[ckacosta]

Does anyone else believe that it is an improvement to set the EQ to Flat instead of Off? When it is set to Flat, this means the EQ is enabled, and this affects the battery life, correct?

I always believed that:
- Flat = Off (Sound quality is identical)
- Flat -- The EQ is On and is using extra battery

If there is a big difference in sound with this, then it would be worth the small battery sacrifice to use Flat.
Anyone else compared?

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckacosta /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does anyone else believe that it is an improvement to set the EQ to Flat instead of Off? When it is set to Flat, this means the EQ is enabled, and this affects the battery life, correct? I always believed that: - Flat = Off (Sound quality is identical) - Flat -- The EQ is On and is using extra battery If there is a big difference in sound with this, then it would be worth the small battery sacrifice to use Flat. Anyone else compared?

If you let your iPod burn in as I mentioned, then it may remedy the problem alltogether. After about 40 hours, I will let you know if I think it is still necessary to keep it set to FLAT. But for now, on my iPod, it makes a tiny difference.

 

[akira281]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif -- Most of us prefer a slightly recessed midrange, despite what we say. I know I do. The Classic has much more midrange and mid-highs than the 5th gen. But the Classic has a natural response, and I'm pretty sure it has a flat response, too, except for a slight bump in the treble. The midrange/mid-highs of the Classic is what is throwing a lot of people off. The 5th gen is lacking that midrange/mid-high velocity, and people who are used to it are preferring that sound. But.... -- ...because the response of the Classic is very accurate, I have not gotten any fatigue (when paired with a good amp and cable). My ears don't hurt or bother me at all when I'm done listening to the Classic. Let the unit burn in for a good 20 hours, and the sibilance will go down. Human ears are naturally prone to picking out midrange tones before any others because the human voice is in the midrange. So when we hear midrange tones that are equal in volume to other frequencies, we notice the midrange the most. This may lead people to believe that the midrange is too loud even if it isn't. The Classic has a very forward midrange/mid-high, but I believe it is due to the flat frequency response of the unit. -- The Classic doesn't have the midbass bump that the 5th gen does. To bassheads, this may seem like the Classic is lacking in bass. But the Classic has a much cleaner bass response, and is probably one of the best represented frequencies out of the whole spectrum on the Classic. With a solid bass-capable headphone like the D5000, it pairs up perfectly with the frequency response of the Classic.

Midbass hump on the 5G? The evidence does not appear to support your statement. In fact the frequency response curves through that range are identical.

 

[Buckster]

I'm thinking perhaps I got a duff sample ! as the IPOD Classic I had was driving me mad with the treble siblance ... and my PX100 and 200s are pretty warm sounding ! Dread to think what it would sound like with Grados etc ?

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by akira281 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Midbass hump on the 5G? The evidence does not appear to support your statement. In fact the frequency response curves through that range are identical.

I've seen the graphs. Illustrations say lots of things, but your ears say another. If you A/B the two models yourself you can easily hear the difference. Two models can still be capable of outputting 20Hz - 20kHz but have totally different sound signatures. But regarding the decibel output at a given frequency, I have no idea how that person conducted his tests, but I can tell you they aren't accurate. I don't know what kind of audio test patterns he used but if they resulted in the graphs that we have both seen, the test wasn't representative of listening to real music.

A/B the two units for yourself and it is fairly obvious that they have different sound signatures.

 

[Buckster]

I'd agree they sound very different - but my 6G drove me mad - some vocals sounded like they were behind me ! - and female voices I suffered from lots of bright s's .... Its not because I'm anti-Apple as I'm really enjoying the 5G version I bought instead

perhaps the design allows for more variation due to variation in tolerances in parts ? so some sound great - some bad ?

listening to my 5.5G via line-out to my Creative PC speakers and it sounds better than my Audigy 4 Pro - which has quite good DACs. I'll buy the adapter so I can play via my proper system tomorrow

then can compare to my decent cd players to which I think it'll show the flaws in the IPOD (quite rightly so - why should anyone expect a 150 pound small device to sound better than an expensive large CD player)

 

[Stoney]

The treble rise in the Classic actually starts in the midrange, about a few kHz. Treble above 10kHz doesn't not make for bright or forward midrange.

I don't think the problem is to be revealed by a frequency sweep. This kind of brightness will only show up by looking at the distortion spectrum and transient distortion. The 5th and 7th harmonics being higher, and some treble intermodulation distortion, would cause the sound I was hearing.

And, that hypothesis is consistent with the wide-bandwidth, clean sound... a high-feedback analog amplifier. Musicality and palpable realism come from amps that don't sqeeze out the music with high feedback, which simply shifts low order distortion to higher multiples where it sounds wrong instead of actually a bit euphonic.

It could also come from RF interference intermodulation or from poor reclocking, allowing the jitter spectrum to concentrate itself in the treble.

It was a store model, and may not have been burned in fully.

But, Grados make a good test. Sure, they have a strong character, but I already know what that is on high-end sources and have calibrated that into my assessment.

 

[akira281]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've seen the graphs. Illustrations say lots of things, but your ears say another. If you A/B the two models yourself you can easily hear the difference. Two models can still be capable of outputting 20Hz - 20kHz but have totally different sound signatures. But regarding the decibel output at a given frequency, I have no idea how that person conducted his tests, but I can tell you they aren't accurate. I don't know what kind of audio test patterns he used but if they resulted in the graphs that we have both seen, the test wasn't representative of listening to real music. A/B the two units for yourself and it is fairly obvious that they have different sound signatures.

You are confusing your two points. 1. Nearly everyone agrees these units sound different and have different signatures. 2. Your statement that there is a midbass hump in the 5G which is the cause of this difference is wrong. Not all sound signatures can be explained by graphs but volume humps can be.

The graphs illustrate very plainly that there is no midbass hump in the 5G as you claim. Saying they are inaccurate simply to prove your point is illogical and spreading misinformation. If you sincerely believe them to be wrong then prove them otherwise. But I suspect that no amount of proof would sway you. Instead of blaming the 5G you should look to your other components for the culprit.

 

[leng jai]

My initial impressions with the Classic and the E4C out of the headphone out is that there is a lot of sibilance. Not happy.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif snip astute list of observations...

x2

I'm not yet ready to fully describe my classic experience, but here's a prime-time update (after about 2 weeks with the alo lod):

* 160 + diy LOD + hornet + [e500 | hd650] --> bright and slightly fatiguing

* all of the above, substituting an ALO jumbo cryo -->no fatigue; not bright per-se but definitely not warm (i.e., with zune). I can listen for hours at a time with no problemo. very musical and no real deficiencies.

Sound signature preference: Zune. But for now, 160 GB trumps 30GB.

 

[bigshot]

I have 3G, 4G 5.5G and a classic, and all of them sound like they have flat response. I've got my EQ set in the back end of my system and the same EQ works for all.

If you're hearing big differences, you're probably comparing different rips or have the EQ turned on.

See ya
Steve

 

[Stoney]

Quote:

-- Turn your EQ setting to "FLAT". For some reason when in the "OFF" mode, although barely noticeable at first switch, it makes a difference. When in the OFF position, the timbre isn't normal. The treble is splashy and the soundstage is a little misplaced.

You raise an interesting point: is FLAT the same as OFF? Actually, no. Flat means that the iPod itself doesn't impose an EQ on the song. But, any "equalizer preset" applied to the song in iTunes is retained and used.

On the other hand, "OFF" means that even equalizer presets are ignored.

Listening tonight to songs with no equalizer preset ("off" in the Get Info: Options tab), I could hear no difference between FLAT and OFF EQ settings on my Mini. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but they aren't on the scale of differences I am able to detect given that my Mini has a relatively poor treble compared to recent iPods.

Can anyone else hear a difference between FLAT and OFF, for songs that have "equalizer preset" set to "none?"

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have 3G, 4G 5.5G and a classic, and all of them sound like they have flat response. I've got my EQ set in the back end of my system and the same EQ works for all. If you're hearing big differences, you're probably comparing different rips or have the EQ turned on. See ya Steve

Hiya Steve,

Using my E500s, with exactly the same rips (pulled from my 5G with YamiPod and put onto my 6G) there is definitely a difference with treble response, midrange warmth, and bass tightness... I think its something I can get used to (the E500s aren't the scariest with treble, so that is a god-send!!)...

My one pet-peeve is with the [official] remote... On the 5G, if you raised or lowered the volume via the remote, it showed you on the status bar the equivilant volume... on the 6G it shows nothing, only the track status...

 

[jonnywolfet]

just finished upgrading my os to 10.4 (grr) and uploading 70 odd gb of mp3's to my new 80gb classic.
sq wise, i couldnt be happier. with my e5c, it seems that both the treble and bass have more extension and accuracy than on my previous nano2g and h340, the midrange is far more detailed than i have ever heard on any portable (especially compared to the veil on the 2g nano) and there is next to no hiss at all! as a bonus, the 6g has no problem driving the dt770pro80, although not as well as the h320 does.

i am very pleased. especially since reading all the posts here, and worrying about sibilance. the recordings that do exhibit sibilance on the classic, also have the same problem on the h320, ibook, my cd player ect...

for the record, i have not spent any time with the 5g or 5.5g.

and it fits in my pocket far better than the iriver ever could, i love the weight of the thing, it feels like a piece of good quality kit, and the pricing was fantastic too (i paid the same amount for a 8gb nano a year back). heres looking forward to future updates and working out the little firmware bugs!

im a happy camper over here!

 

[IPodPJ]

We've got a lot of good posts in here. Everyone is providing valuable information about the Classic. Keep it up! Remember, burn in your iPod. It will sound much better.

Someone also mentioned what I had said about the soundstage with the headphone output. It is cockeyed, and sounds like it is coming from the rear. I only noticed this from the left channel. Perhaps this is a problem with some units and not with others?

Akira,
I don't mean to sound contradictory, only voicing my opinion from what I can hear and what I believe to be the case. I thought my feelings were pretty accurate and concise. I don't believe it to be a result of any other piece of equipment that I have because I A/B tested the iPods with 3 different amps, with and without the AC adaptors, and with both of my LODs. Each amp has very different sonic characteristics, but what I heard was consistent on all of them.