or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod classic review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPod classic review

post #1 of 61
Thread Starter 
Released alongside the all new third generation iPod Nano, the new iPod Classic offers a refined all-metal case, the same new graphical interface of the Nano, and the most battery and storage capacity of any iPod model (thanks to its hard drive and hefty battery). However, as outlined in this review, the Classic may signal the end of the road for hard disc drive-based iPods, as Apple aggressively moves its entire media player lineup to Flash memory storage.

Physical Features

The sixth-generation (6G) of the iPod -- now dubbed the "iPod Classic" -- maintains the same form factor as the "5.5G" iPod announced last year, but gets rid of the clear plastic face that was so easy to scuff. Instead, the new model is constructed similar to the Nano, with an anodized aluminum metal face surrounding a glass screen.

That means the face -- and more importantly the screen -- is as difficult to scratch up as the iPhone or the new Nano, although like the new Nano, its polished stainless steel back still quickly shows fingerprints and scuff marks.

The new metal case of the 80GB 6G Classic is slightly thinner than the 30GB 5.5G iPod, though Apple also offers the Classic in a 160GB model, albeit slightly thicker. That leaves a wide gap in capacity between it and the other iPod models, which max out at 16GB for the iPhone-like iPod Touch, or at 8GB for the Nano and iPhone. The rest of Apple's entire iPod lineup has moved to using Flash RAM rather than a hard drive.



Flash RAM vs a Hard Drive

The allure of Flash RAM has many facets. For starters, reading from Flash is faster than from a hard drive. The Classic can occasionally be forced to stutter if you start playing music and then immediately zip through menus or quickly pan through album artwork in Coverflow. That's because the display and music playback are both scrambling to read from the hard drive at once. This is not really a serious performance problem on the Classic, because once a song has played for a few seconds, it will read ahead enough music to prevent skipping. However, it signals one reason why Apple is leaning toward Flash.

Second, Flash is much more energy efficient. To operate from a hard drive, iPods have always incorporated a small amount of RAM, 34MB to 64MB. This allows it to read a large chunk of music from the disk and copy it into RAM for playback. This not only makes for smooth, skip-free playback, but also allows it to turn the drive off and coast along in low power mode until it needs more music from the disk. Without this aggressive disk caching, the iPod's battery wouldn't last nearly as long. Playing video or games makes the iPod's disk work harder, and therefore helps to shorten battery life.

As Apple migrates the iPod line toward iPhone-like functions, using a hard drive for storage becomes unworkable due to its power draw. A hard drive based iPhone or iPod Touch would perform more like a laptop, requiring a much larger battery to deliver more than a couple hours of runtime. It would make it much larger and heavier.



The obvious advantage of a hard drive is much more cost effective storage. One of the most expensive components in the iPhone is its 8GB of Flash, which is roughly the same price in quantity component orders as an 80GB 1.8-inch hard drive like the one in the iPod Classic. Combining the two for a pocket mobile device with ten times the storage sounds tantalizing until the reality of battery life, battery size, and additional hard drive volume all add up to create a box the size of a small book, or alternatively a mobile device that can't run for more than two hours without a recharge. Additionally, the hybrid device would be slower and hesitate every time it had to spin up the disk.

On top of all that, 2.5-inch laptop hard drives are already rated for lighter duty and have shorter lifespans than full size 3.5-inch hard drives in desktop computers. A micro-mobile iPod device constantly reading from an even smaller iPod sized 1.8-inch drive to run a full-blown operating system with complex applications like the OS X environment of the iPhone or the iPod Touch would be even more fragile and likely to fail at inopportune times.

That's why Apple doesn't recommend using the iPod Classic in disk mode as a boot device; it simply isn't rated for full-time use. Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. It only offers the Nike+ for use with the Flash-based Nano. The Classic is the most vulnerable of all iPods.

That means the hard drive-based iPod Classic is likely to soon be a dead end on the iPod road map. As the price of Flash RAM components rapidly fall as production technology increases, the entire line of iPods is likely to eventually move permanently to Flash. At some point, they will likely be followed by laptops, too. Depending on the demand that remains for large capacity iPods, the Classic line may retire as early as a year or two from now.

iPod Selector: Size Matters

Until then, the Classic is the only way to put more than a few thousand songs and a movie or two on an iPod. For anyone who wants more than 16GB of storage, the iPod Classic is the easy option because its the only option. Compared to the other iPod models, it's almost as if Apple is actively working to migrate users away from hard drive storage.

Apple's first step was making it easy to automate the syncing of fresh content in iTunes. Rather than having to carry around an iPod with a capacity equal to the entire music library, users can now easily set up sophisticated smart playlists that can keep a smaller capacity iPod full of fresh content. Podcast and TV syncing also makes it easy to cycle through new content. That all adds up to make iTunes a software solution to the hardware problem of practical capacity limitations of Flash based iPods.



It's interesting that the new 3G Nano now delivers all of the features of the previous full-sized iPod. That signals that Apple isn't too worried about further differentiating the Classic as a model; it's only purpose is to deliver capacity. Its screen is only a half inch larger than the Nano, which doesn't make much of a noticeable difference when actually viewing video playback. The Nano is also $50 or $100 less than the iPod Classic.

The larger shell of the Classic does give it a slightly longer rated battery life. While the Nano is rated at 24 hours of audio or 5 hours of video, the Classic promises up to 30 hours of audio and five hours of video for the 10.5 mm thick 80GB model, or 40 hours of audio and 7 hours of video for the 13.5 mm thick 160GB version. Presumably, the larger capacity model also holds a larger battery.

According to iSuppli, the battery in the new 80GB classic is exactly the same as the older 30GB Video's. No word on the 160GB.

The new flagship iPod is the Touch, which for $50 more, and similarly trades off capacity for WiFi browsing features, YouTube and the coming WiFi Store music store. The 8mm thick Touch also has a larger, much higher resolution screen for video playback, touch=screen wizardry, and a 22-hour audio playback rating (or 5 hours of video). Throw down another $100 and you can get a full iPhone, with always-on mobile data service, a camera, Bluetooth, Mail, Google Maps and other related mobile features.

These differences between the iPod models will likely make the Classic most attractive to existing iPod users who can't give up the storage capacity they've grown accustomed to, and for users primarily interested in long playback of music, who are not tempted by the more gadgety features of the Touch or the very thin Nano with its limited storage.

New iPod Software Features

Apart from offering vastly larger capacity in a larger shell, the iPod Classic is very similar to the new Nano, offering the same new animated menus and enhanced mini-apps described in our 3G iPod nano review. Both appear to run on a significantly-refreshed operating environment, the main downside of which is that the new Classic and Nano aren't backwardly compatible with games designed for the 5G iPod.

Both the new Classic and Nano ship with three free games, and Apple says three more are on the way. Until they ship, there aren't any new games to buy, and of course any 5G games you already own won't sync over.

For a more extensive look at the new iPod software, including the animated menus and gaming support, see the 3G Nano review: Apple's new 3G iPod nano is a 5G video iPod in a nano-thin shell.



Video Output Changes

One last change on the iPod Classic over the previous 5.5G iPod model is that video output has changed. Previous video-enabled iPods offered composite video output from a video iPod Dock or via a cable that plugged into the headphone jack. The new Classic, Nano, and the Touch all offer both composite video and now higher quality component video for use with a HDTV or modern standard definition TV. Component video delivers a higher quality picture.

The new models now lack an option to output video from the headphone jack. Instead, Apple sells both composite cables for use with all video-capable iPods and component cables that only work with the new Classic, Nano, and Touch. Both cables plug into the iPods using a dock connector. They also come with a USB wall power adapter and cost $50. Apple also sells a $50 "Apple Universal Dock," which provides an IR remote control. It requires one of the above cables to plug into a TV or HDTV set.



The new iPod models may not work with some third party devices that extract video from the Dock connector, although the new iPods work with the previous "iPod Universal Dock connector" when used with Apple's composite cables designed for previous video-capable iPods.

Rating 4 of 5


ProsMuch greater capacity than other iPods.Longer batter life than other iPod models.Scratch resistant metal face and glass screen.Enhanced animated menus and Coverflow.Three free games.ConsNot compatible with 5G games.No games yet available apart from the three free games included.Polished metal back will scuff up quickly.
Where to Buy

Apple 160 GB iPod classic (Black) - Amazon

Apple 80 GB iPod classic (Black) - Amazon

Apple 160 GB iPod Classic (Silver) - Amazon

Apple 80 GB iPod Classic (Silver) - Amazon
post #2 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Rating 4 of 5


ProsMuch greater capacity than other iPods.Longer batter life than other iPod models.Scratch resistant metal face and glass screen.Enhanced animated menus and Coverflow.Three free games.

ConsNot compatible with 5G games.No games yet available apart from the three free games included.Polished metal back will scuff up quickly.

First, I can't take this review seriously if you don't list the lethargic CoverFlow interface in your cons or factor it into your rating. It's not a feature, it's a liability. It really slows down browsing music, and it's slower on the Classic than the Nano Fatty.

Second, the shape of the Classic is awful, and not particularly easy on the hands with that raised edge.

Third, the classic form factor needs to be put to bed, not kept alive. This tiny screen is so TWO YEARS ago.

Fourth, what do you need all that capacity for, if you are not watching videos? And the classic is just not worthy of video because of this tiny sceen.

Apple should have released a high capacity HD Touch along with the flash-based Touch. Or at least redesigned the classic so it could keep its scroll wheel and get a bigger screen.
post #3 of 61
Classic is clearly aimed at people who want a regular iPod. I personally will be getting one because I already have an iPhone for all my "touch" stuff. I also want something that I can store my entire music collection on, as well as use as a portable Hard Drive for taking work to/from home.

My 40Gb 4G is getting on a bit, so I'll be putting my $100 iPhone "rebate" towards a 80Gb Classic, but I do agree with the previous poster on one point, I'm a bit worried by the reports of the UI sluggishness. Any comments from the reviewer? I don't care about Coverflow personally, but I read elsewhere that the sluggishness pervades the entire UI of the Classic, which is a bit worrisome.
post #4 of 61
I bought the 160 gigger because I wanted one iPod to hold everything, and act like a portable Apple TV. Regarding the TV output, I believe that the MPAA may have insisted on locking out video due to the fact that it can output a 480p signal via the forthcoming component cable. Remember kids, 720 x 480p is DVD quality, and pirates are perfectly happy with that resolution. I have the cable on order, assuming it will work with my current Apple Universal Dock.
post #5 of 61
is this a review? it seems more like an article explaining Apple's iPod lineup, with a rating thrown in at the end... i suppose the Classic is already somewhat familiar to most people, but i'm not sure what to think of this piece... was the original review focusing on the Classic too short? maybe the middle section should become its own article, and the Classic-related tidbits pieced together for a review

don't mean any disrespect, i love appleinsider...this was just a frustrating, sprawling read
post #6 of 61
I've read people say they DJ and want to use the large capacity Classic for this purpose. When my sister got married this summer, one prospect she auditioned showed up with just an 80Gb iPod. She began to dismiss him immediately as not being the real deal. He convinced her his performance set-up was professional, his patter was smooth, and she ultimately hired him. During the wedding, his iPod drive died. He had speakers and amps, and lights and stands, but chose to rely on a personal music player for his gigs.

Sis was not happy, nor very forgiving. I guess I don't understand why if you gotta carry in a van-load of gear anyway, you elect to use an iPod (or any other personal player) for weight-savings or convenience. I think a laptop Mac probably would have been a better choice.
post #7 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by umijin View Post

First, I can't take this review seriously if you don't list the lethargic CoverFlow interface in your cons or factor it into your rating. It's not a feature, it's a liability. It really slows down browsing music, and it's slower on the Classic than the Nano Fatty.

Second, the shape of the Classic is awful, and not particularly easy on the hands with that raised edge.

Third, the classic form factor needs to be put to bed, not kept alive. This tiny screen is so TWO YEARS ago.

Not too small for music lovers who don't care for video on a pod. Just like when they fist came out. It's all about the music for many of us.

Fourth, what do you need all that capacity for, if you are not watching videos? And the classic is just not worthy of video because of this tiny sceen.

Many of us want them only for MUSIC. Large capacities that we use in a studios, businesses, second homes or when traveling for long times. I for one want all 100GB of my music. You never know what mood musically you'll be in when you can't sync up daily. Don't need a big screen for music only,

Apple should have released a high capacity HD Touch along with the flash-based Touch. Or at least redesigned the classic so it could keep its scroll wheel and get a bigger screen.

.......
post #8 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by umijin View Post

Fourth, what do you need all that capacity for, if you are not watching videos? And the classic is just not worthy of video because of this tiny sceen.

Well my music library is about 55gb, and then counting a few videos that i might want to put in...and in two years i reckon my music library will be another 10 - 15gb large.

I do think that these small HDDs are outdated and slow, but i think they're the only cheap way to store large music libraries in 'your pocket' at the moment....but then again, im very much pulled towards the touch, and just setting up lots of clever playlists. hmmmm!
post #9 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by umijin View Post

First, I can't take this review seriously if you don't list the lethargic CoverFlow interface in your cons or factor it into your rating. It's not a feature, it's a liability. It really slows down browsing music, and it's slower on the Classic than the Nano Fatty.

Second, the shape of the Classic is awful, and not particularly easy on the hands with that raised edge.

Third, the classic form factor needs to be put to bed, not kept alive. This tiny screen is so TWO YEARS ago.

Fourth, what do you need all that capacity for, if you are not watching videos? And the classic is just not worthy of video because of this tiny sceen.

Apple should have released a high capacity HD Touch along with the flash-based Touch. Or at least redesigned the classic so it could keep its scroll wheel and get a bigger screen.

You are so out of it with this post.

Apple is giving those people who want exactly what the Classic delivers, what they are asking for.

I'm willing to state that it will be the most popular HDD digital player made.

It's not for you, and that's fine.
post #10 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicwardrobe View Post

...just setting up lots of clever playlists. hmmmm!

The trouble with "clever playlists" is that they have yet to come up with a playlist clever enough to be able to have the iPod play a song that isn't copied to it. There's no replacement for having your entire library in your pocket IMHO.
post #11 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

I've read people say they DJ and want to use the large capacity Classic for this purpose. When my sister got married this summer, one prospect she auditioned showed up with just an 80Gb iPod. She began to dismiss him immediately as not being the real deal. He convinced her his performance set-up was professional, his patter was smooth, and she ultimately hired him. During the wedding, his iPod drive died. He had speakers and amps, and lights and stands, but chose to rely on a personal music player for his gigs.

Sis was not happy, nor very forgiving. I guess I don't understand why if you gotta carry in a van-load of gear anyway, you elect to use an iPod (or any other personal player) for weight-savings or convenience. I think a laptop Mac probably would have been a better choice.

Or at least have a backup iPod!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #12 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Or at least have a backup iPod!

Seriously! The guy needs to move over to what we call in the space industry a two string platform (i.e. you have redundancy in case of a single point of failure).
post #13 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Or at least have a backup iPod!

I was thinking the same thing. Anything can fail at anytime. It could have been a Macbook Pro, and it still could have failed.

The same thing is true for professional photography. At least two bodies have to be brought to every job. Hopefully more than one needed lens as well. Several memory cards, a couple of rechargers, and several batteries.

Something is always bound to fail somewhere.
post #14 of 61
Weak review, the most important thing, soundquality, has not been reviewed.

From geek-forums who put the ipod classic through its paces and compared it with the best-sounding mp3-players out there, like for example the iriver and cowon's iaudio-players, measuring frequencies and listening to all relevant music-styles.. I now know that the ipod classic sports a drastically improved soundquality, compared to the mediocrity of the last few ipod-generations, outclassing even the best sounding mp3-player, cowon's d2, on the market.

The geek-forum-testers found that the improved soundquality is due to a new audio-chip used in the classic.

That's a fantastic feat and kudos to apple to have done it, unfortunately it's still not clear if the ipod-nano has the same fantastic sound as the classic.. The ipod-classic would be perfect if it had built-in recording-capability matching the professional capabilities of Sony's hi-minidisc-recorders, and it would have been nice if mucic-files were stored or could be stored alternatively in standard formats, including wma.

I can only hope that the next-generation-ipods will come with professional-recording-capabilities (with fantastic soundquality in playing and recording) and an integrated camera, and 32 GB/64 GB-Flash-memory. Then I will buy one, too.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #15 of 61
Quote:
The geek-forum-testers found that the improved soundquality is due to a new audio-chip used in the classic.

That's cool if you are really anal about sound quality. I would believe the majority of the market are listening to low bit rate mp3's and will never hear the difference.
post #16 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's cool if you are really anal about sound quality. I would believe the majority of the market are listening to low bit rate mp3's and will never hear the difference.

I do know that the current models are highly regarded in Stereophile, as long as you are using Apple Lossless, and I can agree with it.
post #17 of 61
Hmm, it seems like I was a bit too quick with saying that the ipod classic had the best sound of all. It seems like there is a major problem with the codec used with the new audio-chip. Here are the details:

http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijlig...surements.html

Quote:
Conclusions
From these measurements it is obvious that the Cirrus audio IC is worse that the Wolfson IC:
- Treble has an uplift of 0.1dB.
- The Codec has a non-linear group delay.
- The phase faults are caused by non-linear effects.

The audible differences between the 5G and 6G are significant, and a firmware correction (most Codecs contain programmable parts) is definitely required to bring back the iPod Classic sound quality to its original levels.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #18 of 61
I have a 3rd gen, 15 GB iPod, and I'm very sad to say that NONE of the new lineup offer me a reason to upgrade, as much as I'd like to.

Nano: Not enough capacity...end of story. If it can't hold all my music, at a minimum, I won't even consider it. (And I dont even have all that much music!)

touch: Love the concept, can even understand not including Mail app. But my music takes up nearly all of my 15 GB current iPod. So the lovely big screen is wasted because there would be no space left to store photos/video to view on it. I could make due with the limited storage if there was something compelling (Mail) to make up for it. Plus not being able to add events to the calendar, and now reports that contact changes aren't sync'd back to your computer, seriously cripple it as a good compromise to make up for limited storage.

Classic: I had resigned myself to getting a classic and being jealous of the large screen touch. But then the deal-breakerApple as taken away camera connector support (this is a glaring omission from AI's review). On the small screen, I wouldn't really watch much video or view photos; and my current iPod can already hold all my music. The ONLY reason left to upgrade was that I could leave my laptop at home when I travel and use the iPod to download photos when the camera's memory card was full. The new nano works with the camera connector (which is a joke considering it's tiny storage capacity), so it's not the upgraded OS that prevents the camera connector from working. So what is it? So if no video, no viewing photos, no download photos, then I dont really need the extra storage space, do I.

So I guess I'll be sticking with my 4-year old, 3rd gen iPod. None of the new iPod's offer any new features that I'd be able to make use of due to either limited capacity or crippled/removed features.

PS: As for the sluggish interface...sort of like iMovie 8. Apple put all their effort into making the interface "slick" to the point of requiring a supercomputer just to run the app, while crippling it's functions to the point of it no longer being able to do what used to be able to do (ie, edit movies!) on computers several generations old. There is NO EXCUSE for the interface eye candy of the new iPod interfering with the primary function of the device...playing music.
post #19 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post

I bought the 160 gigger because I wanted one iPod to hold everything, and act like a portable Apple TV. Regarding the TV output, I believe that the MPAA may have insisted on locking out video due to the fact that it can output a 480p signal via the forthcoming component cable. Remember kids, 720 x 480p is DVD quality, and pirates are perfectly happy with that resolution. I have the cable on order, assuming it will work with my current Apple Universal Dock.

I think I called that kind of odd protection schemes a silly fa├žade before. DVDs are by far weakest point of the commercial video distribution system, if you don't count insider jobs. It's much easier to get the DVD and rip from that than it is to record from component outs, and it will get better video quality too.
post #20 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Hmm, it seems like I was a bit too quick with saying that the ipod classic had the best sound of all. It seems like there is a major problem with the codec used with the new audio-chip. Here are the details:

http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijlig...surements.html



Nightcrawler

I can't speak to the rest of the tests as I don't have the iPod here, so I can't test one. However, a .1 db rise is inaudible, particularly at those extended frequencies, where little music resides, and at which, our hearing is not the best.

If it is true that the impulse test is correct, that can be more of a problem. It would be very unusual for a device to have that shape impulse test, and it's difficult to understand how such a problem could have made it through initial testing at the manufacturer, much less at the stage of the iPods' design.

It could be that this is a single device flaw, or that of a small part run. We'll have to see if it turns up further.
post #21 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's cool if you are really anal about sound quality. I would believe the majority of the market are listening to low bit rate mp3's and will never hear the difference.

Yes to your first sentence and maybe and no to the second.
post #22 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can't speak to the rest of the tests as I don't have the iPod here, so I can't test one. However, a .1 db rise is inaudible, particularly at those extended frequencies, where little music resides, and at which, our hearing is not the best.

If it is true that the impulse test is correct, that can be more of a problem. It would be very unusual for a device to have that shape impulse test, and it's difficult to understand how such a problem could have made it through initial testing at the manufacturer, much less at the stage of the iPods' design.

It could be that this is a single device flaw, or that of a small part run. We'll have to see if it turns up further.

And yet in this apple-support-forum, there are a lot of people complaining about the problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....26547&tstart=0

I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.

That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #23 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

And yet in this apple-support-forum, there are a lot of people complaining about the problem:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....26547&tstart=0

I think the .1 db-rise in treble leads to the phase-problems, that are more hearable.

That Apple's testing were not able to measure the problem is really strange, but still it seems to be a real problem, but one that probably can be corrected through a firmware-update, since the codecs are programmable.

Nightcrawler

There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.

The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.

The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".

The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.

The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.
post #24 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I do know that the current models are highly regarded in Stereophile, as long as you are using Apple Lossless, and I can agree with it.

Using a 3rd gen 15gb - the sound quality of the line-out via the dock is superb. I did some tests where I ripped tracks from CD at various rates, including AIFF, then played back the ripped tracks, comparing them directly, synced in real time, with the CD original. I concluded that with AAC I can't hear any difference above about 160kbps so I rip at 224. For me, lossless would be even more overkill than I already employ.
post #25 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.

Good post. I asked my wife, and she says you can't 'hear' phase, so while you can go digital to get linear phase it is not necessary to 'have' linear phase shift. In other words, your right
post #26 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Yes to your first sentence and maybe and no to the second.

I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. You can please 95% of listeners and spend substantially less time/money on sound processing. After all, hasn't iTunes served up 1 billion+ songs at 128 kbps? People might be able to tell, but they probably don't care, or they don't wanna pay more for it or sacrifice the disk space.

I'm no audiophile, but I can tell the difference between medium-quality MP3 (128, 192 kbps) and WAV/Lossless. And I do rip my absolute favorite CDs in the latter formats. But for the rest of my 2,000 songs, I'm happy to listen to them at 90-something% quality at 10% HDD space.
post #27 of 61
"Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. "

I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
post #28 of 61
DIE, hard drive iPods, die!

Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.

Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.

(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)
post #29 of 61
I was going to get a 160 GB Classic but I'm not so sure after reading about these problems with the sluggish interface. That's not cool at all.

I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.

So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.

So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.
post #30 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelb View Post

DIE, hard drive iPods, die!

Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.

Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.

(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)

I don't think even Apple can push prices down that much. The trend seems to be to double capacity every year, so next year you should see a 32GB iTouch, the year after, maybe 64GB.
post #31 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownreese View Post

"Apple also pulled all references on its website about using hard drive-based iPods during exercise or running due to the risk of mechanical failure associated with operating hard drives in such extreme conditions. "

I can not believe that Apple is not being more upfront about the risk of the iPod Classic and using it in sports. "Pulling all references" is not proactive enough to let a huge iPod following that a taken-for-granted use is no longer recommended.

These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.

Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.

The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.
post #32 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelb View Post

DIE, hard drive iPods, die!

Make way for 32GB NAND Flash storage. And then 64GB NAND Flash.

Apple has enough sway in the NAND market (it commands about 25% of world supply) to get the prices it needs.

(It's German, as in die Bart Simpson, die.)

No it doesn't. Apple can get good prices for the time, but it can't get prices below the profit level the manufacturers need. Lower prices come as they come.

32 Gb and 64 Gb aren't nearly enough for some people, so it wouldn't eliminate the problem.

Next year sometime, we'll see 16 and 32 GB iPods.
post #33 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

I was going to get a 160 GB Classic but I'm not so sure after reading about these problems with the sluggish interface. That's not cool at all.

I like the idea of having all of my music in lossless on an iPod... very cool... but not if the interface is sluggish.

So now I'm thinking maybe I get the Touch and convert my library to high bit rate AAC's. But looking at people use the Touch on YouTube... something struck me... they are all using two hands. One hand to hold the thing... the other hand to point. And you have to move around the screen a lot to use the interface... like mousing on a computer screen. Ok... it's super cool... but then I was thinking... with a regular iPod and clickwheel... you can get to any song with one hand... using the thumb of that same one hand... and without having to move your 'pointing device' all over the place... just twirl and click!!! That's it! Simple. Easy. Elegant.

So my thought is... as cool at the touch interface looks... as a pure music player... i think a regular iPod would actually be simpler, easier, more efficient and much more practical. I don't want to have to use what is basically a mini-computer with a full blown point and click interface just to play music. I hope they don't get rid of the click wheel. The touch is cool for all the other stuff it can do... surfing the web... buying songs... zooming photos... etc... but if you just want a music player... the interface is overkill.

From what I've read, the interface isn't exactly sluggesh. What happens is the if you move through the album art too quickly, some of the covers can come up grey briefly, while the cpu updates, but the search continues at full speed.

Why don't you go to a store and check it out for yourself. this is all very personal. What one person thinks is unacceptable, another may think is fine.
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There seems to be a difference between the two models, if his tests are to be trusted, that show a difference in the treble that is about three times as much of a difference as the actual rise in the Classic itself. Even though a .3 or a .4 db rise is still very difficult to hear, it is easier than the .1 db, which is almost impossible, except under laboratory testing procedures.

The reason why I don't always trust what I read is because I've been in the audio business in one way or another for many years, and have gotten used to seeing listening tests that have been done after the electronic tests that conform with the otherwise impossible to hear results.

The problem is that we really don't know if it is as he said, and he did the listening first, or the other way around. Audio people are notoriously easily influenced by an "authority".

The rise in treble doesn't 'lead" to the phase problems, but could be a result of them.

The way one controls crossovers, filters, or other frequency altering circuits is by changing the phase. The only to avoid that is to do it digitally. There isn't anything wrong with phase shifts per se.

In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.

It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.

I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Both appear to run on a significantly-refreshed operating environment, the main downside of which is that the new Classic and Nano aren't backwardly compatible with games designed for the 5G iPod.

My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?
post #36 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.

It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.

I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.

Nightcrawler

Has there ever been a new iPod released where some users haven't complained the sound quality was inferior to the previous model?

I seem to recall this happening before.
post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

These things have been out for 6 years now. It's about time people understood that.

Anyone who thinks that jogging is GOOD for a HDD isn't thinking clearly, and would probably use it that way anyway.

The only reason they should warn against it is for their own protection from liability. If people want to do something, they will do it despite bring told not to.

Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.

In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.

The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In this case though, it seems that people started to complain in the apple-feedback-forum about the sound of the ipod-classic, before someone made the effort to find out where the problem was using different measurings.

It seems like due to the phase-differences, low-, mid- and highfrequencies arrive at different points in time, which disturbs the harmony of the sound.

I think because so many people complained before someone conducted the relevant measurements, there might be some truth to the problem.

Nightcrawler

It could be, though an equal number didn't hear any difference. That's why I think it could be from a particular run of the chips.

Don't forget that earphones have more phase shift that does even this device.

Phase is also not directly tied to impulse problems, though it can be related.

We also have to understand that if the impulse is less than about 3 milliseconds, we simply can't hear it.
post #39 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdasmith View Post

My father just bought one, and it's stunning. Very nice machine, although I think it seems slightly heavier than previous models (I haven't weighed them so it could be my imagination). One thing that struck me is the OS version, which is labelled as 1.0 Mac. Does this mean that like the iPhone and iPod Touch, these new iPods are running a dedicated version of the Mac OS, or is it just that it's formatted for the Mac?

While I haven't compared weights, it's interesting to note that if one model is slightly smaller, or thinner, psychologically, it will feel heavier, even if they both weigh EXACTLY the same. (Not saying they do!).
post #40 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownreese View Post

Apple has sold iPod HD jogging accessories for years. So according to your assessment, Apple wasn't thinking clearly.

In the latest generation---DUE TO THE SMALLER AND MORE FRAGILE NEW 1.7" HD--the iPod can no longer due "heavy lifting" This is a change in the functionality of the product and should be stated up front. That is the reason for full disclosure in the consumer driven market that Apple courts.

The large capacity iPods went from road warriers to beautiful fragile Faberge eggs that must be looked at from afar.

I'm not saying they were either.

But, for a while, it was the only technology they had to sell. They were likely willing to take the risk that in-warrantee service would be higher than they would have liked, and raised the prices accordingly to cover that.

I agree with you in that they should state this "up front".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iPod classic review