[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I think it might have to do with the growing number of Android devices coming out. I think they want people in and buying the Touches, showing people that they can produce high end portable devices as well; they aren't making a 7 inch so what are they to do? Hype the Touch and try to make it the "next best alternative" for people who don't want something that big. 

Actually a 7-8inch iPad is in the works.  And yes Apple is not happy about Androids something like 1500% rise in market share over last year.  Unless Apple changes their business model and opens up to third parties they won't be able to release new iPhones fast enough to stave off Android domination.  Droid already passed Apple once prior to release of iPhone4. 

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

Actually a 7-8inch iPad is in the works.  And yes Apple is not happy about Androids something like 1500% rise in market share over last year.  Unless Apple changes their business model and opens up to third parties they won't be able to release new iPhones fast enough to stave off Android domination.  Droid already passed Apple once prior to release of iPhone4. 

Are you referring to that.... iSlate I think it's called? I think I saw something like that a while back...
but yea Android is really taking off.... and with 3.0 right around the corner, next year is going to be amazing. 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Are you referring to that.... iSlate I think it's called? I think I saw something like that a while back...
but yea Android is really taking off.... and with 3.0 right around the corner, next year is going to be amazing. 

Nah, I believe the iPad is what the iSlate turned into unless there is a larger prototype somewhere.  Perhaps laying on the floor of some bar in SF.  They are just shrinking the iPad to a 7-8" screen size in addition to the 10" version.  

 

[penartur]

 
Quote:

What a 'fun' thread. God, Penatur, if you hate Apple so much and have NOTHING at all that is useful to the thread, leave. I don't like the new iPod nano (but I've not used it) and am disappointed that the new iPod touch is thin again (where I'd prefer to have a nice camera), rather than chunky like the iPhone. 

What do you mean by "useful"?
I'm saying that new ipod nano seems to be unuseable and that i'd prefer to see new iTouch looking like iPhone; you're saying the same; why then you're forcing me to leave?
 
 
Quote:

If you are so set against Apple and its 'sound quality', you'll be surprised to know that it performs on par with Sony for driving headphones, the only difference is that Apple players have: gapless playback where Sony doesn't, Apple products don't hiss where Sony players hiss massively, and of course, Apple players have no EQ.

In driving high-impedance headphones, maybe. I'm using 16Ohm earbuds, so this doesn't matter for me.
And ipod video i've used for a half of year clearly has very low SQ from the headphone output. I just didn't get any pleasure from the music, in contrast with all other players i've had. My dislike for apple comes from the personal experience. Also, everybody on head-fi says that ipod video was maybe the best sounding ipods, and that ipod classic is much worse than video.
Yes, gapless playback is an issue, unfortunately.
And, BTW, i don't use the EQ.
 
 
Quote:

The last point only is a problem. I love my Sony players, but I can recognise that they have weaknesses. Currently, I own 4 of them and two Apple players. I also have the S:Flo/T51. If you want to argue sound quality, I am ready and can back up each and every claim. Whether you want to talk driving ability, noise, whatever - I am with you.

I'm not an audiophile, my point is whether i can enjoy the music or not; not whether player has "wide frequency separation" or not.
However, it seems that my views corresponds to that of majority of head-fiers (to the certain extent of high-end players; i cannot see, for example, the difference between X1000 and kenwood HD60GD9, and that's the cause i'm not looking for the best sounding player but just for the good sounding player, as i'll be not able to see the difference anyway).
 
 
Quote:

But, this thread is brought completely down by your insistence on bashing. There isn't a speck of truth in most of what you said, just mere reaction. I'm waiting for truth. If anything in this thread shows that sheep exist, it is that you insist in reacting to everything with such intense bleating. That, my friend, is what a sheep does.

Are you trying to insult me with this words?
Or are any bad words against apple in the thread with apple announce considered "insistence on bathing", "lack of a speck of truth", "just mere reaction"?
 
 

 

[andrew3199]

Does anyone own the new shuffle yet? I presume it supports gapless playback. Its looks a pefect mate for the Ibasso T3.

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

Nah, I believe the iPad is what the iSlate turned into unless there is a larger prototype somewhere.  Perhaps laying on the floor of some bar in SF.  They are just shrinking the iPad to a 7-8" screen size in addition to the 10" version.  

Ah ok thanks for clearing that up. I'm still not going to get one :/

 

[Bricolage]

Quote:

Just got my MEE M9s that were supposed to beat my Touch here... Initial impressions are very bad. I'm not sure how these get good reviews. They are extremely rolled off, applause sounds thick and heavy instead of quick and crisp. Voices sound distant and thin. The bass is a lot more than I'm used to, but it does seem to be decently defined. We'll see after they burn in, but I'm not liking what I got so far. My Portapros for almost the same money ($25 vs $30) sound infinitely better. On the plus side, however, at least these are comfortable. My first IEMs were Q-Jays and despite their tiny size were very uncomfortable. My left ear canal is considerably smaller than my right so I'm using the smallest silicone single flange on left and the stock double flange on the right.
 
Anyways in context to the iPod, they are small and handy instead of the Portapros' bulk, which is the reason I got them in the first place. Sound-wise they aren't award winners at any price in my book. Not sure how these got a Sonic Diamond.

I got them recently too. Burn them in. They sound much, much better after that.
 
When I got them I was utterly disgusted, now they are pretty good.

 

[TheGame21x]

Quote:

I got them recently too. Burn them in. They sound much, much better after that.
 
When I got them I was utterly disgusted, now they are pretty good.

I concur. I didn't like the M9s too much when I first got them either but after burning them in for a while, they really opened up to my ears.
 

 

[ZARIM]

I think Apple need to launch it's ipod line next year with some changes like iPod Nano spoused to be in same 5G iPod Nano's ionized body with bigger capacity(32GB, 64GB, screen 2.5in to 2.8in) like iPod Mini with video camera. iPod Touch should be in two capacities like 80GB plus in flash and 160GB hard drive with bigger screen(3.8in to 4.3in). The new iPod Nano spouse to be touch shuffle and it's great for gym.

 

[oyster]

Why is it that we always get into Brand vs Brand
Pros & cons of a player are more of personal preferences rather than strengths or weekness
 
Sound quality is neither relative nor absolute & dosent require any seperate instrument to be measured with  because we already have one "our ears".
 
Apples & sonys are all good. Blame your ears & not the players ; for being not so versatile.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Why is it that we always get into Brand vs Brand
Pros & cons of a player are more of personal preferences rather than strengths or weekness
 
Sound quality is neither relative nor absolute & dosent require any seperate instrument to be measured with  because we already have one "our ears".
 
Apples & sonys are all good. Blame your ears & not the players ; for being not so versatile.

Many of the differences being discussed are not related to sound either.  I think its perfectly valid to consider other factors.

 

[Maxvla]

Quote:

I got them recently too. Burn them in. They sound much, much better after that.
 
When I got them I was utterly disgusted, now they are pretty good.

 
Well that's a ray of sunshine. I'll leave them running a bit this weekend.
 

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

 
What do you mean by "useful"?
I'm saying that new ipod nano seems to be unuseable and that i'd prefer to see new iTouch looking like iPhone; you're saying the same; why then you're forcing me to leave?
 
 
In driving high-impedance headphones, maybe. I'm using 16Ohm earbuds, so this doesn't matter for me.
And ipod video i've used for a half of year clearly has very low SQ from the headphone output. I just didn't get any pleasure from the music, in contrast with all other players i've had. My dislike for apple comes from the personal experience. Also, everybody on head-fi says that ipod video was maybe the best sounding ipods, and that ipod classic is much worse than video.
Yes, gapless playback is an issue, unfortunately.
And, BTW, i don't use the EQ.
 
 
I'm not an audiophile, my point is whether i can enjoy the music or not; not whether player has "wide frequency separation" or not.
However, it seems that my views corresponds to that of majority of head-fiers (to the certain extent of high-end players; i cannot see, for example, the difference between X1000 and kenwood HD60GD9, and that's the cause i'm not looking for the best sounding player but just for the good sounding player, as i'll be not able to see the difference anyway).
 
 
Are you trying to insult me with this words?
Or are any bad words against apple in the thread with apple announce considered "insistence on bathing", "lack of a speck of truth", "just mere reaction"?
 
 

Before I shut down here, I'll let you chew on the 'spec' issue. Sony have been seen time and time again talking up their sound with impossible marketing speak that has NOTHING at all to do with SQ. And, you not enjoying an iPod has nothing to do with its sound quality. Nothing at all. If you don't like it, that is great - it isn't your sound. 
 
Apple have never discussed spec and I think that is a good thing. Consider all these companies who sell stuff based on their DAC/processors as if that unit alone makes everything different. The S:Flo2 is a very nice headphone out, but it loses a lot of treble resolution with a low pass filter. There are a number of players that do that, or when driving low Ω earphones, lose bass resolution. But no matter how they actually perform, they all advertise themselves as: Audiophile. The whole high resolution marketing term is something audiophiles eat up but has nothing at all to do with real performance. 
 
When I talk about driving ability, indeed, I do mean low impedance earphones. The iPod performs better in fact than the Sony as at least it doesn't hiss. As for resolution: the same parts where the iPod breaks down, the Sony breaks down. Neither one can drive lower than 16Ω loads very well at all - especially if they have wonky impedance scales. Not a single of my 16Ω-30Ω balanced armature earphones runs perfectly on either system. Both do pretty well, but they lose: bass or get treble suckouts. 
 
The only players on the market that don't suffer completely with very low impedance earphones are the Fuze and Clip and the S:Flo2. I have each of these and like all of them (with the exception of the Fuze). 
 
We can agree that the new Nano is disappointing, but this insistence that everyone else sounds better than Apple (especially considering portable players use very similar components) is stupid. I am not saying Apple are the best - they aren't - but they are by no means even among average players. They outperform most of the market, but that performance may not be what you are looking for. The funny thing is that when it comes to it, 'good sound' comes down to what a person waddles up to. Bassy, warm, thin - each of these has fans.

 

[penartur]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Before I shut down here, I'll let you chew on the 'spec' issue. Sony have been seen time and time again talking up their sound with impossible marketing speak that has NOTHING at all to do with SQ. And, you not enjoying an iPod has nothing to do with its sound quality. Nothing at all. If you don't like it, that is great - it isn't your sound. 
 
Apple have never discussed spec and I think that is a good thing. Consider all these companies who sell stuff based on their DAC/processors as if that unit alone makes everything different. The S:Flo2 is a very nice headphone out, but it loses a lot of treble resolution with a low pass filter. There are a number of players that do that, or when driving low Ω earphones, lose bass resolution. But no matter how they actually perform, they all advertise themselves as: Audiophile. The whole high resolution marketing term is something audiophiles eat up but has nothing at all to do with real performance. 

Are you trying to say that i like sony just because of their marketing and their specs that are saying that SQ should be good? Then i should disappoint you, as i never looked on that specs.
 
 
Quote:

but this insistence that everyone else sounds better than Apple (especially considering portable players use very similar components) is stupid.

I never said that everyone else sounds better than apple.
 
 
Quote:

They outperform most of the market, but that performance may not be what you are looking for. The funny thing is that when it comes to it, 'good sound' comes down to what a person waddles up to. Bassy, warm, thin - each of these has fans.

As i understand, "bassy, warm, thin" are sound signature differences. Yes, there are some devices for that i appreciate their great SQ although i dislike their sound signature (Sennheiser MX980 for example). But iPod Video i had is below all this difference; the only words i can choose for it is "muddy" and "low-resolution". iPod Video, when compared to other DAPs i've had, is something like cheap nearly-broken tape player playing a worn-out tape (i'm not saying it is so bad, i'm trying to say how exactly it differs from zunes, walkmans etc).
And from what i have heard from other people, this is completely normal for ipod video, and classic is even worse.
 
 
Quote:

especially considering portable players use very similar components

Different players may share the same DACs, but, as i understand, this is where their similarity ends.

 

[oyster]

as far as marketting goes
sony's S master amp dosent make any major difference. That type of sound could be had by minor changes in sound drivers.
Similarly Apple's so called retina display is no different from a regular high res. sharp display.
 
Sony A728\828 & ipod touch 3g are amongst noticebly  processed sounding players.
Sony sounds bit too smooth with blunt edges while touch has recessed & thin mids with a bit of overall synthetic sound.