Review: Apple's second-generation iPod touch - Page 2

I suspect you are exactly right about this. If that is true then Apple is falling victim to the common impulse to avoid cannibalizing its own products. Maybe this will work but it presents an opportunity to Microsoft, RIM, Google and others who have no qualms about taking a bite out of the iPhone market. I'd rather buy (and develop for) an Apple product like this but Apple has to see that the cell phone provider model will be a vestigial market as bandwidth availability grows exponentially (assuming monopoly power does not succeed in continuing to prevent it).

How many GPS devices use Assisted GPS (A-GPS)? My understanding is that it is limited to cellphone based GPS which is only a fraction of the market. I would much rather have a GPS device that is not associated with a monthly fee to a monopoly (or duopoly) provided service. Don't misunderstand, I think it is fine that such an option (A-GPS) is available. I would just be happier to also have the option for straight GPS without the assist. More choices, more options, more satisfied customers.

Thanks for the warning- I waited for the reviews and now have to wait for the case. Do iPhone cases work with the Touch? Or will there be specific ones for the Touch. I prefer a clickshield , clamp style case which insures no scratches. I currently have one on my iPod 5G and it looks brand new. Beware of the ones where you have to slip/squeeze it into the case- you get instant scratches.

Thanks for the warning!! I hear that those clear protective coverings (invisa shield?) take a PHd in physics to put on. Are there any that are easier to apply? I was actually looking for a shock absorbant case (cos i know i will be dropping my ipod lots by mistake). Do any of those protective films you have to apply protect against dropping (on cement or hard tile)?

I'll have what he's having.

Just ordered two new different kinds of cases from Macally's online store for the 2nd gen touch. As far as I know, they are the first to market with new case designs.

https://www.iunitek.com/macally/index.cfm

They arrive in about a week.

Go to iLounge.com- they review all the cases (iPhone and iPods) and you can sort them by grade- A+ to F. The clamp style case has a very tight seal and rubber edges-I believe Contour makes one as well. Good luck.
I don't like the clear films- prefer an actual case.

anyone? anyone?

will Touch stream music to Airport Express via Wi-Fi? I cant find anything on the subject which leads me to believe that Apple yet again has dropped the ball. or if someone can explain why such a function is not possible, it would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

seems like a good idea to me. maybe its a third party app. anyone?

You can stream music to your touch over WiFi using the App "AOL Radio", which I like quite a bit. There are others, just search the App Store.

HA!!! Try comparing the original iPod shuffle to ANY other iPod. The Sigmatel decoder on the shuffle makes the other iPods sound terrible.

Pure GPS on a phone doesn't work that well. Nokia famously discovered this when it first added GPS to its phones. GPS signals are weak and easily blocked or corrupted. The hardware in dedicated GPS devices are specific to receiving and using those weak signals.

Because the iPod Touch is not a dedicated GPS device assisted GPS would be the most useful option. Even dedicated GPS devices aren't accurate in every situation.

Thank you- finally someone who knows something about sound around here.

thanks for the info. im thinkin its time for me to get in Touch.

The GPS in my blackberry works with no cell signal at all. Not sure what kind of GPS chip it is.

Anyways to comment on the new 2nd gen Touch. She got her new one last week and let me say not only does it "feel" so much thinner, but its atleast twice as fast as both iphones we have in our household, a first gen and a 3g unit. Both are used strictly as data devices, no voice at all. Would also like to note she has 2-3x more apps installed than either iphone does. She has 78 different icons on her phone right now and it is FAST. Virtually no lag switching, starting, closing, updating any applications at all. I can't wait until someone hacks the bluetooth chip in it, then we can get rid of both iphones.

I have been testing the iPhone Wifi connection for some iPhone app ideas.

Unfortunately, with the Wifi connection, the battery life is so bad that now I totally understand why Apple does not allow background apps and doesn't allow VOIP.

Let me put this way... your iphone will be dead in 30 minutes to 1 hour if iPhone Wifi is constantly shifting data.

A review that tells us everything EXCEPT the actual sound quality of the headphone output is useless.

We all know what an iPod feels and looks like.

However, not everyone can listen to one for tens of hours before buying.

Apple wins. The death of audio sound quality began with the introduction of digital audio, and MP3s have completely eradicated high-fidelity.

Now, when people buy a music player they care only how it looks.

Excellent - you hit it right on the head. And it supposed to be all about the music- "Let's Rock"- remember?

One review I read that did *actual* distortion &c. tests (rather than just having a listen) on the headphone output, rated the new iPod Touch as improved and 'Superior' in the range of available mp3 players.

But, yes, mp3 compression does make the music sound like it's coming from a cardboard box when played on a decent stereo. I didn't notice it that much til I got to do a simple CD vs mp3 comparison through a full component hi-fi. Some music sounds fine but complex music with a heavy bass line sounds squashed and shabby via lossy mp3 (regardless of bit rate) compared to the original. I also noticed that modern dvd players sound inferior to my old Pioneer CD player (something to do with the DAC processing I guess).

Your ears do not deceive you. In general, most digital music players today are inferior to mid-late 90s CD players and earlier DVD players. Ultra high-end DACs have come down dramatically in price, but in the consumer range, most of the stuff today is actually not as well designed as in previous days gone by.

Most MP3 players today are adequate. When I'm traveling, I don't need the best sound quality, but a review like this should at least tell readers what its reviewer thinks of the sound. I hate to say it because I love Apple, but many audiophiles agree that the iPod's sound is not among the best in its class. When using a decent pair of earphones like the Etymotic ER4 and listening to quality CD rips of well recorded songs (Pink Floyd, for example), you can really tell the difference between something considered excellent like the Sandisk Clip and the previous Nano. Apple seems to have gone after design first, usability second, screen third, and sound quality last.

And a review of the sound quality is equally useless. That's because the sound we hear from an MP3 player, while using earbuds, is highly personal. No one can hear how it sounds, except for the person wearing the earbuds. It's not like listening to a stereo system with loudspeakers, in a room. Where several people in the room can hear the same sounds, at the same time. Earbuds fits everybody ears differently. And thus sounds different to each listener.

In order to write a review of the sound quality of an MP3 player that is useful, one would have to use the same earbuds (headphones) for every MP3 player he's reviewed. Then, an only then, can he say that one MP3 play sounds better or worse than another. And his opinion would still be only for the earbuds (headphones) he's using.

And when you think about it. If the average person can't tell the difference between a lossless CD quality music file and a lossy MP3 (AAC) music file while listening to them with earbuds on an MP3 player. What's does it matter about the sound quality output of the player. Or between players. If you wants better sound, get better earbuds, in-ear buds or over-the-ear headphones. Or use the equalizer.

Of course we all hear sounds differently (even from speakers), but almost all of us will agree that, for example, a transistor radio's sound quality is atrocious, and that the first generation iPod now sounds merely half decent.

I'm just looking for basic information about the player's sound quality. Does it sound exactly the same to the reviewer as the previous Nano? If not, how does it sound different?

Audiophile publications do reviews of amps, speakers, etc. even though few people will use the exact same system components and cables as the reviewer (not to mention the rooms will vary widely), yet what the reviewer thinks about the product's sound still matters.

Even the less than expert reviewers at Cnet will spend a paragraph describing personal impressions of sound quality. I'm sure Appleinsider can at least match Cnet, whose bar isn't exactly high

I am impressed by the review and even more impressed that Prince has Explosions in the Sky on his iPod. They are a freaking great Austin instrumental band. I am done end rant

It is about the music. It's about how easy it is to have your music (if not all your music)with you at all times. It's about how easy it is to access the music you want to hear. It's about how easy it is to put (and organize) only the music you want into your iPod. It's about how you can play your music while watching your photos in a slide show. It's about how easy it is to buy music to put in your iPod. It's about how easy it is to find the other music you may like and play or buy it.

Now if you want the music to sound good. then the best way is to start with music that is good to begin with. Good music will transcends the equipment it's played on. Good music will sound good no matter the quality of the equipment. Crappy music, on the otherhand, sounds like crap no matter how good the equipment is.

I can just be as happy listening to Norah Jones on 200g vinyl, in front of my home stereo, as I can while listening to her on an AAC lossy file on my iPod. It may not sound anywhere near what I hear at home. But the music still sounds good and I'm happy to be able to hear her while running (well actually jogging.\) around the lake (well maybe most of the time it's on a treadmill. \). On the otherhand, if my music from my home stereo sounds like what I hear on my iPod.....I'd be royally pissed.

vinyl sounds better regardless of the soundproof room and tube amps. I am always amazed when i hang out with a friend who has a huge vinyl collection. He has a decent amp and pretty crappy speakers, but i am constantly amazed as to how good the music sounds coming from vinyl. there is a lot that just doesnt come through on other media as it does on vinyl.

It's how thin the new iPod is!
It makes the iPhone 3G look really fat :'(...
lol I want to find an excuse just to buy the new iPod touches :P

I just assumed that the sensor puck is not a clip-on device because Nike want you to buy their shoes.

My iPod touch Wi-Fi performs quite a bit faster than my Wife's iPhone when connected to the same wireless network. It's pretty snappy.

I'm going to beg Jobs to allow the keyboard to flip sideways when the touch is rotated. Those with small fingers can keep doing what they're doing. Anyone with larger fingers than a petite woman needs space.

That said, the correction feature saves my bacon 99% of the time.

Here's an odd thing I've noticed. The game Asphalt 4 has astounding volume. It actually startled me because I have to crank the volume all the way up for music and videos. Then when you punch up the racing game, it's like returning to your car and turning the key and nearly having a heart attack as the music blasts you out of the car.

How can one App have such loud volume while music (purchased from Apple) and videos can't reach anywhere near as loud?

Sounds like you'd be satisfied listening to 2 tin cans tied to a string then.

It's actually thicker than the previous iPod touch.

Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?

Only at its thickest part, but with the tapering it feels smaller. I bet the overall volume is quite a bit less too.


There is no reason why Skype can't make a VoIP app for the iPhone/Touch, so long as it only works via WiFi on the iPhone.

I got the impression from that special event keynote that is what is going to happen, as if it was a likely use for that mic input. VoIP is only banned from using cellular data.

http://www.vcsale.com

If that was the only thing available and Norah Jones was being played......Yes. IMO It would still better than listening to rap on an iPod.

It it disllusional to think that one name brand MP3 player is somehow vastly superior, sound wise, to another name brand player. MP3 players, now of days, are more than music players. Something has to give in order for you to get WiFi, bluetooth, touch screen, FM radio, longer battery life, more storage, smaller, thinner, video, ect. And it's usaully the sound chip. It's like comparing the sound quality of those less than $300, all in one, mini stereo systems made by Sony, Pioneer, JVC, Yamaha, ect. In the end it's a trade off. The one with the best speakers is the one with the crappy electronics. The best sounding one is most likely the one with the least features. And nearly all of them will sound better if you just buy better speakers.

And just what are you listening for when comparing MP3 players? All the sounds that you would listen for in a high end home stereo don't even exist in lossy MP3 files. And if they did, the earbuds you get with the player can't resolve it. Highs? Timber? Low bass? Bass detail? Detail in the midrange? Sound stage and imaging? All the stuff that was deemed non essential to the music and thrown out when the music got compressed to an MP3 file. There's a reason why most MP3 player don't advertise how much better their players sound over a competitors. And why they don't make "High End" MP3 players. It's because most MP3 players are used to listen to lossy MP3 music. And I doubt that the sound outputted is "flat". It's been equalized and being able to change the equalization levels the playing field for all MP3 players (sound wise). So long as they keep the distortion below a certain threshold, most players will sound (or can be made to sound) the same (with the same earbuds).

Reviewing the sound quality of MP3 players (name brand ones) would be like me comparing the sound quality of my 2 tabletop, crank up, Victor Talking Machine Victrolas and an Edison cylinder player. I prefer the sound of the Victrola with the internal cast iron horn over the Victrola with the external horn (like the one Nipper sits in front of) or the Edison. But does that really matter when I'm listening to sound created by what is essentially a nail running in a groove of a cirra 1905, 78RPM shellac record, recording of Caruso? (or in the case of the Edison, a Ruby needle in the groove of a cylinder made of wax.) And back in the 1900's this was like being there. It sounded as good as live. The sad truth is that there is more musical infomation in that record than there is in a lossy MP3 file. And I can only hope that my CDs' can retain it's musical information for at least 50 years. Let alone over a hundred years. ("His Master Voice" will most likely outlast "Perfect Sound Forever")

But still, I'm actually amazed that an MP3 player sounds as good as it does. (At least all of the name brand ones.) My iPod sound way better than my cassette Walkman (and Victrolas ). And nearly as good as my CD Walkman. But my iPod hold thousands of songs (plus videos and photos) and is less than half the size of just one CD case. It's still no way near my home stereo but I can't really complain. But better earbuds (headphones) improves the sound quality quite a bit.

Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".

If a tree fall in the forest and there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

I didn't say or imply that earbuds (headphones) improved the sound quality being "emitted". Just the sound that you eventually hear. If the sound is "crappy" because it's lacking in bass or highs, better headphones can improve the sound (you hear).

Were not talking extreme cases here. Were talking about comparing any name brand MP3 players. Apple, Creative, SanDisk, Microsoft, Sony, ect. There isn't one of them that you can label as having "crappy sound". The only thing that will make any one of them sound "crappy" is unwanted audible distortion. Which most don't have at a reasonable listening level. Otherwise everything else is equalization and personal perference. And everyone one them can be made to sound alike (or nearly alike) with the included equalizer. Everyone of them will sound better with better earbuds or headphones. (If not. there's alot of people out there buying expensive headphones for nothing.) And I'm willing to bet that you can not tell one from the other in a blind test. (that's listening only, no touching.) While listening to lossy MP3 music. Most MP3 listeners aren't afraid to use the equalizer in an MP3 player. Even audiophiles won't insist on listening to their music "flat" when they're listening to a lossy MP3 file on an MP3 player with earbuds.

You got to remember that a "flat" MP3 music file sounds "crappy". Play it on any descent home stereo and listen to it without tone controls. Most MP3 players do not output a "flat" signal. They output an equalized signal, in an attempt to make up for what the lossy MP3 music (and sound chip hardware) is lacking. And this can be done in the firmware. Some players does this more than others. Therefore. there's a difference in sound from one MP3 player to another. But none would be classified as "crappy sounding". And all can be remedied with more or less equalization to suit your personal taste. It's not like designing "High End" amps. Where the goal is to output a high quality "flat" signal with as little added to the orignal audio signal as possible. Therefore, there's no consistant baseline to compare MP3 players with. Just personal perference.

You are way off. Anyone with ears will tell you that good earbuds - Shure E500, Etymotic ER4, UE 10, etc. - will dramatically improve the sound quality of a DECENT source. The iPod is a DECENT enough source that it will dramatically benefit from good cans (which does not include the stock earbuds of any MP3 player that I know of).

It's all about limits. The limits of the iPod earbuds are far below the capabilities of the iPod. However, if you hook up the iPod to a good, highly regarded pair of $3,000 speakers, the iPod will be more than maxed out and will not benefit from $100,000 speakers. Your DVD to HDTV comparison is flawed because the source (DVD) is below the capability of the HDTV.

,,,and Norah Jones is known for high quality recordings.

David, you're ignorant for proclaiming that people are "delusional" in believing that there are sound quality differences in MP3 players. While I agree that they are all fairly mediocre compared to high-end DACs and a good turn-table, anyone with decent cans and well recorded music will tell you that Sandisk players, for example, are CLEARLY superior to the iPod.

You don't believe subjective experiences? Well, then look at the technical data. The iPod and many other MP3 players have rolled off bass, while the Sandisk is virtually flat across the spectrum. These measurements are not delusional biases but factual data. Google is your friend.

...and if you are truly as satisfied with listening to your iPod as you are your home system, then you either have too much money and are wasting it on unnecessary equipment or are completely lying to yourself.

There was an outrageous article that I encountered awhile back, in which an audiophile spend an insane amount of money modifying his vinyl set-up. Instead of reading the entire 10,000 word write-up, I read one line that made me realize that the guy was a hypocrite and an idiot: he claimed that he was just as happy to listen to his favorite music from a transistor radio as he was on his $100,000 or whatever vinyl gear. If this is the case, then why would he spend that sort of money and time on building the uber expensive set-up? He needs a new hobby or a life, or to give some of that money to charity.

That source you mention was never reviewed here and that is what we are talking about. Please do not comment unless you've read all the thread. There have been fluctuations in that source(chip) between the various iPods and that spec( the most important one in many opinions here for a music device) was never included in the review. Thank you.

I stated that people are delusional in believing that any difference in sound quality makes one MP3 player VASTLY superior to another. Not there there are no differences in sound.


But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.) In fact, an MP3 music file sounds better on my cheap stereo than my expensive setup (no where near $100,000 \), because the cheap one has an equalizer. Where as my expensive set up has no tone controls what so ever. And I rather listen to an MP3 music file on my iPod (or computer) than any of my home stereos.


I'm satisfy with how my iPod (most MP3 players actually) sounds. It's the music I enjoy listening to. Whether on an iPod or on my home stereo. And my iPod enables me to listen to my music where ever I'm at. But when I'm at home, I don't use my iPod as my source material for my home stereo. But I do listen to my iPod at home when I don't have the time to sit in front of my home stereo (and change records/CDs' every 20 minutes or so) or it's late at night. Before the iPod (MP3 players) it wasn't easy to listen to my music except at home. I would have to lug around a dozen CD's (or tapes) and the player itself was a hassle to carry around.

I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is. However, if an MP3 player is the best equipment you have for listening to your music. Or it's where you do most of your listening. By all means look for the best sounding MP3 player and buy the best sounding headphones you can afford. And use the highest bit rate your can with the space you got.


The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.


If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.