[MoSXS]

I'm still torn as to whether to keep mine or not. Store I bought it from has a 30 day return policy. I have about 4 days left. It's a great little device. But $150 for 8GB is too steep for it. It should be $99 for the 16GB unit.

 

[Beftus]

I have a basic iPod line out cable (dock connector <-> 3.5mm jack). Works with my nano 4G and Mini3 amp. But it doesn't work with a friends nano 6G hooked to my Mini3. What gives? 

 

[shigzeo]

Apple have never abided by the sterling examples posted by other plastic and metal manufacturers, but I agree: 150$ is too expensive. Of course, Apple charging a premium, I am used to and generally, accept. But that price is... a little steep. By the way, the shuffle 5G is amazing.
 
Quote:

I'm still torn as to whether to keep mine or not. Store I bought it from has a 30 day return policy. I have about 4 days left. It's a great little device. But $150 for 8GB is too steep for it. It should be $99 for the 16GB unit.

 

[righteousball]

I finally heard both the 4G shuffle, the 6G nano and the 4G touch for myself.
 
In general I found them to be as good as their supporters suggest, this year's models are all a little more infectious. Driving my IE8, I thought I might've detected the slightest harshness on both the nano and the touch, but for the most part they're very good - the nano (edit: and obviously the shuffle) is especially remarkable when you think about how little power it's drawing to push phones without sounding evidently underpowered.
 
I tried everything on 3 different days, each time with an older ipod classic as reference (either 120 or 160GB). The classics do sound a little different on their own (some more blunted on the edge than others), but they're all more "grounded," more "anchored" than the flash models. I think I heard a small difference; YMMV.
 
I'm looking for my next player right now, and my criteria means I can go for the nano, touch or classic. None of their defining characteristics in feature, storage or size are deal-breakers for me, so the decision is very tough. Still trying to sort out what would serve me best.

 

[swbf2cheater]

Hi, im going to debunk some myths about this
 
the nano6g has a 105mah output battery, the Sansa fuze has a 550mah output. I could name half a dozen brand name mp3 players that "blow the nano 6g out of the water".  Its soundstage is not spacious, its output is literally 1/4 that of the fuze. 
 
Having said that, I've always wanted a small tiny little touch just like it, however...its apple.  I'll avoid it like the plague.  It's very weak and if you are using 16 ohm earbuds, you might get an astounding 10 hours of battery life when NOT USING apple lossless.  With it, more like 6 hours.  The nano6g looks awesome, great concept idea, terrible performance.  

 

[Achmedisdead]

 

[azncookiecutter]

Quote:

Hi, im going to debunk some myths about this
 
the nano6g has a 105mah output battery, the Sansa fuze has a 550mah output. I could name half a dozen brand name mp3 players that "blow the nano 6g out of the water".  Its soundstage is not spacious, its output is literally 1/4 that of the fuze. 
 
Having said that, I've always wanted a small tiny little touch just like it, however...its apple.  I'll avoid it like the plague.  It's very weak and if you are using 16 ohm earbuds, you might get an astounding 10 hours of battery life when NOT USING apple lossless.  With it, more like 6 hours.  The nano6g looks awesome, great concept idea, terrible performance.  

So let me guess, you actually had an extensive listen to it or drinking the Apple-hating kool-aid again?

 

[swbf2cheater]

Quote:

So let me guess, you actually had an extensive listen to it or drinking the Apple-hating kool-aid again?

Yep.  Side by side comparison with the sansa fuze.

 

[azncookiecutter]

I listened to something different then. I had a listen to one side-by-side with an iPod Touch 2G a while back and thought they sounded very similar (read: above average to great in my books).

 

[shigzeo]

I've not heard the new iPod nano, but I'd take the current shuffle over the fuze for most earphones out there: it has the same great resolution with dynamic earphones, but has lower hiss and better stereo separation. If we got into the whole mah per output talk, then the only things that would sound good are DJ systems and speaker amps. Power only really serves to push earphones to louder volumes. That is why big home amps can push high Ω phones to loud volumes - they push more into the speakers. But at the same volume, the same amount of power has to be going into the same speakers. Naturally, higher volume can push up S/N ratios, but it if the nano or shuffle is loud enough already, there is no reason to push up the volume/power. What will make a player sound thicker or sweeter is its SoC and/or its output caps. 
 
So, if the new nano sounds anything like the shuffle, then it sounds good. I'd take it over the Fuze. The fuze is a great player if you hate Apple. It is a great player for Rockbox. But it is not as clear sounding as a lot of players out there and somehow dissipates that amazing battery rather fast. 

 

[Guidostrunk]

Agreed
Quote:

Of course, if you need to use EQ to make a player sound nice, then something is wrong. 
 

 

 

[azncookiecutter]

Quote:

I've not heard the new iPod nano, but I'd take the current shuffle over the fuze for most earphones out there: it has the same great resolution with dynamic earphones, but has lower hiss and better stereo separation. If we got into the whole mah per output talk, then the only things that would sound good are DJ systems and speaker amps. Power only really serves to push earphones to louder volumes. That is why big home amps can push high Ω phones to loud volumes - they push more into the speakers. But at the same volume, the same amount of power has to be going into the same speakers. Naturally, higher volume can push up S/N ratios, but it if the nano or shuffle is loud enough already, there is no reason to push up the volume/power. What will make a player sound thicker or sweeter is its SoC and/or its output caps. 
 
So, if the new nano sounds anything like the shuffle, then it sounds good. I'd take it over the Fuze. The fuze is a great player if you hate Apple. It is a great player for Rockbox. But it is not as clear sounding as a lot of players out there and somehow dissipates that amazing battery rather fast. 

If we're talking about the first-gen Shuffle, then yes, I think the Nano did sound better than it, but this is going from memory. The first gen Shuffle also had oodles of hiss that did not play nice with IEMs at all, unlike the 6G Nano.

 

[shigzeo]

The 1G shuffle sounded good if you could keep it at low volumes (before distortion took over) and could ignore the hiss. A lot of people at HF are using players that hiss way more than the shuffle and they naively are like: iPods suck because of hiss. I am not sure what they are smoking, but they are definitely smoking something. The new shuffle isn't perfect, but it is a very nice player and makes me want to use the nano. I've an iPod 4G coming my way thankfully and I wouldn't pay for the 6G nano, but it is an intruiging player for sure. 
 
Edit: I've both the 1G nano and the 1G shuffle. Both are good, but the shuffle trumps the nano for earphone use because of push/pull output caps. It hisses like the dickens, though.

 

[Dreamnine]

My nano, I frickin' love.... sounds good to me (even at quarter the output of the Fuze).

 

[swbf2cheater]

I really want one, so dont get me wrong lol.