Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ (Read 6738 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

I have a 2nd generation iPod Shuffle, which objectively to me sounds awful. I've tried several sets of headphones, including some expensive Sennheisers.

I have just re-encoded several hundred CDs using Apple Lossless (which of course the Shuffle can't play without transcoding to 128Kb/s AAC - but even with 320Kb/s AAC it sounds "squashed flat"). I've got Apple Macs, so iPod/iTunes makes sense to me.

On a good day, I can tell the difference between lossless and 320Kb/s AAC  - I used to be a hi-fi enthusiast before I got kids - so I really want good sound quality. Most of my listening will be in a quiet room, with a pair of Sennheiser 580 Precisions.

The simple question is, does the 2G Nano sound any good?

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #2 –
According to some reviews (head on over to iLounge.com), the sound quality of both the 2G iPod nano and 5G/5.5G iPod are better than the 2G shuffle.  The shuffle just isn't meant for giving users high-end audio output, no iPod is.  How did they conduct their listening tests?  I don't know.  Did you listening tests conform to blind ABX standards?  I don't know.

The point is that there isn't a single portable audio player from Apple that gives "audiophile" quality.  You need to look to other players for that.  The sound quality does improve on the 2G iPod nanos though.  You have to keep in mind that the shuffle is a low-end player.  I don't think it sounds that bad at all for only $80.  Same with the iPod nanos, they may not sound the best but you can't really complain for $150.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #3 –
Amazingly, my 10-year old Sony MD walkman MZ-R30 kicks my 5.5G iPod's arse big time ...

IMO, the iPod's main problem is the output stage that can't drive either high-impedance headphones (overall volume too low) or low-impedance headphones (lack of bass due to the op amp not being able to deliver required current at lower impedances) ...

Talking subjective sound-quality, I shouldn't have sold my iRiver H-120 ... with Rockbox firmware, it was one hell of a juicy player
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #4 –
Quote from: JeanLuc on
Talking subjective sound-quality, I shouldn't have sold my iRiver H-120 ... with Rockbox firmware, it was one hell of a juicy player


http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/H120%20with...vs%20no_amp.htm
http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/Ipod5G.htm

While the h120 doesn't have quite the bass roll off, everything else is worse under load then the ipod 5G or Nano.  I'm not really sure I'd say its better.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #5 –
I bought an orange 2G shuffle to run with, and I can say that over the same earphones, the Shuffle sounds somewhat worse than my 5.5G iPod. There's a constant, low-level amplifier hiss and sometimes a very soft "whine" that can be heard during quiet passages. That said, I would not buy something like a Shuffle for serious listening - it's designed to be used "on the go," in environments where sound quality is not of paramount concern.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #6 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
The point is that there isn't a single portable audio player from Apple that gives "audiophile" quality.  You need to look to other players for that.  The sound quality does improve on the 2G iPod nanos though.  You have to keep in mind that the shuffle is a low-end player.  I don't think it sounds that bad at all for only $80.  Same with the iPod nanos, they may not sound the best but you can't really complain for $150.

I don't expect audiophile quality (although it would be nice). A flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20KHz will suffice

Like I said, on a good day I can tell the difference between AAC 320Kb/s and ALE, and that's using the sound output of a MacBook and a Denon UD-M31 (micro CD-receiver). The Denon is good, but the combination is definitely not audiophile. I take your point about the price - Shuffles and Nanos are they're definitely good value for money. Thing is, I don't want to buy a Nano and then be disappointed... and then buy a 30GB iPod and be disappointed with that too. My wife is not that understanding 

As a related question, are there any audiophile systems (portable or otherwise) that will play Apple Lossless?

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Dave Robinson on
As a related question, are there any audiophile systems (portable or otherwise) that will play Apple Lossless?


Not that I can think of, except you can get around this by buying an Apple TV, which plays Apple Lossless and has a TOSLINK output. I currently have one going into a Marantz digital amp - when using Apple Lossless, what goes into the amp would be exactly the same as plugging in my CD deck with a TOSLINK output. I'm not much for video, so the drive is full of music. The 33GB of usable space on the ATV's included 40GB drive holds about 100 CDs in lossless, and the setup is a lot cheaper than forking out $600+ for one of those Yamaha CDR-1000 decks that have a built-in hard drive for holding wav files. Once Apple fixes the stereo bug in their AAC encoder, I'll probably ditch the lossless for VBR AAC, which would be much smaller in terms of file size.

Does your Denon even have optical inputs? If not, you'd be better off buying a reasonably-priced receiver. That way, all you'd have to do is run an optical cable from your MacBook (which has optical ins/outs) to your amp - essentially the same thing as using a CD deck or ATV. As for portables...well, sound quality is a subjective thing. I find that my 5.5G ipod sounds perfectly fine over a pair of Grados.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/H120%20with...vs%20no_amp.htm
http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/Ipod5G.htm

While the h120 doesn't have quite the bass roll off, everything else is worse under load then the ipod 5G or Nano.  I'm not really sure I'd say its better.


And I'm not quite sure whether this is a fair comparison ... first of all, iRiver and iPod are compared with different sampling frequencies ... secondly, the testing chains are different. It would have been much better to test both devices with the very same method - playing back the RMAA test signals on both players at matched levels with the same testing equipment.

I must admit, that in my understanding, my subjective experience is based upon the fact that the iRiver features a much better EQ which allows user-defined settings, whereas the iPod's presets (all of them) are simply garbage to my ears.

Let's just assume for one minute that we can compare both testing methods ... when it comes to THD/IMD/SNR, the iPod (compared to the H-120) seems to be the better overall DAP ... but both devices' parameters are that low that, IMO, no one would really spot a difference. The iRiver's higher noise floor is indeed something I noticed during quite music passages, though ... 4 dB(A) can be audible under certain conditions.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper
 

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Cygnus X1 on
... you can get around this by buying an Apple TV, which plays Apple Lossless and has a TOSLINK output. I currently have one going into a Marantz digital amp - when using Apple Lossless, what goes into the amp would be exactly the same as plugging in my CD deck with a TOSLINK output. I'm not much for video, so the drive is full of music. The 33GB of usable space on the ATV's included 40GB drive holds about 100 CDs in lossless, and the setup is a lot cheaper than forking out $600+ for one of those Yamaha CDR-1000 decks that have a built-in hard drive for holding wav files. Once Apple fixes the stereo bug in their AAC encoder, I'll probably ditch the lossless for VBR AAC, which would be much smaller in terms of file size.

Does your Denon even have optical inputs? If not, you'd be better off buying a reasonably-priced receiver. That way, all you'd have to do is run an optical cable from your MacBook (which has optical ins/outs) to your amp - essentially the same thing as using a CD deck or ATV. As for portables...well, sound quality is a subjective thing. I find that my 5.5G ipod sounds perfectly fine over a pair of Grados.

I'd forgotten the MacBook has an optical out. Alas, my Denon doesn't have an optical in, but in the long term I plan to do something with streaming etc, so an Apple TV could be an option, maybe generation 2 with a 500GB disk

I've read the reviews on iLounge (didn't know it existed, so thanks whoever recommended it) and it seems that the Nano and the iPod 5G both sound a lot better than the 2G Shuffle. Think I'll take the risk and buy a 4GB Nano. I used to own a Rio Karma (till it broke), and I was very happy with the sound quality of that, so hopefully the Nano will be OK.

iPod Shuffle 2G vs. Nano 2G SQ

Reply #11 –
Quote from: JeanLuc on
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on


http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/H120%20with...vs%20no_amp.htm
http://www.duke.edu/~mgg6/rmaa/Ipod5G.htm

While the h120 doesn't have quite the bass roll off, everything else is worse under load then the ipod 5G or Nano.  I'm not really sure I'd say its better.


And I'm not quite sure whether this is a fair comparison ... first of all, iRiver and iPod are compared with different sampling frequencies ...


No they're not.  The ADCs are run at different sampling rates, which is irrelevant.

Quote from: JeanLuc on
secondly, the testing chains are different. It would have been much better to test both devices with the very same method - playing back the RMAA test signals on both players at matched levels with the same testing equipment.


I doubt it really matters.

Quote from: JeanLuc on
I must admit, that in my understanding, my subjective experience is based upon the fact that the iRiver features a much better EQ which allows user-defined settings, whereas the iPod's presets (all of them) are simply garbage to my ears.


Err, you said rockbox.  The Rockbox EQ is the same as the Rockbox EQ.  What the software EQ has to do with analog sound quality, I don't know.

Quote from: JeanLuc on
Let's just assume for one minute that we can compare both testing methods ... when it comes to THD/IMD/SNR, the iPod (compared to the H-120) seems to be the better overall DAP ... but both devices' parameters are that low that, IMO, no one would really spot a difference.


And yet you claimed there was a difference ...