iPod Classic...superior to iPod Touch?

[equippedbum]

I've heard that iPod Classic's are better for listening to music, than the newer iPod Touch.

Is there any truth to this?

[TheSLSAMG]

Well, it has more internal storage, the main focus is music listening and it supposedly has a better amp. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[Pugs501]

Depends...

"Define" Superior 

[rambi36]

More storage and can drive more expensive headphones that are beyond 50 ohms I guess..

It's a shame apple stopped selling it

[Sousuke]

Yep stopped selling them when they started selling the iPhone 6

[ERSCreeper]

Well since I have both I can do some testing if you want? Classic 80GB and Touch 4th gen.

 

Just need to charge the old girl up.

 

I will be using HD 558's for testing and this song: 

[Guest]

Yeah! iPod classic was great! If you listen to a lot of hifi music, the classic is so much better because of how much more space it had. I could fill my iPod touch up with only a few albums if they were 24 bit lossless.

[ERSCreeper]

To be honest here. I just did the testing and here are the results

 

The iPod classic and the iPod touch 4th gen both put out equal quality but what I did notice the classic did a better job at bringing the pecks down smoother than the touch. Also the touch can go a good 20% louder than my classic.

 

IMHO I can't tell the difference between the two, also if you are using cheap earbuds or on-ears then you won't get a great experience anyway.

[ShearMe]

Battery life should be better on the Classic, right? That'd be the biggest factor in my mind.

[BoredErica]

Creatip once told me that some of the latest iPhones have settings built in to preserve battery life, including a very gimped amp. i've never tested it myself.

[creatip123]

Creatip once told me that some of the latest iPhones have settings built in to preserve battery life, including a very gimped amp. i've never tested it myself.

 

The preserving protocol I was talking about was from the bottom connector (30 pin or lightning), limited by the IOS. Got my source from here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1109164

 

I think the Ipod touch actually got bigger capacity battery than the classic.

- Thick classic's battery is 850mAh https://www.ifixit.com/Store/iPod/iPod-Video-60-80-GB-Replacement-Battery/IF195-028

- Touch 4th gen's battery is 930mAh http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/37552/anyone-knows-how-many-mah-in-ipod-touch-4th-generation-battery

 

It's just the touch got far more complex features and functions that drains battery faster than the classics

[Kevinkt]

Yeah! iPod classic was great! If you listen to a lot of hifi music, the classic is so much better because of how much more space it had. I could fill my iPod touch up with only a few albums if they were 24 bit lossless.

there almost no point in putting 24bit lossless music on an ipod/phone. most people can't tell the diff betwin 16/44 and mp3 let alone 24/xx/xxx sample rate. I know I can't. I can tell the music is not the same from the mix on HDtrack music/"vinyl 24bit" audio. That's all that's really going on to make you think it's better on an ipod

[creatip123]

there almost no point in putting 24bit lossless music on an ipod/phone. most people can't tell the diff betwin 16/44 and mp3 let alone 24/xx/xxx sample rate. I know I can't. I can tell the music is not the same from the mix on HDtrack music/"vinyl 24bit" audio. That's all that's really going on to make you think it's better on an ipod

 

Just to add, if it's used straight up (plugged in to the audio jack) then there's absolutely no use at all, because the built-in audio jack of the idevices can only go as far as CD quality, which is 16/44.1

 

 

Apps such as VLC for iOS and Onkyo HF Player can play high-resolution files, but there’s a catch: What you can hear on your iOS device is limited by its headphone jack, which is capable of reproducing only CD quality (16-bit, 44.1kHz). Even AirPlay is limited to CD-quality audio (although it can handle 24-bit and 48kHz for video).

 

To be able to get the full hi-definition audio files, one needs to use an external DAC to extract the digital audio data straight from the idevices. And yeah, then there's that problem of whether or not you can hear any differences between a standard 16/44.1 and a high-def audio sound.

[Kevinkt]

Just to add, if it's used straight up (plugged in to the audio jack) then there's absolutely no use at all, because the built-in audio jack of the idevices can only go as far as CD quality, which is 16/44.1

 

 

To be able to get the full hi-definition audio files, one needs to use an external DAC to extract the digital audio data straight from the idevices. And yeah, then there's that problem of whether or not you can hear any differences between a standard 16/44.1 and a high-def audio sound.

I'm pretty sure the LG G2 is the only phone/none high priced moble player that can output 24/192 anyways. Even with a G2 I can't hear the "hi-fi" sound. it's more of a master/mix change to "hi-fi/hd" audio that makes it sound "better"

[BoredErica]

there almost no point in putting 24bit lossless music on an ipod/phone. most people can't tell the diff betwin 16/44 and mp3 let alone 24/xx/xxx sample rate. I know I can't. I can tell the music is not the same from the mix on HDtrack music/"vinyl 24bit" audio. That's all that's really going on to make you think it's better on an ipod

You're being too generous. Literally nobody can tell the difference between 16bit vs 24bit, and more like 99% of people cannot hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac. What's even funnier is than many audiofeelz claim to hear a difference yet their gear cannot perform at 24bits technically. Or they are listening to "24bit flac on Youtube" which is hilarious. 24bit gives you lower noise floor, that's it. If you're hearing anything else you're automatically hearing your own placebo. I'm beating a dead horse here. Blind hearing tests have been pulling audiofeelz placebofilez back down to earth ever since they've existed and audiofeelz placebofiles have been excusing themselves from such a test since they started getting scared.

 

There is no way in hell a little phone is going to play at true 24bit performance, there is no way. Even my venerated Odac cannot come close. Oh, and vinyl rips isn't an argument because that can be converted into 16bit lossless formats for archiving purpose while still being audibly transparent.

 

For 99% of the population as demonstrated by tightly controlled listening tests, 16bit 320kbps MP3 is all anybody needs with any setup to reach audible transparency. ESPECIALLY on the go with a crappy earphone and a cell phone as the source with outside noise. Ohhh, I can hear dynamic ranges that isn't possible in an anechoic chamber, and I can hear it outside on the street with my <24bit performing cell phone with outside noise leaking into my music!

 

As I said, dead horse. The weak amp/dac on a cell phone is going to be actually a factor in your sound quality (and also very important is whether outside noise can leak in which happens even with in-ears). And final disclaimer, such angry feelz I have is aimed towards people who believe 24bit makes a difference. You can put 24bit on your cell phone, recognize you can't hear a difference, but not care. That's different.

[Guest]

You're being too generous. Literally nobody can tell the difference between 16bit vs 24bit, and more like 99% of people cannot hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac. What's even funnier is than many audiofeelz claim to hear a difference yet their gear cannot perform at 24bits technically. Or they are listening to "24bit flac on Youtube" which is hilarious. 24bit gives you lower noise floor, that's it. If you're hearing anything else you're automatically hearing your own placebo. I'm beating a dead horse here. Blind hearing tests have been pulling audiofeelz placebofilez back down to earth ever since they've existed and audiofeelz placebofiles have been excusing themselves from such a test since they started getting scared.

 

There is no way in hell a little phone is going to play at true 24bit performance, there is no way. Even my venerated Odac cannot come close. Oh, and vinyl rips isn't an argument because that can be converted into 16bit lossless formats for archiving purpose while still being audibly transparent.

 

For 99% of the population as demonstrated by tightly controlled listening tests, 16bit 320kbps MP3 is all anybody needs with any setup to reach audible transparency. ESPECIALLY on the go with a crappy earphone and a cell phone as the source with outside noise. Ohhh, I can hear dynamic ranges that isn't possible in an anechoic chamber, and I can hear it outside on the street with my <24bit performing cell phone with outside noise leaking into my music!

 

As I said, dead horse. The weak amp/dac on a cell phone is going to be actually a factor in your sound quality (and also very important is whether outside noise can leak in which happens even with in-ears). And final disclaimer, such angry feelz I have is aimed towards people who believe 24bit makes a difference. You can put 24bit on your cell phone, recognize you can't hear a difference, but not care. That's different.

Its true a lot of people think they can hear a difference but can't or download bad transcodes thinking they are getting something better, but that's not me. I get all my 24 bit lossless music from What.CD and I personally check a spectrogram of each track to be sure I'm getting 24/96 audio. As for being able to hear the difference, in double blind tests (using the plug in for Foobar2000) I can hear the difference around 95% of the time between 16 bit lossless and 24 bit (I'll admit I struggle with some rock and hip hop). When it comes to playing off an iPod, I always would plug into the 30 pin so I could listen to it over my cars sound system. If you have good audio equipment, a good ear, and are downloading good rips from a reliable source, the difference can be night and day.

[jalex3]

As a pure music device it is better.  The 30pin wore out on mine years ago, it was a great device though.

[BoredErica]

Its true a lot of people think they can hear a difference but can't or download bad transcodes thinking they are getting something better, but that's not me. I get all my 24 bit lossless music from What.CD and I personally check a spectrogram of each track to be sure I'm getting 24/96 audio. As for being able to hear the difference, in double blind tests (using the plug in for Foobar2000) I can hear the difference around 95% of the time between 16 bit lossless and 24 bit (I'll admit I struggle with some rock and hip hop). When it comes to playing off an iPod, I always would plug into the 30 pin so I could listen to it over my cars sound system. If you have good audio equipment, a good ear, and are downloading good rips from a reliable source, the difference can be night and day.

You're confusing bit depth and different masters. Take a 24bit file and convert it down to 16bit. Your ears don't defy science, and if they do you're going to be a millionaire soon. You're not being any more reasonable by saying "you might struggle in some genres". It's typically people who don't understand what is actually different between 24bit vs 16bit that claim to hear differences.

[creatip123]

You're confusing bit depth and different masters. Take a 24bit file and convert it down to 16bit. Your ears don't defy science, and if they do you're going to be a millionaire soon. You're not being any more reasonable by saying "you might struggle in some genres". It's typically people who don't understand what is actually different between 24bit vs 16bit that claim to hear differences.

 

This is not aimed to you, but to those who like to know a bit more about the concept of 'hi-def' sound: http://discover.store.sony.com/High-Resolution-Audio/

 

Left: analog master data, middle: 16bit/44.1kHz, right: 24bit/192kHz

 

When presented in diagrams, it's very much different (middle vs right), but in reality, it's very hard to tell them apart, providing the analog mastering is already good to begin with. 

 

Not saying that absolutely nobody could tell them apart. I believe there exist some people out there who can tell them apart, but the population of that kind of people is 1% out of 1% out of the entire population. 

 

There is an exception though, the DSD (direct stream digital) format, which is only 1 bit, but insanely high sampling rate, 2,8MHz or 5,6MHz. I've heard the comparison of the (good mastered) Thriller by MJ, 1 in DSD, and the other in downsampled MP3. Truly an ears opener, the DSD one....

[BoredErica]

This is not aimed to you, but to those who like to know a bit more about the concept of 'hi-def' sound: http://discover.store.sony.com/High-Resolution-Audio/

 

Left: analog master data, middle: 16bit/44.1kHz, right: 24bit/192kHz

 

When presented in diagrams, it's very much different (middle vs right), but in reality, it's very hard to tell them apart, providing the analog mastering is already good to begin with. 

 

Not saying that absolutely nobody could tell them apart. I believe there exist some people out there who can tell them apart, but the population of that kind of people is 1% out of 1% out of the entire population. 

 

There is an exception though, the DSD (direct stream digital) format, which is only 1 bit, but insanely high sampling rate, 2,8MHz or 5,6MHz. I've heard the comparison of the (good mastered) Thriller by MJ, 1 in DSD, and the other in downsampled MP3. Truly an ears opener, the DSD one....

The stairstep graph is misleading and doesn't mean anything. In reality it gets converted into a perfect waveform per Nyquist Theorem. The only audio quality improvement in 24bit is the lower noise floor which is far beyond what a human being can hear, especially if they're not listening in an anechoic chamber. However, for producing music 24bit is nice for digitally increasing and decreasing effects in a track while still not hitting any audible noise floor, so you can go crazy with the effects and not have to worry.

[creatip123]

The stairstep graph is misleading and doesn't mean anything. In reality it gets converted into a perfect waveform per Nyquist Theorem. The only audio quality improvement in 24bit is the lower noise floor which is far beyond what a human being can hear, especially if they're not listening in an anechoic chamber. However, for producing music 24bit is nice for digitally increasing and decreasing effects in a track while still not hitting any audible noise floor, so you can go crazy with the effects and not have to worry.

 

Well, the simple analogy about the staircase graphs would be graphic EQs, with the left one is the perfect curve it's intended to be, the middle graph being 10 bands EQ representation, and the right graph being 24 bands EQ representation, over the same frequency range, of course. In reality they both get converted into a smooth waveform of EQ. Just a matter of which one would represent the intended curve more accurately. Again, whether or not anybody could hear any difference depends on each individuals. Like EQ, most can't hear the difference of EQ-ing 15 bands vs 30 bands, for example, but the possibility is still there (even 0.1% is not absolute 0)

[BoredErica]

Well, the simple analogy about the staircase graphs would be graphic EQs, with the left one is the perfect curve it's intended to be, the middle graph being 10 bands EQ representation, and the right graph being 24 bands EQ representation, over the same frequency range, of course. In reality they both get converted into a smooth waveform of EQ. Just a matter of which one would represent the intended curve more accurately. Again, whether or not anybody could hear any difference depends on each individuals. Like EQ, most can't hear the difference of EQ-ing 15 bands vs 30 bands, for example, but the possibility is still there (even 0.1% is not absolute 0)

Again: Nyquist's Theorem. 

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

There's a section dedicated to the "stair-case" argument. This is not a case of MP3 vs FLAC where a small minority can hear a difference. In this case it's more like comparing FLAC to Wav.

[creatip123]

Again: Nyquist's Theorem. 

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

There's a section dedicated to the "stair-case" argument. This is not a case of MP3 vs FLAC where a small minority can hear a difference. In this case it's more like comparing FLAC to Wav.

 

Yeah, that's what I say, 1% out of 1% of the population, in my first post, and 0.1%, in my 2nd post. Imaginary numbers, of course. In reality, yeah, never met, or heard any people who can consistently tell the differences apart, but still keeping an open mind. 

 

The sampling rate actually represents how many 'gaps' of sounds between a defined time. Analog should have no gaps at all. Lower rate means more gaps, higher rate means less gaps. And of course the context is in milliseconds, if not microseconds. Our brain is smart enough to fill those gaps with the missing data. There's a video in YT explaining there's a possibility (possibility, not absolute) that our brain become fatigue from filling the gaps for a long time. I'd imagine this would happen to people who are already used to listening to analog sources, and started hearing digital for the first time. That guy most probably won't hear the difference, but feel a bit fatigued after some time. 

[BoredErica]

Yeah, that's what I say, 1% out of 1% of the population, in my first post, and 0.1%, in my 2nd post. Imaginary numbers, of course. In reality, yeah, never met, or heard any people who can consistently tell the differences apart, but still keeping an open mind. 

 

The sampling rate actually represents how many 'gaps' of sounds between a defined time. Analog should have no gaps at all. Lower rate means more gaps, higher rate means less gaps. And of course the context is in milliseconds, if not microseconds. Our brain is smart enough to fill those gaps with the missing data. There's a video in YT explaining there's a possibility (possibility, not absolute) that our brain become fatigue from filling the gaps for a long time. I'd imagine this would happen to people who are already used to listening to analog sources, and started hearing digital for the first time. That guy most probably won't hear the difference, but feel a bit fatigued after some time. 

 

 

The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. Some things are so extreme it's a waste of time to ponder when the next genetic freak will be born to prove me wrong. If you take this to HA or Sound Science on Headfi a hundred people will gladly try to disprove your point. There's even a 124paged thread smackdown about this topic. I'm being very serious here. Make a thread on HA where you argue that some people can hear the difference based on the reasons you've described, I want to see how they decide to respond. We'll both learn something too. 

 

When people tell me something as simple as a cable can upgrade sound or that they can hear 16 vs 24bit differences in a proper test, I laugh my ass off. While we're at it, some people are psychics, some people can see gamma rays and hear 50khz and thus negating the accepted 44.1khz sample rate, you just gotta have an open mind! Burden of proof is not on me.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to find my ass now. 

[ShearMe]

The sampling rate actually represents how many 'gaps' of sounds between a defined time. Analog should have no gaps at all. Lower rate means more gaps, higher rate means less gaps. And of course the context is in milliseconds, if not microseconds. Our brain is smart enough to fill those gaps with the missing data. There's a video in YT explaining there's a possibility (possibility, not absolute) that our brain become fatigue from filling the gaps for a long time. I'd imagine this would happen to people who are already used to listening to analog sources, and started hearing digital for the first time. That guy most probably won't hear the difference, but feel a bit fatigued after some time. 

 

There's no gaps. Stairsteps do not happen. This isn't something to keep an open mind about.

 

First of all, using stair steps is an improper way to draw the graph of a sample. This is the correct way:

 

Secondly, even if there were stair steps in the signal, it's impossible for you to listen to digital audio anyways. Once that file gets put through a DAC, it IS analog. 

 

please please please, watch xiph.org's video: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml