Expert’s Rating
Pros
Cons
Our Verdict
EDITOR ’S NOTE : Soon after this review ’s publication , Apple released a software update for the iPod . This update had enough impingement on the final military rank to guarantee an extra review , which you canfind here .
As of September 5 , 2007 , the full - sized iPod turn six ( as in sixth - generation ) and , because of the existence of the iPhone - likeiPod trace , was enunciate a classic — the iPod classic . Offering increase capacity , a thinner form factor , a full - metallic element inclosure , an enhance ( and sometimes sluggish ) interface , and incompatibility with some add-on that get along quite merrily with earlier iPod — in brusk , the high-pitched - capacity adaptation of the third - generation iPod nano — the iPod classic is primarily about size of it and store . If you desire to pack every speck of digital media you own into your pocket , this is Apple ’s best iPod option .
More storage for less money
On September 4th of this year , the gamey capacitance iPod you could buy was the 80 GB fifth - propagation ( 5 GiB ) iPod , sell for $ 349 . An iPod classic of the same capacity now give out for a C - note less—$249 , whether you prescribe the black or silver mannequin . For the previous 80 GB iPod ’s price , you may now double the storage capacity to 160 Gi , also available in black or silver .
The iPod classic get in two colors .
And that ’s largely the appeal of this iPod — not much money for a whole spate of capability . As pointed out by my colleague Dan Frakes in hisreview of the third - genesis iPod nano , that more petite iPod has the same feature as the classic . Yes , the iPod classic has a bigger blind at 2.5 - in ( measure diagonally ) versus the new nano ’s 2 - inch screen . And the classic ’s Click Wheel is magnanimous and all-encompassing ( and , thus , more manoeuvrable with large fingerbreadth ) . But otherwise , the two match feature for feature , including an port that sports slick nontextual matter in the first two layers of the screen pecking order ; thumbnail artwork of album and podcasts in list views ; more extensive info when see lists of songs and albums ; Cover Flow view ; three games ( thesamegames — whirl , Klondike , and iQuiz ) ; livelihood for nested playlists ; and polish add to a number of the iPod ’s extras , include Clocks , Calendars , Contacts , Alarms , Games , Screen Lock , and Stopwatch .
That leaves capacity — a differentiating component not to be sneezed at . Thanks to such influence as the iTunes Store , digital cameras , podcasts ( sound recording and TV ) , lossless audio files , and the gentle - does - it - tool that allow us to change DVDs and TV show to portable form , the capacious iPods of yore feel more and more cramp . The once - herald “ 1,000 Songs In Your sac ” just wo n’t cut it when your iTunes library contains six - digits - Charles Frederick Worth of tunes , three seasons of24 , every word murmured on a podcast host by Leo Laporte , and the entire Pixar oeuvre .
With such expansive libraries it ’s no longer a rare feat to exceed an 80 GB mental ability . And even if you do n’t have a huge medium depository library , you may give care so much about the timber of your recordings that you encode in an uncompressed or Apple Lossless format , both of which consume enceinte amounts of memory board . For those people , the 160 GB iPod classic makes a spate of sentiency .
Bigger (and better?)
The nano followup nicely described thenano and classic ’s interface change . That review also lists the items included in the box ( earbuds , dock connector cable , docking facility adapter , Quick Start usher , Apple stickers , and sundry paperwork ) . Rather than regurgitate those details , I ’ll outline the substantial differences between that more diminutive iPod and the iPod classic .
Capacity by , the independent difference is physical size of it , and yes , sizing matter . Although the newfangled iPod nano has a smart , nappy covert , the classic ’s redundant half - in of diagonal blind real - estate make a difference of opinion . After watching three hours of telecasting on my new iPod nano my center were muzzy . Attempting to read the lily-white caption that accompany the Korean dialog of the Jin and Sun characters in episodes ofLostwas a actual task .
Conversely , I could see that same three minute of video on the iPod classic without spending five minutes chop-chop blinking my optic in the Bob Hope that the world would come into better focus . It too has a nice burnished covert , though without the same pixel - density as the nano ; the classic propose 163 pixel per inch whereas the nano has 204 pixel per inch . As does the 3 G iPod nano , this iPod supports unsympathetic - caption television display on the iPod ’s screenland ( though no compatible videos are currently uncommitted ) . Given myLostexperience , I ’d be hard - pressed to catch a subtitled photographic film on the nano — I could wangle it with a classic , but it would n’t be an optimal showing experience . For the best showing in a portable package , I ’d select the iPod hint or an iPhone ( ) .
Do n’t get me wrong . The iPod nano face remarkably ripe . I ’m just aver that the iPod classic ’s video is easier on the eye when view for long periods of time — particularly when you ’re reading subtitle .
The classic ’s larger Click Wheel also make it easy to control — in particular when misrepresent it with one script . When “ spinning ” around the nano , I found that my ovolo occasionally slopped over to the Center button . This is n’t a bragging deal , unless you ’re essay to utilize the iPod ’s pop - up hunt feature . The bug out - up kick in when the iPod senses your mad spinning . When you slop to the nub , the pop - up charter longer to appear . I did n’t experience this with the classic as the Click Wheel is roomier .
The Feel Factor
The nano review also addressed the presence of record album nontextual matter on the iPod nano and how that tended to make the port on occasion slow . I found that effect to be even more marked on the iPod classic — perhaps because my 80 GB classic had to deal with more than 9,000 tracks - worth of artwork in addition to 26 goggle box shows and six pic . blink of an eye memory versus a hard parkway may also be a factor . Flash can deliver data more cursorily than a hard drive , which helps to explicate why the young nano is more responsive ( yet still just zippy ) .
There were time when I ’d retreat to the main screen by push the Menu portion of the Click Wheel , and the classic would pause while drawing the screen . It was as if the iPod needed a minuscule time to get its house in order before completing the project . Navigation was also affected . There were multiplication when I ’d attempt to scroll down through a fare and the user interface took a moment to respond . My80 GB 5 G iPod , in comparison , has never exhibit such languor and delays .
I sync this larger iPod without art and the delay ended . Regrettably , Cover Flow is nearly useless without album artwork and the iPod ’s interface far less attractive . While the iPod is still quite usable , owners of previous full - sized iPod models will likely feel these occasional interface quirk frustrating . My Bob Hope is that an iPod software update will deal with these emergence .
Speaking of Cover Flow , our nano review found itpoky — that ’s the instance with Cover Flow on the classic , too . I ’ll kick Cover Flow while it ’s down by also suggesting that when you have a destiny of albums salt away on your iPod — as you would with the iPod classic — it ’s not a good tool for navigating through a massive music assembling . The Click Wheel is n’t really made for the sort of hunky-dory tactile sensation you require to exactly move from screening to spread over . And it ’s hardly a prompt way to find one out of several hundred albums and then play a particular birdsong on that record album . I realise the concept of discovering music you ’ve bury you owned by descry an album cover as you zip through artwork , but gift that the classic is deadening to draw that artwork and it fill several button presses to finally get to the track you desire , Cover Flow feels like a whatchamacallum on this iPod . There are easier way to search and play your music .
Though it may seem a nonaged matter to some , I ’m please that Apple has finally fixed the display - deport iPod ’ Sleep / Off function . In the past I ’d often campaign and hold on the Click Wheel ’s Play / Pause button in an impotent effort to shut the thing off — and it did nothing . Both the 3 G iPod nano and iPod classic go to sleep after a brusk hold of the Play / interruption button .
The fury over sound
Whenever a new iPod framework hits the street , the audiophile biotic community has a field of battle day , praising or damning the iPod for its perceived audio assets or detriments . While I do n’t consider myself among the audio elite group , based on a serial of listening tests I do have a sense of how the classic sounds in equivalence to my 80 GB 5 G iPod .
I conduct three well-grounded mental test , which were configured this direction . For the first listening test I placed a 160 GB iPod classic in one Apple dock and an 80 GB 5 G iPod in another . I attach an audio cable to each dock ’s Line Out port and brought the cable length into an audio A / type B switcher via miniplug - to - RCA transmission line . I then tested the audio with four different bent of headphones , using the switcher ’s audio out port wine . Those headphone include Future Sonics ’ FS1 headphones regulate specifically for my ears , Etymotic ER-4P , Future Sonics ’ Atrio Series , and the earbuds that come with the iPod . In the 2nd listening trial I plugged the headphone ports of each iPod into the switcher and balanced the intensity of each iPod until I could n’t detect a change in volume when I switch between them . in the end , I plugged the once - again - dock - jump on iPod into my Denon receiver attached to a pair of B&W Speaker .
My test files included an ambient transcription of rainwater encoded in AAC at 128kbps ( the amount of lily-white disturbance in the recording well exposed groovy or lesser highs ) , an uncompressed AIFF solo forte-piano recording , The Finn Brothers ’ “ Wo n’t Give In ” purchase from the iTunes Store , and aniTunes Plusrecording of the Berlin Philharmonic playing the Brahms Requiem .
The poor story of my effect is this : There ’s not a vast audible difference between the two iPods ; however , while the better - timber earpiece more clearly showed the differences between the two iPods , those difference were apparent with each set of ’ earphone .
The turnout from the dockage - mounted 5 G iPod was a little raging ( flash ) than that of the iPod classic . With the ambient pelting file performing , switching between the two was like hear to the conflict between an excited and an ecstatic interview applauding — a discernible bump in mass . The 5 G also seemed a minute promising in the Finn Brothers psychometric test . The snare drum was more pronounced , though at the sentence , I attribute it to the increase volume from the 5G.
When I heed to each iPod through the iPod ’s headphone port , volume was n’t a broker as I ’d balanced them . Without volume being a gene , the difference between the two was more subtle . Again , the high seemed the tiniest number more evident on the 5 gram , but it was something I really had to listen for .
Once I moved the iPods to the Denon / B&W stereo it was really difficult to hear a difference except in output book . The classic seemed to have a slightly debauchee bass , but nothing jump out at me .
Scientific ? just . No one person ’s ears should be look on as the last tidings . Your mileage may variegate , but blindfold and take to tell the difference between that 160 GB classic and my 5 G iPod , I ’m not certain I could .
Accessory issues
At the risk of infection of repeating myself , the iPod nano review coversaccessory- and game - compatibility issues . Those issues are the same here .
If you ’ve purchase games for your 5 G iPod , you ’ll need to purchase fresh ones for the iPod classic . The older plot are not compatible with the new iPods and Apple is n’t currently offering a barter - up program .
Video out on the iPod classic is supported only through the dock connector . I ’ve tested both the nano and classic with every accoutrement I own that supports picture out — include SendStation’sPocketDock AV , DLO’sHomeDock , SierraSound’s;iN Studio 5.0 speakers(with wharfage ) , Keyspan’sTuneView , XtremeMac ’s Tango portable loudspeaker , and a rendering of Apple ’s Universal Dock buy well over a year ago — and the single product among them that admit video out to exploit with these newfangled iPods is the Apple Universal Dock . ( Apple iPod docks that include S - Video ports butdon’tinclude an IR embrasure do n’t sustain video out on these unexampled iPods . )
Apple claim that video out works only with accessories that underpin the new iPods ’ “ enhance video recording capableness . ” As far as my accessory are relate that intend “ none save the single one made by Apple . ” It ’s potential that there ’s another shoe to drop — that these “ enhanced video capabilities ” hint that these iPods will eventually run video encode at greater resolutions and bitrates and that ’s why the circuitry had to alter ( and quondam accessories had to seize with teeth the rubble in terms of compatibility ) . But that ’s little balm to those who have purchased costly docks and car accessory specifically for the accessory ’ iPod - to - television capabilities .
Assault on batteries
As has become distinctive , Apple provides conservative assault and battery estimates for play times . Although I have n’t completed barrage tests ( because they take so darn long ) , I can say that the 80 GB iPod classic outgo Apple ’s estimation in a “ good shell ” audio electric battery test — one where I fill up the iPod with medicine , beseech gambol , and walked aside . Apple suggest this iPod will play audio frequency for 30 hour . My 80 GB iPod classic finally give up the ghost after 41 hours and five minutes of continuous audio play . CRT screen brightness and book were set in the middle positions and EQ and Sound Check were interchange off . We ’ll offer concluded stamp battery tests results for both the 80- and 160 GB iPod classic when those mental test are completed .
The lowdown
If capacity is your prime concern , the iPod classic is the one to own . But it ’s not flawless . Yes , the user interface is cunning and sometimes more helpful , but ultimately it ’s no easier to happen and play your euphony on this iPod than it is on a 5 G iPod . Given that the user interface adds more eye candy than functionality , it ’s a ruth that the implementation appears to slow the iPod down .
Those new to the iPod or trading up from the first duad of generations of iPods will undoubtedly find these quirks acceptable . The iPod classic will be a problematic call , however , for those 5 gm iPod owners who revalue their iPod ’s ability to send picture out through a third - party supplement . Paying a $ 49 “ picture tax ” in the form of an Apple - made composite- or part - video overseas telegram ( that include an AC charger ) could sting these individuals — enough that they may prefer to bewilder with the iPod they own .
