the hard glare around the mid-treble region. This caused serious fatigue with my setup which was almost immediate. It's very likely I was already used to the very warm and smooth qualities of the Sony X. I switched my my Grado HF-2 really quickly and had acceptable results, although some of that hardness and glare were still present.
 
If there is one thing I really liked about the "7G" Classis was how clean the output was. Sounds were very well defined, especially the bass. Everything has a very nice snappy quality to it. And the background - oh so black, almost like a quality desktop DAC. Initially I heard lots of detail, but after comparing units back and forth, I've come to the conclusion that much of this detail is artificial, and ultimately the resolution of the DAC is actually pretty low. An analogous to describe it: a low resolution image over sharpened in Photoshop (note that I'm the kind of guy that turns the sharpness setting down to 20% of most HDTVs). When it comes down to it, there was just some stuff I couldn't hear on the iPod that I could hear on the X (or even Sansa), especially with the human voice.
 
Which leads me to a theory concerning the fatigue: when the human ear/brain thinks it hears details, but they are really not there, it hunts and hunts for it - leading to fatigue. This is probably why I had better success with the Grado HF-2. The HF-2 is about two leagues below in resolution retrieval compared to PS1000.
 
This is really too bad - I really wanted to keep the iPod. I was hoping that Apple would have gone back to a better DAC (Wolfsen in 5.5G) but cleaned up the analog portion. But the iPod is a commodity now and cost cutting (in the form of chips with integrated functions) is now the name of the game. This is consistent even in Hi-Fi: the best DAC chips like PCM1704UK are over a decade old.

 

[purrin]

To wrap things up. Test rig [HP out to homemade custom amp to PS1000]. Sansa Fuze v2 comments - see below - I did Rockbox it and loved special EQ functions; however in the end, battery life was too short and unit was too thin sounding.
 
RESOLUTION:

• Sony X1060
• Sansa Fuze
• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic (notable weakness)

 
CLARITY:

• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic
• (Tied) Sony X1060 / Sansa Fuze

 
WARMNESS AND (SOUND SIGNATURE):

• Sony X1060 (a bit too warm)
• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic (upper midrange hardness with glare)
• Sansa Fuze (cool - thin bass, some treble emphasis)

 
DYNAMICS / PUNCHINESS

• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic (notable strength)
• Sony X1060
• Sansa Fuze

 
BLACKGROUND

• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic (notable strength)
• (Tied) Sony X1060 / Sansa Fuze

 
SMOOTHNESS / ANALOG-NESS / NON-DIGITITIS

• Sony X1060 (notable strength)
• Sansa Fuze
• Apple 6G 2009 iPod Classic

 

[holeout]

I'll agree that the initial 70 hours or so on the new iPod 7G, I did noticed the brightness and the slight harshness in the mids and upper mids despite the better separation of instruments. I also noticed that when comparing to my year old iTouch 2G, the lower-mids/bass definition and extension are lacking. Its kind of fatiguing to listen to this point as tonally it is no very coherent and I was wondering if indeed I have made a bad purchasing decision.
 
I have been a hifi reviewer for over 20 years and also worked in studios with recording and mastering. My experience told me just to hold up a bit longer before make my judgment on the new iPod (or on any audio equipment for that matter) and I am happy to say that this patience was rewarded. At about 100 hours of usage, I started to hear improvement to the bass line definition and overall tonal coherence. At about 150 hours, the noticeable brightness in the mids has transformed into a sense of clarity and delicacy together with the lower mid/bass coming to life. When I compare back with the Touch 2g at this point, the iPod 7G offered more openness in soundstage, better transparency and real detailing with a faster and tighter impact in the bass. Tonal coherence has improve significantly and continue to get better up to the 300 hour mark. Now I glad to have bought it.
 
I don't what to get into one's take on burning in of audio equipment, but to my ears, it is clear that during the initial stages of listening the details in the bass passages (the decay of double bass strings, the continual extension to deeper bass of bass drums over time etc.) just wasn't there and the same hold true in higher frequencies as well. After about 100 hours of usage, these details and layering started to emerge. Maybe you can give the equipment a bit more time before comparing them.
 
This review was done with new (Jan. 2010) iPod Classic > LOD out (Qables Silvercap Pro) > RSA Predator > TWAG (@300+ Hours) > UE 11 Pro.
 

 

[Bennyboy71]

300 hours = what, about 450 albums?
 
Great product that.  Glad I sold mine this morning and bought a J3 instead.
 
I bet someone now chimes in and says the Cowon needs 400 light decades to burn in properly. Audiophilia eh?  Can't live with it, can't hear the sub bass.
 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

. Maybe you can give the equipment a bit more time before comparing them.
 

I'll give the "7G" iPod Classic another shot at it and run it a few days straight out of some cheap IEMs and report back. My problem wasn't with the bass - I love the bass on the unit. I thought the bass was clear, very well controlled and precise. It was mostly with the high-midrange glare and lack of real detail.
 
The way it sounds right now, I think it would synergize well with the Denons.

 

[holeout]

Quote:

I'll give the "7G" iPod Classic another shot at it and run it a few days straight out of some cheap IEMs and report back. My problem wasn't with the bass - I love the bass on the unit. I thought the bass was clear, very well controlled and precise. It was mostly with the high-midrange glare and lack of real detail.
 

Great, it is at around 100+ hour mark that I heard the bass definition/resolution start opening up and at the same time the high/mid glare started to reside. It is probably this glare that masked the details and made it sound artificial. Just note that the hp out and the lod out are different ports and should be run and tested independently. Good luck.

 

[purrin]

Well, I've had the iPod Classic running 24x7 since I've last posted...
 
This time I'm comparing it with the Sony X, and running both through the Matrix M-Stage amp (BCL clone), which is my most transparent headamp. Surprisingly after this burn in process, the iPod does indeed sound much smoother without the mid-high glare. However I still find the unit a bit too bright for my regular setup (with the PS1000s), though it should be said that the iPod actually has good balance with two different pairs of relatively cheap IEMs and the HF-2s that I tried. I double checked the EQ settings to make sure it was set to "Off" - but I swear the iPod seems to be already EQ'd for a little bit of brightness as the default. This may be good or bad depending what headphones you are using.
 
In terms of detail or low level information, the 2009 iPod Classic is still seriously outclassed by the Sony X. Again, there was a lot of stuff I could hear on the X that I couldn't hear on the iPod. It was almost as if the last 2 bits of data were being chopped off. Harmonics were missing, subtle shifts of dynamics could not be heard. Most disturbing was that voices and instruments just didn't sound natural - it was if the sounds had been re-synthesized. To the iPod's credit though, it's sound was sharper, more defined, clear and freer of noise compared to the X.