READ THIS: Serious flaws in ipod classic

[Filburt]

Honestly, I think the phase reversal and other issues in the impulse and step response are the greater concerns. It isn't clear if that's a firmware or a hardware bug, though.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastianbf /img/forum/go_quote.gif How does the ipod classic compares to the zune in terms of SQ?

I've written about this in other threads, but in a nutshell (and take it all with huge grain of salt--I hate these kind of descriptions)...

* jury still out

* zune warmer than ipod

* zune more spatial detail, air, bloom; depth

* perhaps a bit of glare in the ipod

* zune less fatiguing

I'm less concerned about bump in freq response than I am about the other stuff.

I'm giving this some time--different from Zune does not equal better or worse than Zune. My weak link in all this is my LOD, which is a cheap, poorly made diy. I have an ALO jumbo cryo on its way to me. (good money after bad??? I hope not.)

 

[kramer5150]

.1db at 19k..??? That hardly seems significant, my grados roll off above ~14k, that little boost would be doing them a favor.

40 second boot-up times... now THAT would drive me nuts.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filburt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly, I think the phase reversal and other issues in the impulse and step response are the greater concerns. It isn't clear if that's a firmware or a hardware bug, though.

Yes, I'd hope it's not a hardware bug. If that was the case they may just not fix it unless there's enough consumer backlash.

 

[zip22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer5150 /img/forum/go_quote.gif .1db at 19k..??? That hardly seems significant, my grados roll off above ~14k, that little boost would be doing them a favor. 40 second boot-up times... now THAT would drive me nuts.

thats only from a cold boot. i'm not sure how long it is, but i know the ipod has to be turned off for longer than a day. most of the time, the ipod is just coming out of a standby mode and that is not what they measured.

 

[Vinnie R.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey_magnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's a quote from a Scottish business site re Wolfson: "Dan Ridsdale at Landsbanki said the iPod classic appeared to be "a last hoorah" for the old format, and Wolfson had lost out to a cheaper Cirrus product as Apple attempted to maximise margins. The bigger-selling Apple products in the future - the iPhone and a new touch screen iPod - both have Wolfson chips." No mention of the Nano though. Chris

All,

There is not a Cirrus part labeled in the iPod Classic. The CODEC says "APPLE" and the part number. I understand that Cirrus could be making it, but how do we know they are instead of Wolfson or someone else? Has this been confirmed, or is this speculation?

Just curious...

Thanks,

Vinnie

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie R. /img/forum/go_quote.gif All, There is not a Cirrus part labeled in the iPod Classic. The CODEC says "APPLE" and the part number. I understand that Cirrus could be making it, but how do we know they are instead of Wolfson or someone else? Has this been confirmed, or is this speculation? Just curious...

I've been following that myself and so far I've not seen any official or accurate confirmation on who designed the part. The article hockey_magnet linked to has a quote from Wolfson but they do not in any way acknowledge a DAC change in the iPod. The article also had the inaccurate information about photos revealing a Cirrus Logic DAC when this is clearly incorrect. So far I'm still thinking this is all just speculation.

 

[Vinnie R.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirumu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been following that myself and so far I've not seen any official or accurate confirmation on who designed the part. The article hockey_magnet linked to has a quote from Wolfson but they do not in any way acknowledge a DAC change in the iPod. The article also had the inaccurate information about photos revealing a Cirrus Logic DAC when this is clearly incorrect. So far I'm still thinking this is all just speculation.

I wonder if this is going to bring Cirrus stocks up and Wolfon stocks down

 

[hockey_magnet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie R. /img/forum/go_quote.gif All, There is not a Cirrus part labeled in the iPod Classic. The CODEC says "APPLE" and the part number. I understand that Cirrus could be making it, but how do we know they are instead of Wolfson or someone else? Has this been confirmed, or is this speculation? Just curious... Thanks, Vinnie

Remember this was a financial news article, not a tech article, If Wolfson, WAS supplying the chips, they would find a way to let people know - clearly it was known that Wolfson was supplying the chips previously - they are a publicly traded company and it's hurting their stock prices so I'm almost certain the information is correct.

Chris

 

[Vinnie R.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey_magnet /img/forum/go_quote.gif Remember this was a financial news article, not a tech article, If Wolfson, WAS supplying the chips, they would find a way to let people know - clearly it was known that Wolfson was supplying the chips previously - they are a publicly traded company and it's hurting their stock prices so I'm almost certain the information is correct. Chris

I understand what you are saying, but is Cirrus trying to find a way to let people know? How? Or is this speculation? Maybe some secret agreement with Apple that doesn't allow the company to mention that they are designing the chip?

I just want to know why people are saying Cirrus Logic. Where did they come up with this? Why not Burr-Brown, Analog Devices, etc.

I can also see that if one financial news article mentions something, others will just repeat the info, but the first one to mention something could be mistaken, so the rumor just grows. I'm not saying this is the case, but it could be

 

[sugarinthegourd]

The story that Apple has moved from Wolfson to Cirrus DAC is getting wide reportage in the business press. Scotsman is certainly a reliable source given Wolfson's Edinburgh lineage.

Sounds like this is confirmed. Not convinced that these numbers and graphs mean anything in the real world. Hate to say double-blind testing, but that's the only reliable to say which does a better job of reproducing the original material.

Is the chip in the 6G the same as what's in the 2G nano? Because I think the headphone out on the 2G nano sounds pretty lousy...

 

[Prozakk]

Well this has made me forget about a 6g iPod. Hopefully there will be some iMods still around in November.

 

[mirumu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarinthegourd /img/forum/go_quote.gif The story that Apple has moved from Wolfson to Cirrus DAC is getting wide reportage in the business press. Scotsman is certainly a reliable source given Wolfson's Edinburgh lineage. Sounds like this is confirmed.

I could understand that being the case if all these articles weren't all trying to claim that the confirmation it's a Cirrus Logic part came from photos or someone looking at the circuit board and seeing a chip with "Cirrus Logic" printed on it because it's not there. The press do get things like this wrong sometimes when a single bad story gets repeated ad infinitum. It may very well be a Cirrus Logic part but without confirmation by Cirrus Logic or Apple it sounds like the press are just repeating a single bad report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarinthegourd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is the chip in the 6G the same as what's in the 2G nano? Because I think the headphone out on the 2G nano sounds pretty lousy...

No, they're definitely different as the 2G Nano sounds quite a lot worse.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max F /img/forum/go_quote.gif A 0.1 db boost at 19 khz - who cares.

People don't know what the numbers mean. That is completely inaudible, if it exists at all. It sounds like someone making up stuff.

See ya
Steve

 

[Prozakk]

Phase issues, no matter who manufactures the DAC, is a deal-breaker.