In our recentreview of the second - coevals iPod shuffleI offered the observation that the late version of the shuffling was noisy than both its predecessor and the iPod ’s larger siblings , the 2 1000 nano and 5 G iPod . I also remarked that the 2 G shuffle lack the basso definition that I find out from my gamey 4 GB 2 G iPod nano .
And I got a small measure of mail on the subject .
The most critical of which ran along the lines of “ I ’m not certain what ’s untimely with your spike , bub , but mine sounds just okay . You in all likelihood just beget a bad one . ”
Which prompts me to respond :
Prior to post the review , Dan and I conferred over the phone and I require him to give his shambling a whirl ( he ’d just return from the latest MacMania cruise and had n’t had a luck to reveal them yet ) , keeping an auricle out for any audio anomaly . Here ’s his response :
“ I tried the new shambling vs. the original shambling with a variety of headphones ( primarily Ultimate Ears ’ new triple.fi 10 Pro ) . I heard a disappointing amount of background knowledge interference with the 2 G ; on the same track , the 1 G was virtually silent . Granted , the Ultimate Ears canalphones are very sensitive .
I also tested the bass part response of the two shuffles for you using trial tone . Both begin to roll off just above 60Hz , but the 2 G rolls off much faster : by 50 Hz , the 2 G ’s bass is hardly hearable , and there ’s nothing at 40Hz ; the 1 universal gravitational constant shuffle , in line , reaches those same thresholds around 40Hz and ~32Hz , severally . In other words , the two are fairly like down to 60Hz or so , but the 1 M has better extension . ”
Tooling around the Web I found others whose thought I value — includingiLounge , Macintouch , and some participants inApple ’s Discussion Forums — agree . Some people hear noise from their 2 G shuffles .
And some do n’t . While it ’s potential that there are indeed “ beneficial ” and “ big ” 2 GiB shuffles out there , it ’s more likely that those with the “ good ” shuffling simply ca n’t hear the noise — or do n’t see enough of it for it to be a distraction . This may be due to the headphones / Speaker they ’re using . In my tests the noise because more apparent when I used expensive headphones versus the original Apple earbuds that embark with the make .
And we ca n’t discount the acuteness of one ’s hearing . For model , Dan get the 2 G shamble ’s noise “ unsatisfying ” while I find it tolerable . ( After playing in tawdry rock bands for the better part of two decades I have no doubt that my ears are n’t nearly as acute as Dan’s — I’m well aware that I ’ve lose some of the top end of my audience . ) I make no judgements about either of us . I only recognize that we hear differently .
So , for the sake of debate , have ’s say the 2 gramme shuffling is noisier than its predecessor . How big a deal is this ?
For me , not much of one . It ’s a $ 79 piece of audio gear targeted at the alive exploiter — one who ’s give-up the ghost to use the iPod in a noisy environment where any extraneous hiss will be dissemble by clanging barbells and swooshing streetcars . Yes , it stick a short that the previous cheap iPod sounded better to some people than this one , but get ’s maintain a little position . It ’s 79 freakin ’ dollars and it was n’t so terribly long ago that some of us were mind to “ high - quality ” portable and car - restrain cassette players that cost doubly as much and were 100 metre noisy .
tender to noise ? Demand the highest calibre from your audio train ? Grab your finest headphones and head down to the local Apple Store for an audition . Just postulate a tiny , cheap medicine player to submerge out your heaving breathing and poke heart during a biannual endurance contest ? The 2 G iPod shuffle will help you well .
