Filed under: iPod Family
New iPod classic has "badly engineered" audio circuitry?
Continuing our theme today of possible problems with the new iPods, now it's the classic's turn. Personally, I doubt could hear the difference but there seems to be a number of people who think the new 6G iPod classic sounds noticeably worse than the 5.5G iPod that it replaced. In the words of Marc Heijligers the new iPod classic "sounds precise, crisp, but lacks 3D image and has an electronic haze to the sound... [which] becomes fatiguing after a while. The 5G sounds less precise, but its timbre contains more harmonic information and sounds less electronic." To back up these "golden ear" impressions Marc ran a bunch of tests comparing the 5.5G iPod and the new classic and has posted his results. His conclusion is that the 6G iPod Classic displays:- A slight uplift in treble.
- A group delay that depends on frequency.
- A strong modulation with 22.1k, causing intermodulation distortion.
[via Infinite Loop]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Carl Trimble said 3:07PM on 9-17-2007
The demise of apple is upon us. So sad. I worked so hard to keep windows people from finding out about the greatness that is apple.
Reply
GM said 3:10PM on 9-17-2007
...and in other news, some guy in Germany who can hear things only dogs can hear is reporting that the new iPods are falling short in certain high frequency ranges... so buyers beware...
Reply
jus10 said 3:15PM on 9-17-2007
Does this affect the new Nano as well? I've read on other sites the ipod touch is still using the wolfsen but I'm wondering what is my much lusted after nano has in it.
Of course, if the Nano has the crumby chip I could be motivated to get a touch after Erica and company have unlocked it :).
Reply
CBreen said 3:20PM on 9-17-2007
Note that while Marc's impressions have received wide play on the Web, less attention has been paid to the reaction from those knowledgeable people who have examined his results. Specifically, many of the forum visitors on Head-Fi (http://www.head-fi.org) believe that you would be unable to detect this "audio abnormalities" with the naked ear.
Vinnie at Red Wine Audio (http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html), the guy responsible for the iMod iPod audiophile iPod upgrades, claims the iPod classic has some of the best sound he's heard from an iPod.
So, grain of salt.
Reply
J said 7:30AM on 12-01-2007
"Vinnie at Red Wine Audio (http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html), the guy responsible for the iMod iPod audiophile iPod upgrades, claims the iPod classic has some of the best sound he's heard from an iPod."
I didn't see any mention of it on that page. All I read was "What you may not know is that that the 4th and 5th generation iPods use a very high-quality internal Wolfson Microelectronics DAC (Wolfson DACs are used in quite a few high-end home audio CD players)." Of course, the 6Gs use a different chip.
Some people claim they can tell a difference, others say only dogs can tell. I did the mosquito test and could hear it, and am a slight audiophile, so maybe I'm one of the people who would notice. I think I'll play it safe and look for a 5.5G iPod, hopefully discounted.
James Cummings said 3:24PM on 9-17-2007
Ah, OK, but it's just a portable music player. Who ever considered it a serious competitor to high-end music in the first place?
Reply
wei said 3:23PM on 9-17-2007
I have an ipod touch, which supposedly has the same audio issues as the 6G classic. But so far, for the life of me, i can't tell the difference between it and my 4G ipod. I'm using higher quality headphones and generally am very picky about audio quality. I encode everything at 192 kbps.. But, I can't tell a difference. Then again, my hearing isn't that great, as I can't hear that mosquito noise that made its rounds on the web, which is a high frequency sound. So I'm probably not the greatest judge. I'll have to give them a side-by-side comparison tonight. But I'm guessing the majority of consumers won't notice it at all. And the rest of us are more worried about the crappy LCD screens shipping on the touch, right now.
Reply
Big John said 4:52PM on 9-17-2007
Whatever. Audiophiles, the iPod is not your friend. This is obvious since it is primarily a MP3 player. Yes, it supports lossless. Big whoop. You kids are used to paying $800 for a pair of cans anyway... why the hell would you plug them into a $2-500 device?
For what it's worth, I noticed no difference between my 5.5G iPod video and the fatty nano I bought my girlfriend. I opened it to load it with some of her favorite music and gave it a listen. I certainly didn't notice my ears being assaulted. I have an iPod touch on pre-order so we'll see how that one turns out.
Reply
Quix said 3:37PM on 9-17-2007
Good news for me, as I procrastinated selling my iPod 80g when I bought my iPhone and then watched the value of my iPod plummet with the 6G announcement.
Looks like I am the owner of the iPod Audiophile Edition. Let the bidding begin!
Reply
Aron Trimble said 3:40PM on 9-17-2007
Neigh! Another Trimble frequents the TUAW pastures!
Reply
Billy K said 3:52PM on 9-17-2007
I noticed the difference the first time I fired up my Classic, but I assumed my mind and ears were playing tricks on me. Still, songs I knew very well just sounded...different. There *is* more treble and noticeably more definition. There is definitely less..."presence."
I hate these threads where random dudes pop up and declare themselves "audiophiles." So let me say clearly - I am not an audiophile. I do have fairly well-trained ears, though. My point is, Joe iPod may not hear these things. "Grain of salt," indeed.
I'm not gonna cry a river over this. Truth is, the audio quality gets lousier as the chips get smaller in each version of the iPod. Searching for the perfect audiophile experience (especially with a portable digital device) is a fool's errand.
P.S. If all these very, very sensitive music-listeners are really upset, I'd recommend they go back to the 3rd gen iPod, 1st gen mini and 1st gen shuffle. I've read many pieces declaring them the best-sounding of all the iPods. Having owned one of most models since the 3G, I'd agree. In fact, I have a nice 3rd gen I'll sell to you at an Audiophile Discount - $8,000. I mean, come on - that's what audiophiles pay for slipmats these days!
Reply
punkassjim said 3:58PM on 9-17-2007
...mmmmmm, good cans.....
Anyway, I'm with James. I think it's really silly to see a true audiophile pick apart the audio quality of an iPod in comparison to that of an older iPod. "See here, this mud puddle is slightly more grimy than that other mud puddle."
I'm lucky, tinnitus took over years ago. Equal joy from any player.
Reply
Whiplash said 4:13PM on 9-17-2007
I don't know man.... if all he's got to complain about is some "intermodulation distortion with a 22.1kHz component".... I'd say we have a darn good player in our hands. I don't think this "defect" is going to be very audible in the new Atreyu album I just bought anyway.
Reply
Tush said 4:38PM on 9-17-2007
My old-school Creative Zen Xtra gets far better sound quality than the iPod lineup...
I don't think it's ridiculous for people to expect good sound quality from something that one spends hundreds of dollars to produce SOUND.
Reply
sworth said 5:36PM on 9-17-2007
A decibel is by definition the smallest increment in volume that you can discern with human ears. A .1-.2 dB rise is completely inaudible. Not only that, but the frequencies that this guy measured the rise in (10kHz-20kHz) isn't the treble range. It's the upper harmonics. It's important to have them there, but compared to the frequencies below them in the fundamental range, they're insignificant to the sound quality.
So what's being reported here? An inaudible rise in the least important frequencies in the spectrum. The blather about "electronic haze" and "fatiguing sound" is meaningless. The charts on the linked page shows a player with remarkably good frequency response, not one that has poor response.
See ya
Steve
Reply
Marc said 5:08PM on 9-17-2007
I just find it amazing how many 5.5g owners have a new 6g :)
Apart from the latest thing, and capacity I can't see a reason to upgrade - unless you've had your 5.5g for long enough that the battery has died. I think I'll wait for 7g, mine 5.5 still going strong. The I had iPod before was a 1st gen, so you can see I keep them for a while :)
Reply
Billy K said 5:35PM on 9-17-2007
Marc,
I was a 5g (not 5.5) owner, and had to really reign myself in to not upgrade that point five version. Plus I never liked a lot of the UI on the 5/5.5 gen. - particularly how the type went ALLLLlllll the way across the screen. I'm not sure if I like the new way, but they definitely addressed that particular problem. (Truth be told, I still like the black and white 3G/4G interface best).
Anyway, that's my .02 why I upgraded. Still wondering if I did the right thing. Aside from the capacity, I prefer the plastic look of the 5/5.5. I thought brushed aluminum was out of my life forever...
Reply
Mike said 6:12PM on 9-17-2007
In other news the Microsoft Zune has sold its 100,00 0 player. Hopes are so high at Microsoft that upon "hearing" the degraded sound in Apple's new iPods, MS is targeting the ever growing dog demographic. Balmer is quoted as saying, "We at MS want all sounds coming through our magnificent Zune MP3 players to be heard loud and clear!"
Reply
Aaron Gyes said 6:13PM on 9-17-2007
That is not the definition of a decibel, Steve.
You can easily hear a less-than-1.0 decibel change in certain frequencies. Just find something of yours with a equalizer and play with the knobs.
Reply
William Donelson said 7:02PM on 9-17-2007
Once again, the Marketing Department rushes out products BEFORE the engineers say they are ready.
So, what else is new in Silicon Valley ?
Reply