I get your point, but I think we agree on the fact that if AppleInsider *did* add "sound quality" to the review, it wouldn't amount to much more than "sounds good to us" however they actually phrased it.
I agree with you about teckstud though.
As opposed to solipism's statement that the video "looks good to me" comment.
I could care less what you agree on. The quality of it sound is missing and is a basic requiremnt when reviewing an iPod. Simply state- it's the same as the last one, better, worse, etc. It'snotthat difficult.
Now that is a helpful post. Thanks for the update.
edit: From the article...
Quote:
Sonically, the fifth-generation iPod nano is completely up to snuff with the fourth-generation model, the second-generation iPod classic, as well as the iPhone 3GS, all of which have almost completely eliminated low-level hissing noises from their amplifiers, creating cleaner-sounding audio that’s as close to audiophile-quality as any iPod we’ve previously tested. Even when using $1300 earphones to listen to the latest Beatles album remasters, which were given a fine-tooth combing for sonic imperfections by their producers, the fifth-generation iPod nano produced legitimately wonderful, “no complaints” sound on its default equalizer setting. We got lost in the music and really didn’t want to give up listening in order to write about it, consistently great performance that really kicked in across the family starting with last year’s models.
Does anybody else think that Apple will roll out still photos in the iPod nano by working on software that creates still images? Apple always has clever ways to work around limits and they might save photos for next years update. I think that iPod's could also use a major UI overhaul, as they are beginning to look cluttered and messy IMO.
Personally, I am more interested in the new FM radio feature. Watching videos on the nano was ridiculous enough but recording video is a gimmicky feature that doesn't need to be on a tiny media player. I would rather have seen the unit come with higher quality mic/controller headphones or a lower price.
I don?t know. I guess it depends on what features you want. GB to price the Touch wins, and it has a lot more power and a more robust OS. I have an iPhone so that isn?t an option for me. I am going to get the new Nano because of the Nike+ options and the colours kick ass. No more pastel-ish hues. Never thought I?d replace my Shuffle with a Nano. If they make a Shuffle with the Nike+ components I?ll likely go back to that.
I hope they don?t. As long as Apple is going to include those cartilage ripping earbuds I want them to be as cheap as possible so I can better afford good headphones.
The new Nano does not have built in Nike+. It has a pedometer function that works by using accelerometer data. If you want Nike+ features, you still need to use the same old receiver plugged into the dock connector that you've always used.
That's one more thing the Touch has that beats the Nano.
The presence of the accelerometer in the Nano also points to accelerometer-based games, of course.
What's there to review the iPod Touch 3G about? It's just a speed bump and that's all. Nothing else changed after all. And the speed bump should be equal to that of the 3GS.
What's there to review the iPod Touch 3G about? It's just a speed bump and that's all. Nothing else changed after all. And the speed bump should be equal to that of the 3GS.
According to the iFixit teardown the CPU model number is slightly higher than in the 3GS. There is also a history of Apple using a higher clock speed on the Touch than in the iPhone, not to mention that it is not constantly running phone related processes, so I wouldn?t be surprised if that Touch outperforms the iPhone in various tests. Less likely, but perhaps a more powerful GPU since they are advertising it as a gaming device.
The new Nano does not have built in Nike+. It has a pedometer function that works by using accelerometer data. If you want Nike+ features, you still need to use the same old receiver plugged into the dock connector that you've always used.
That's one more thing the Touch has that beats the Nano.
The presence of the accelerometer in the Nano also points to accelerometer-based games, of course.
That's nice. But I highly doubt Apple's custom games will make it accelerometer-fun, unless they change the default games. Otherwise, this would have to mean an app store and that is not possible.
surely the camera positioning is due to the screen?
could they fit the camera behind the screen and keep the nano at the same thickness (or thinness)?
Correct - at last someone with common sense.
There is clearly not enough room behind the screen to hold the depth of the camera.
There is also an error in the review. It states that (PRODUCT) Red and Orange are only available from the Apple Store, actually it is (PRODUCT) Red and Yellow.
Personally, I am more interested in the new FM radio feature
Me too, if they've got it right it'd be the reason I'd buy one to use at work instead of my phone/iPod Touch combo.
The demo pictures have it showing the station, track and artist that's playing - does the radio have RDS? Is RDS used in the US now, I thought it was pretty much Europe-only.
If there's no RDS, how does it identify the station, track and artist?
People adapt. No one is going to throw it away cause they can't keep their thumb out of the shot.
Just hold the nano upside down and **poof** the camera lens is in the top corner. Now get a good grip on it. Use your thumb to take the picture (or the pointer finger of your other hand if you are old.) Clean off the ipod screen if you have dirty hands, download the picture to your computer, flip it over, and post it to your facebook.
I skimmed this review looking for the sound quality appraisal. Didn't find it.
If fail to see this concern. What makes you worry that the sound quality might have worsened compared to the past? And, if there was going to be an improved quality of sound, how/why would that happen?
with my Sennheiser 595 Headphones this new nano matches almost any thing on the market and beats almost all on the market ,
,bbbbbecause its the speakers that deliver the sound dude .,and Sennheiser Headphones 595's are worlds best
Yo Bruce! While it is the speakers that create the sound, the other parts of the device can affect the quality of the audio before it gets to the speakers.
Basically you have the data (represented as 1s and 0s, followed by the Digital-to-Audio Convertor (DAC), followed by a low-pass filter, followed by an amplifier, followed by the speaker.
Then you’ve got harmonic tones, inharmonic complex tones, sine waves, noise, sampling rates (44,100s/s), amplitudes, frequencies and signal-to-quantization noise-ratio (SQNR).
I’d be lying if I said I understood what all these means and if I had the slightest idea how to do the math, but it’s all pretty complex stuff where even cheap speakers can pick up distortions if cheap components are used in the device. iLounge has stated that even the newly remastered Beatles sound great with $1,300 headphones on the new Nano and other iPods so that should appease any audiophiles out there.
Comments
I get your point, but I think we agree on the fact that if AppleInsider *did* add "sound quality" to the review, it wouldn't amount to much more than "sounds good to us" however they actually phrased it.
I agree with you about teckstud though.
As opposed to solipism's statement that the video "looks good to me" comment.
I could care less what you agree on. The quality of it sound is missing and is a basic requiremnt when reviewing an iPod. Simply state- it's the same as the last one, better, worse, etc. It's not that difficult.
As opposed to solipism's statement that the video "looks good to me? comment.
This is why myself and others have a problem with your comments. I stated that it?s better than I thought it would be, not that it looks good.
At least I now know the audio is excellent. Thank you iLounge.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/rev...th-generation/
iLounge's review is now available and it got a respectable B+. Good not great. Some will really like it, others will be like - Eh?
At least I now know the audio is excellent. Thank you iLounge.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/rev...th-generation/
Now that is a helpful post. Thanks for the update.
edit: From the article...
Sonically, the fifth-generation iPod nano is completely up to snuff with the fourth-generation model, the second-generation iPod classic, as well as the iPhone 3GS, all of which have almost completely eliminated low-level hissing noises from their amplifiers, creating cleaner-sounding audio that’s as close to audiophile-quality as any iPod we’ve previously tested. Even when using $1300 earphones to listen to the latest Beatles album remasters, which were given a fine-tooth combing for sonic imperfections by their producers, the fifth-generation iPod nano produced legitimately wonderful, “no complaints” sound on its default equalizer setting. We got lost in the music and really didn’t want to give up listening in order to write about it, consistently great performance that really kicked in across the family starting with last year’s models.
could they fit the camera behind the screen and keep the nano at the same thickness (or thinness)?
Apart from that, there's no other explanation.
I suspect the camera couldn't fit behind the screen and keep it the iPod the same thickness
I don?t know. I guess it depends on what features you want. GB to price the Touch wins, and it has a lot more power and a more robust OS. I have an iPhone so that isn?t an option for me. I am going to get the new Nano because of the Nike+ options and the colours kick ass. No more pastel-ish hues. Never thought I?d replace my Shuffle with a Nano. If they make a Shuffle with the Nike+ components I?ll likely go back to that.
I hope they don?t. As long as Apple is going to include those cartilage ripping earbuds I want them to be as cheap as possible so I can better afford good headphones.
The new Nano does not have built in Nike+. It has a pedometer function that works by using accelerometer data. If you want Nike+ features, you still need to use the same old receiver plugged into the dock connector that you've always used.
That's one more thing the Touch has that beats the Nano.
The presence of the accelerometer in the Nano also points to accelerometer-based games, of course.
SNIP! why no iPod Touch review
Dave
What's there to review the iPod Touch 3G about? It's just a speed bump and that's all. Nothing else changed after all. And the speed bump should be equal to that of the 3GS.
Hopefully Melgross (or someone else with prior experience) can shed some light on the anodizing.
There are some negatives about this anodized coating like cracking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodizi...ized_aluminium
Have a read more about this. Hope it helps you.
What's there to review the iPod Touch 3G about? It's just a speed bump and that's all. Nothing else changed after all. And the speed bump should be equal to that of the 3GS.
According to the iFixit teardown the CPU model number is slightly higher than in the 3GS. There is also a history of Apple using a higher clock speed on the Touch than in the iPhone, not to mention that it is not constantly running phone related processes, so I wouldn?t be surprised if that Touch outperforms the iPhone in various tests. Less likely, but perhaps a more powerful GPU since they are advertising it as a gaming device.
The new Nano does not have built in Nike+. It has a pedometer function that works by using accelerometer data. If you want Nike+ features, you still need to use the same old receiver plugged into the dock connector that you've always used.
That's one more thing the Touch has that beats the Nano.
The presence of the accelerometer in the Nano also points to accelerometer-based games, of course.
That's nice. But I highly doubt Apple's custom games will make it accelerometer-fun, unless they change the default games. Otherwise, this would have to mean an app store and that is not possible.
surely the camera positioning is due to the screen?
could they fit the camera behind the screen and keep the nano at the same thickness (or thinness)?
Correct - at last someone with common sense.
There is clearly not enough room behind the screen to hold the depth of the camera.
There is also an error in the review. It states that (PRODUCT) Red and Orange are only available from the Apple Store, actually it is (PRODUCT) Red and Yellow.
Personally, I am more interested in the new FM radio feature
Me too, if they've got it right it'd be the reason I'd buy one to use at work instead of my phone/iPod Touch combo.
The demo pictures have it showing the station, track and artist that's playing - does the radio have RDS? Is RDS used in the US now, I thought it was pretty much Europe-only.
If there's no RDS, how does it identify the station, track and artist?
Alan.
People adapt. No one is going to throw it away cause they can't keep their thumb out of the shot.
Just hold the nano upside down and **poof** the camera lens is in the top corner. Now get a good grip on it. Use your thumb to take the picture (or the pointer finger of your other hand if you are old.) Clean off the ipod screen if you have dirty hands, download the picture to your computer, flip it over, and post it to your facebook.
I skimmed this review looking for the sound quality appraisal. Didn't find it.
If fail to see this concern. What makes you worry that the sound quality might have worsened compared to the past? And, if there was going to be an improved quality of sound, how/why would that happen?
It's an iPod which was invented to listen to MUSIC . How the music sounds is completely missing from this review .
I could care less how the video recording sounds or a voice memo.
with my Sennheiser 595 Headphones this new nano matches almost any thing on the market and beats almost all on the market ,
,bbbbbecause its the speakers that deliver the sound dude .,and Sennheiser Headphones 595's are worlds best
with my Sennheiser 595 Headphones this new nano matches almost any thing on the market and beats almost all on the market ,
,bbbbbecause its the speakers that deliver the sound dude .,and Sennheiser Headphones 595's are worlds best
Yo Bruce! While it is the speakers that create the sound, the other parts of the device can affect the quality of the audio before it gets to the speakers.
Basically you have the data (represented as 1s and 0s, followed by the Digital-to-Audio Convertor (DAC), followed by a low-pass filter, followed by an amplifier, followed by the speaker.
[CENTER]Data » DAC » Filter » Amp » Speaker[/CENTER]
Then you’ve got harmonic tones, inharmonic complex tones, sine waves, noise, sampling rates (44,100s/s), amplitudes, frequencies and signal-to-quantization noise-ratio (SQNR).
I’d be lying if I said I understood what all these means and if I had the slightest idea how to do the math, but it’s all pretty complex stuff where even cheap speakers can pick up distortions if cheap components are used in the device. iLounge has stated that even the newly remastered Beatles sound great with $1,300 headphones on the new Nano and other iPods so that should appease any audiophiles out there.