gbacic
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Posts
- 717
- Likes
- 11
My iPod Touch 1G (vintage
) sounds great with my Shure SRH750DJ's and SR60i's. I have no brightness problems with ALAC playback.
iPod Touch sound quality
- Thread starter alpha10
- Start date
Anaxilus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Posts
- 12,065
- Likes
- 339
Quote:
I think there may be an issue w/ the lossless decoding not related to user rips. For a long time back I swore that lossless still did not sound as good as WAV despite being identical in checksum. I believe and some others have said that various encoders and decoders may be a culprit.
11amaberry
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Posts
- 597
- Likes
- 20
Hmm... that may be. What's next level below alac? Isn't it like v0 or something? How do you convert flac to that? I'm using dbpower amp to convert.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
Thanks to iOS 4 and usable EQ, the iPod touch 2G has completely taken over from my S:Flo EQ and the Sansa Fuze rockboxed. The new EQ works on each setting, it's just hard to find which one I really want (loudness). With EM3Pro and SM3, the touch is a beast that back to back with my Sony, S:Flo and Fuze is simply smiling.
I use Max to convert FLAC to ALAC, but that is on OSX. The encoder is OSX built-in encoder, so nothing third party. ALAC sounds great.
I use Max to convert FLAC to ALAC, but that is on OSX. The encoder is OSX built-in encoder, so nothing third party. ALAC sounds great.
IDK
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Posts
- 247
- Likes
- 10
does the latest gen ipod touch share the same dac and SQ as the Iphone 3GS ?
tds101
Formerly known as nywytboy68
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 4,629
- Likes
- 106
Quote:
I'm using the iPod tuoch 3GS instead of my X-1061, so I'm selling my Sony,........go figure. I love the SQ now, and the Rock, Dance, and Bass Boost presets are working for me - FTW!!!
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
Wow, great news. A week ago, I would have bought your Sony, but after messing up an order for an iPad (I bought two and the return date is past), I am out 750$...
tds101
Formerly known as nywytboy68
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 4,629
- Likes
- 106
Quote:
OMG!!! Sorry you had such a bad spell,......At the least I hope you can sell the extra.
tds101
Formerly known as nywytboy68
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 4,629
- Likes
- 106
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
Yeah, I've just posted a death note on Craigslist, begging someone to buy it or my death (my wife is ... man, she is strong) will rip me apart.
Anaxilus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Posts
- 12,065
- Likes
- 339
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
To be honest, the S:Flo is impressive, but not as impressive as it is played out to be. What is impressive is its LO performance, which quite honestly is stunning. But I don't tend to like to take such a large device and then all an amp - no way. The HPO is very good - in that it loses hardly anything when driving even the most demanding IEM. But... its high end is rolled off. Some people will not hear it. I reckon that I am on the threshold years of that group.
At 30, I heard it as plain as day especially with headphones like the DT880. It is less obvious with some of my iems, but the first thing I remarked after listening to the S:Flo was its 'smoothness' which translates to the roll off. If it didn't have the roll off, I'd say it was literal king. But it comes with a lot of trade offs. One is its awful GUI. This makes a difference. Navigating to the song I want is almost impossible to do in a near orderly manner. There is no gapless, there is lots of static sound in the output when the screen is engaged.
The stereo image is good, sure but when it comes down to using earphones, the differences between it and the literal next most faithful player (iPod touch), the differences are small. One earphone in particular, however brings out the differences rather plainly: FitEar Private 333 is a medium-hard to drive iem. Without an amp, there is a mild suckout of the upper mid range. With a good amp (that can drive very low Ω's), that difference is gone. The S:Flo doesn't suffer that for two reasons: the headphone out goes to a lower Ω, probably about 8Ω, maybe less. Secondly, the roll off in its signal and the suckout in the FitEar 333 (unamped) begin at neatly overlapping places. In that range, the S:Flo is fuller than the iPod touch, but not hugely fuller.
Had I the choice between an iPod touch and S:Flo, the touch would win every time. If the S:flo was smaller and just worked, boasting gapless and a good GUI, I might think about it, but I doubt it. I own both.
At 30, I heard it as plain as day especially with headphones like the DT880. It is less obvious with some of my iems, but the first thing I remarked after listening to the S:Flo was its 'smoothness' which translates to the roll off. If it didn't have the roll off, I'd say it was literal king. But it comes with a lot of trade offs. One is its awful GUI. This makes a difference. Navigating to the song I want is almost impossible to do in a near orderly manner. There is no gapless, there is lots of static sound in the output when the screen is engaged.
The stereo image is good, sure but when it comes down to using earphones, the differences between it and the literal next most faithful player (iPod touch), the differences are small. One earphone in particular, however brings out the differences rather plainly: FitEar Private 333 is a medium-hard to drive iem. Without an amp, there is a mild suckout of the upper mid range. With a good amp (that can drive very low Ω's), that difference is gone. The S:Flo doesn't suffer that for two reasons: the headphone out goes to a lower Ω, probably about 8Ω, maybe less. Secondly, the roll off in its signal and the suckout in the FitEar 333 (unamped) begin at neatly overlapping places. In that range, the S:Flo is fuller than the iPod touch, but not hugely fuller.
Had I the choice between an iPod touch and S:Flo, the touch would win every time. If the S:flo was smaller and just worked, boasting gapless and a good GUI, I might think about it, but I doubt it. I own both.
Anaxilus
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Posts
- 12,065
- Likes
- 339
So your sentiments are largely based on using the Sflo2 HO not the LO if I read that right.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Posts
- 12,932
- Likes
- 1,080
The LO has no weaknesses. If you use the LO and an amp strictly, you would be correct if you though the S:Flo was better than the touch. But, I have qualms with this reasoning. Headfi is full of examples of people preferring inferior outputs. They scramble to stuff that looks or is marketed as HiFi and take that as fact.
The S:Flo's line out really is great and the only Line out I've used that can come close is the iPod's. The sony LO is rubbish in comparison, so too is the Fuze. Don't get me started on the Cowon crap. But people complain about the iPod somehow... the two (S:Flo and iPod) side by side are amazing. The S:Flo has the edge slightly because of a bit cleaner signal, but... usually people complain about quality signals. They sound digital, or tinny, or this and that. The two volume-balanced next to each other are so close that I would imagine that 99% of HFers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They surely can when the two are in front of them though - that is what it comes down to: a large market manufacturer vs. an underdog.
In this case, the underdog is actually 'better', but if the iPod was technically 'better' in LO performance, I would reckon that no one would support it. It isn't about SQ anymore and to some extent, has never been.
The S:Flo's line out really is great and the only Line out I've used that can come close is the iPod's. The sony LO is rubbish in comparison, so too is the Fuze. Don't get me started on the Cowon crap. But people complain about the iPod somehow... the two (S:Flo and iPod) side by side are amazing. The S:Flo has the edge slightly because of a bit cleaner signal, but... usually people complain about quality signals. They sound digital, or tinny, or this and that. The two volume-balanced next to each other are so close that I would imagine that 99% of HFers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. They surely can when the two are in front of them though - that is what it comes down to: a large market manufacturer vs. an underdog.
In this case, the underdog is actually 'better', but if the iPod was technically 'better' in LO performance, I would reckon that no one would support it. It isn't about SQ anymore and to some extent, has never been.
Users who are viewing this thread
