[Heyyoudvd]

I've heard that it's got really poor sound quality. Is that true?

I'm wondering because I just won a free 20 gig Ipod and am wondering if I should keep it or sell it for a Zen Touch/Ihp120 or something else along those lines.

I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination but I do enjoy good sound. I'll most like be using PortaPros and sometimes my SR-60s with the player so I'm wondering how I should expect 128 kbps and 320 kbps (and some in between) mp3s to sound in comparison to other MP3 players and in comparison to a portable cd player (I've been using a Shockwave SLSW 870 for the past 4 years but it's starting to die).

Most of the extra features that players like the Iriver have ovr the Ipod (ie. the tape recorder) just aren't important to me and I like the thought of Ipod's simplicity, but am worried about sound quality.

I'd appreciate any comments/suggestions.

Thanks.

 

[philodox]

You just won a free ipod! Nice Luck

I would say you would be better off keeping the ipod. If you were looking to purchase a DAP I might advise you in a different direction, but if its not going to cost you anything... just keep it.

The ipod has a nice neutral sound and has line out capability which is good for outputting to an amp. Its own internal amp is very underpowered IMO, but if you make sure that your phones arent too demanding you should be ok. I think it should be able to drive the SR60's and portapro's without any problem.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heyyoudvd I've heard that it's got really poor sound quality. Is that true?

Just out curiosity where did you hear that?

The iPods more neutral sound actually works well balancing out a bit the Grado and Koss signature sounds. I used a pair of SR225s and PP2s for a while out of a first gen iPod and use the MS1 with a fourth gen now. And a Sik and amp and it's even better

I was an old proponent of the pair!

BTW, are you sticking to MP3 for compatibility or would you consider AAC? Either way using LAME or iTunes AAC will provide great sound, but check over at HydrogenAudio for info on both. Personally I prefer AAC for encoding speed, but you loose in compatibility. You can check out the various AAC differences here (note though the comparison is with iTunes branched FhG encoder not LAME). Course you could go lossless, but it's debatable if the iPods DAC is up to that, let alone the PPs & SR60s.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx The iPods more neutral sound actually works well balancing out a bit the Grado and Koss signature sounds.

That is strange. If it is neutral, why should it be balancing anything out? That would indicate that it was changing the sound and therefore coloured.

A neutral component does nothing to the sound if I understand the term correctly... so you would think that it would draw attention to the signature sounds of the Grado and Koss headphones.

 

[Heyyoudvd]

So my headphones will be fine with it? Nice to hear (pun intended.

)

And yeah, I was pretty ecstatic upon hearing that I won in this draw, especially seeing as how I'm a college student who wouldn't have been able to afford one, otherwise.

Also, what's this I hear about iPods being scratch magnets? I'd like to keep it in good condition but I can't see spending $50+ CDN on an iSkin. That really seems like a lot to spend on a piece of plastic.

 

[tortie]

Im happy with my Ipod.

There are some good used Ipod casings out there that are priced right if your diligent in your search.

 

[Heyyoudvd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Just out curiosity where did you hear that?

It's just one of those statements that seems to pass around the net. I'm a regular over at the IGN message boards so it's possible that I picked up that belief over there. If the iPod's sound quality really isn't that bad, then I'm thinking that maybe the 'badness' of it has been exaggerated because it's far and away the most popular HD MP3 player on the market, and it's common for people to bash what's popular because it makes them feel very elitist. Just a theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx BTW, are you sticking to MP3 for compatibility or would you consider AAC?

I've never used AAC before. I'm one of those people who's only really familiar with MP3, and it makes up pretty much my entire MP3 library. When I rip music, for example, I use WMP10 and I believe it only supports WMA, Windows Lossless, and MP3.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox That is strange. If it is neutral, why should it be balancing anything out? That would indicate that it was changing the sound and therefore coloured. A neutral component does nothing to the sound if I understand the term correctly... so you would think that it would draw attention to the signature sounds of the Grado and Koss headphones.

Neutral is also used (quite often) to indicate a less exaggerated sound (case in point the HD600 references). Or think visually. A neutral wall color doesn't always mean it shows the true color of the wall. This is often stated about the iPod in comparison to the iHPs for instance. Since the Grados and PPs have well known (but loved) curve, the iPod balances this out a bit.

Or to put another way... maybe the iPod doesn't doubly exaggerate the same boost.

 

[Heidshade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heyyoudvd I can't see spending $50+ CDN on an iSkin. That really seems like a lot to spend on a piece of plastic.

I paid £18 GBP for my iSkin Evo and that seems very reasonable to me, must be cheaper in the 'States too.
I think the iPod with good earphones like the Etymotics is a real hifi quality source, even if trounced by my Meridian cd player.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Neutral is also used (quite often) to indicate a less exaggerated sound (case in point the HD600 references). Or think visually. A neutral wall color doesn't always mean it shows the true color of the wall. This is often stated about the iPod in comparison to the iHPs for instance. Since the Grados and PPs have well known (but loved) curve, the iPod balances this out a bit.

Good point... It makes you wonder why everyone always argues COLORATION! and NEUTRALITY! when they are really not much different. By this explination neutrality is just a reserved form of colouration...

 

[kloan]

Since day 1, owning two models iPods (both 3G) I've found the sound to be on the flat side. Definately lacking in bass, and overall stereo sound. I suppose I got a little complacent and got used to it. That is until I first heard it through the cmoy... wow! I never really knew how much the sound was lacking before. But now, I absolutely cannot listen to my iPod without the amp. Never again!

The stereo sound is more dynamic, fuller. Everything seems better, bass, mids, treble. I'd say the iPod is a great starting ground, but definately better with an amp. But by all means, keep the iPod! You'll be happy with it.

Oh, and one more thing. Comparing 192kbps MP3 and 192kbps AAC, AAC sounds a lot better. For something that takes up the same amount of space, AAC on the iPod is definately the way to go. And I'd say never use WMP to encode your music either. I ripped about 100 cds when I had a fast computer.. and I used WMP because I didn't know any better... man am I ever kicking myself for it now... WMP encoders are terrible. I use iTunes now to rip all of my cds, MP3 or AAC.. they sound much better than windows garbage... but go with AAC.. you'll be happy you did.

 

[Heyyoudvd]

Different encoders can actually affect sound quality?

See, that's why I'm not an audiophile.

When listening to a piece of music if, say, the bass is muddy, how does one know if it's the encoder, the headphones, the amplifier, the player itself or something else causing that sound?

I've never understood how audiophiles can do that. When you've got so many variables affecting sound quality, how do you isolate one and evaluate its quality?

 

[kloan]

I don't consider myself an audiophile.. I just have sensitive hearing.

When I compared music encoded with iTunes with WMP9 (MP3 addon) I could hear flaws in the track encoded with WMP. There were slight artifacts, in the high end range, mostly treble. The kind of artifacts you hear with lower bitrate files. Not as severe, but definately present. Also, it just didn't sound as clean.. it just sounded as if too much info was discarded from the audio, and just left a lifeless blob of data.

As an experiment, try it for yourself. Rip 1 track with iTunes, 192kbps AAC and the same track with WMP in 192kbps MP3 and see if you can hear the difference.

 

[Taphil]

Are you testing AAC and WMA in iTunes or the iPod? If so, that's completely unfair because neither iTunes nor the iPod plays native WMA. Instead, WMA files have to be converted to AAC first, which must involve loss in sound quality.

Also, iTunes' mp3 encoder is inferior to LAME. I have doubts about its AAC encoder, so I use Nero to make AAC files.

 

[TWIFOSP]

The sound quality issues, in my opion, come from using apples AAC. I notice a distinct difference in high quality mp3, vs AAC.

That said, I'm actually rather impressed with the sound quality of the ipod. The headphone jack is like 80 mw which can drive some decent cans without an amp. Using the dock and an amp, and I was actually quite suprised how good it can sound. Easily as good as using my computer as a source with the same MP3s.

My only complaint is an annoying hiss sound out of the headphone jack using certain headphones. If the flat plate of the end of the headphone jack is trouching the ipod you get hissing sound. This would be solved if they had raised the top of the headphone jack or put a ring of plastic around it, but shrug...