[FA22RaptorF22]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chef8489 I would like to throw in my recent experience. I have a Creative Zen vision:m and my GF has a 2gb nano. I loaded music from same computer all 320KB/s and I noticed a big difference between her nano and my zen. I defently perfer how my zen sounds to her nano sq and i also like how the eq on the zen if much better than the nano.

By the way...you say 320kbps. by that you probly mean mp3. If you want good sound get lossless / wav or something. I can hear the diff between any mp3 and a wav anytime.

 

[sheya]

I'm listening to the 8gb Nano right now, through the line out in the 4g ipod dock, into a PINT via a homebrew Mogami cable, into Ety ER4p-s (adaptor cable).

From my recollection of my 4g 40gig ipod, the sound quality is better, even through a line out. I tried listening to the Ety's briefly through the Nano headphone out and was very disappointed. I didn't try the p's though, but I'm sure that it wouldn't even be close to the sound through the PINT. I disagree that the small form factor makes it ridiculous to use an amp with the Nano, in fact, it makes using an amp easier because the nano is smaller than the altoids tin that contains my amp, making the whole package very manageable.

There are many factors in the design of the Nano which should lead to a better sounding product than previous ipods. The flash drive isn't a moving part, and it uses 256mb of cache (as I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong). The board traces should be smaller, and everything closer together in a smaller design, which if done correctly, could lead to better sound quality.

I think that if you really care about sound quality, you're going to use an amp with your headphones, and my Nano + Pint is smaller than my 4g ipod. Now if I could get a dock connector line out cable built I would have a sweet setup....(dock connectors are ridiculously difficult to solder, haven't gotten one to work yet.).

-Aaron.

 

[werdwerdus]

I wasn't even aware that flash-based players had dedicated cache memory. It seems really redundant given that there is no hard drive... Is it true?

 

[threepointone]

it's not actually cache, it's the RAM for the onboard processor. Every sufficiently advanced processor needs some sort of ram chip to function.

I seriously doubt that the ram chip is 256MB; the last time I checked, 32MB is the densest you can fit on a ram chip that small. Think about it--your computer's ram module for anywhere from 256-1gb of memory has at least ten or so of those chips on a double sided PCB. You don't really need 256MB for such a small player, anyway. I suspect that ars technica got confused with megabits and megabytes, so it's actually 256Mb / 8 = 32MB. Same as before.

 

[4metta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Do Through the line out and EQ set to flat I'm a happy listener with my UM2's IEM. Do!

That's my next step for outside the gym. I'll be getting a super micro for my Nano.

 

[4metta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaBreaHead For me, though, the real test is airplane travel -- I'll have to see how the 2G Nano does with the Shures/Comply's in a noisy airplane cabin compared to the Rio Carbon with the Shures.

Been there done that. I used the short Comply foamies and wished I brought my Push To Hear unit cause I couldn't hear anybody trying to talk to me. What a great flight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daba One thing I withheld from my original post was that when I plugged in my HD650 at 90% volume, it didn't sound too bad at all! I suppose it was just the hyper-detail quality of the ER-4P's, and perhaps that indicates something about the E500's.

YES...the fact that people love the e500s with their Nanos DOES say something about e500s:They are A LOT more efficient than Etys. I had Etys ER4Ps and had to run the volume of my iPod a lot louder with them. The new Nano has lower volume levels and I run it at about 60% straight out of the headphone jack from my Nano most of the time. Fantastic marriage between the two.

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn you wanna talk piss poor SQ? first gen ipod Mini. and yet my wife still listens to it. ignorance is bliss!

Well, with those earbuds she uses, she could be listening to a DCS stack and not hear the difference!

Best,

-Jason

 

[4metta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FA22RaptorF22 By the way...you say 320kbps. by that you probly mean mp3. If you want good sound get lossless / wav or something. I can hear the diff between any mp3 and a wav anytime.

Oh my, if you have a Nano or iPod why mess with mp3 at all? Use aac or Lossless.

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolen_it_Up I've owned many ipods (2g, Mini, 4g, 4g photo, Nano 1g, 5g, Nano 2g) and a Karma.

I always found the first generation Nano to have a nice synergy with E4c. It just makes the E4c sound a little nicer than it does out of other things. If the 2nd Gen Nano sounds as good or better, the 8 gig is a very attractive product...

Best,

-Jason

 

[sberger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha I always found the first generation Nano to have a nice synergy with E4c. It just makes the E4c sound a little nicer than it does out of other things. If the 2nd Gen Nano sounds as good or better, the 8 gig is a very attractive product... Best, -Jason

i'm loving the 2g, 8 gig nano that i've been using. it sounded quite good out of the headphone, but the key, of course, is going with a line out/amp arrangement, as im doing with the audiolineout cryo dock and hornet. quite awesome with e500's.

 

[camille]

anyone who owned both gens of iPod nano, which sounds better?

 

[pds6]

threepointone says:
Quote:

I seriously doubt that the ram chip is 256MB; the last time I checked, 32MB is the densest you can fit on a ram chip that small.

arstechnica says:
Quote:

In the 1G nano, there was only 32Mb of Samsung mobile SDRAM, K4M56153PG, for system memory, buffering, and other functions. This has been increased by a factor of eight to 256Mb. Hynix flash memory is being used to store program data (audio, photos, games) and this particular model sported a single 2GB chip. If you'll remember, the previous nano used one chip for the 4GB models and two chips for the 2GB models. Given the design of the board, Apple looks to be using a single chip for all memory configurations. The Silicon Storage Tech programmable flash module, SST39WF800A, where the nano's firmware presumably lives, has been upgraded from 4MB to 8MB

I says:
Damned if I know.

 

[gsansite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4metta Oh my, if you have a Nano or iPod why mess with mp3 at all? Use aac or Lossless.

Oooh, don't use AAC, you'll get horrible digital warping noises.

Seriously, that's a fairly uninformed comment you're making. Lame MP3 performs just as well as AAC (better to my ears) so it's all down to personal preference, and on the upside you get universal compatability with MP3.

 

[pds6]

gsansite says:
Quote:

Lame MP3 performs just as well as AAC (better to my ears) so it's all down to personal preference, and on the upside you get universal compatability with MP3.

I was on Hydrogenaudio reading a thread the other day. The author seemed to know what he was talking about.

I have often believed that an AAC file always sounds better than an MP3 file at the same bit rate. An AAC file and an MP3 file would sound the same when the MP3 file was one step-up from the AAC file, ie, AAC 192 bit = MP3 224 bit.

The author of the Hydrogenaudio thread stated that at a bit rates lower than 128 bit, the AAC file did sound better. At around 128 bits the ACC and MP3 lame sounded about the same. The author further stated that he felt that the MP3 began to sound better than the AAC file at higher bit rates (256).

 

[vranswer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by camille anyone who owned both gens of iPod nano, which sounds better?

I've owned both. Sold the 1G nano when I got word that the 2G was soon to come out, figuring my selling price would floor out if I waited (it's this type of thinking that keeps me getting the newer versions of the damn things).

The 1G nano was VERY bassy, more so than any other iPod version and I've bought essentially all that have come out since the 3G iPod. That's why it made a great tandem with the E4s - they need strong bass source to sound full enough. But IMO the bass was too flabby for my other phones, and the treble energy was somewhat lacking.

This new 2G nano doesn't have quite as much bass, and it's slightly tighter I think. And they have tweeked the highs to be a bit clearer, resulting in a much-less-veiled presentation. To me, it's a clear-cut improvement over the first gen nano hands down. The longer battery life is excellent as well. Not sure what these people are posting about volume either. I guess it's because I use only E4 and E5s, but I have absolutely no problem getting to excessive volume levels and am not aware of any difference from my 1G nano.