Ipod Nano sound quality???

[chrisfromalbany]

The question I want answered is it going to sound as good as the Shuffle. After doing the research, I found in many places people found the jack out sign to be better then Photo ipod.


So I want to know if it is as good as the shuffle.

 

[sno1man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisfromalbany The question I want answered is it going to sound as good as the Shuffle. After doing the research, I found in many places people found the jack out sign to be better then Photo ipod. So I want to know if it is as good as the shuffle.

One very unscientific opinion based on listening: It is improved considerably over the ipod photo, but the shuffle is still (slightly) superior when I compare them side by side.

On the plus side the EQ may be improved. I dot hear the obvious distortion that I do on the photo. Of course that is not an apples to apples comparison since i have different music on the two units

 

[Jmmmmm]

I just got my nano, loaded it with some music, and started testing it against my ipod photo with my e4's, and found some very surprising things.

I started listening and comparing, and I heard something different than what everyone was saying. The photo sounded better. Well, it wasnt necessarily better, but it certainly was different. With the photo, it seemed like there was more treble and more Bass. When I switched to the nano, the lyrics were much more forward. Were the mids exaggerated on the nano, or are they recessed on the photo? That's not supposd to happen. I switched songs, and it was definitely there.

Then I realized something. The photo's eq was on Latin. Whoops. I never use the eq, but was messing around with the e4 straight from the headphone out with various eq's.

So, now that they're both flat, I think the nano sounds a little better, but I'm having difficulty ensuring that the volumes are at the same level. However it is, the difference is subtle.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sno1man Of course that is not an apples to apples comparison...

Actually, it kinda is, isn't it?

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisets I don't think the issue is whether it sounds better than the shuffle, because the shuffle (supposedly) sounds quite good. The issue is whether it's better than all of the other iPods, and I don't think that is really a question anymore. It definitely sounds better than the mini. A lot better. It seemed to sound better than the full size iPod as well when I listened to one, but I only listened for about 5 minutes so I can't say for sure.

I understand this is the general (or general enough) concensus listening to their headphone outs. But how about their line-outs? Are these players' sound quality similarly different comparing their line-out sounds? Or are their line outs quite equivalent?

 

[random person]

I apologize if this has already been posted, but just in case it hasn't -- it's fascinating!

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/1

Sets to rest the Nano audio quality debate, I believe, in that the audio codec used is the same as for 4G Ipods and color Ipods; vs the (earlier) audio codec used for 3G and Mini Pods.

Also fits with my own observation that the audio quality in the Mini is not the same as the for 4G Ipod family, color or B&W, as it is based on the 3G audio codec. I've always thought the 4G was a distinct improvement over he 3G and that the Mini, by contrast, was not as good as the 4G.

YMMV.

ps My Nano, ordered within five minutes of its availability, still finds itself in deep space nine (land of fedex) and I may NEVER get it!

 

[sno1man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey Actually, it kinda is, isn't it?

i was wondering if anyone would catch that lame little bit of humor

 

[Taphil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmmmmm So, now that they're both flat, I think the nano sounds a little better, but I'm having difficulty ensuring that the volumes are at the same level. However it is, the difference is subtle.

That's when I gave up testing with my Shure E3c and iPod photo vs nano. I would listen to one switch to the other and think the first one sounded better, but then I changed the volume and they sounded the same. I couldn't match the volumes perfectly to eliminate it as a variable.

 

[false]

Quote:

Originally Posted by random person I apologize if this has already been posted, but just in case it hasn't -- it's fascinating! http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/1 Sets to rest the Nano audio quality debate, I believe, in that the audio codec used is the same as for 4G Ipods and color Ipods; vs the (earlier) audio codec used for 3G and Mini Pods.

That really doesn’t tell you anything about the Nano’s sound quality. By "same audio codec" they mean that it still plays mp3, aac, wav and what not. A codec is a type/method of compression.

 

[vranswer]

Maybe it's just me, but I really didn't get the whole 'codec' commentary at all either.

 

[random person]

Well take it up with those guys -- here's what they said:

A brief word about sound quality: the iPod nano uses the same audio codec (the WM8975) as the 4G iPods. The first and second generation iPods used the WM8721, while the 3G iPods and iPod mini used the WM8731L. Since the iPod nano uses the same audio codech chip as the 4G, U2, and iPod photo players, its sound quality will be nearly identical to those other players.

Anyway the article is worth reading if only to see the before/after shots of them trying to destroy the Nano.

 

[random person]

I took it to their commentary to refer to the chip used for compression.

 

[vranswer]

Uh, dunno. iPods DE-compress digital files, rather than compress them, no? An audio codec is mp3, wma, ALAC, etc., not a chip, no? Do they know what they are talking about, no?

 

[Taphil]

Codec is encoder/decoder, and in the iPod it serves to decode digital audio to analog audio. The Wolfson "codec" also contains the headphone amp, so that's how supposedly sound quality is being compared between different iPods using various Wolfson codecs.

Some have said the nano must have better sound quality because the output capacitors have been increased. In the spec sheet for Wolfson codecs, it clearly says that increasing capacitance will improve bass response (p. 41, http://www.wolfson.co.uk/uploads/documents/WM8976.pdf). Whether that's true I have no idea.

 

[random person]

Thanks for the clarification, Taphil.