OT - Apple iPod Nano

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:46 pm

I've had the EX51s for a couple of years now, and they are a great value at under $30 new on amazon. They tend to be a little bass heavy, but they are extremely comfortable to wear. I love the plug style headphones that seal out external noise, they are a must have for me since 90% of my listening is done on a noisy city bus. They also work great for mowing the lawn, I can barely hear the mower when wearing them, even if I'm listening to my music at a low volume. I've never tried the Shure or Etyomic headphones, not only because of the price but also because all of my music is 128 kbps AAC files. I'm worried that the higher quality buds are going to expose all of the flaws in the low bitrate rips.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:02 pm

HipE wrote:I've never tried the Shure or Etyomic headphones, not only because of the price but also because all of my music is 128 kbps AAC files. I'm worried that the higher quality buds are going to expose all of the flaws in the low bitrate rips.

That is true...you can definitely tell the difference between 128kbps and 192 and higher on the Shures. So it's a good choice to stick with the Sonys...which aren't bad headphones...just not quite as accurate as the Shures across the frequency spectrum.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:15 pm

DB, are the Shure's okay to use at the gym? I am always reluctant to spend a lot on gym headphones because I am the sweatiest guy at the healthclub. I've just been using the standard iPod headphones but they both sound like ass and don't stay in my ears well.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:24 pm

Yeah I like the Shures...they rarely fall out. The only time they do is when I pull them out somehow by catching it on equipment or something. They really stick in your ears well. Obviously everyone's ears are different so they may not work for you...but in my experience, they stay in better than the Sony's that HipE speaks highly of.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:55 pm

Hmm, one investment bank thinks the iPod nano will compete with X360 for Holiday dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/09/0 ... ets05.html

Guess for some teens buying with their own money, that could be true. But which one will more parents buy as gifts?

Apple should be able to produce more nanos than MS could produce X360s this Holiday season.

Of course, the nanos are on sale now while it will be about 2 more months before the X360s are on sale.

fatheadX · Post by **fatheadX** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:09 pm

Just got the Nano in the mail today, bought it for the wife. This thing is unreal! This is really the first time I've messed with an Ipod and I am so impressed with how slick the interface is. Granted, I'm still slogging along with my Archos Jukebox Recorder 20, so I'm behind the times, but I am blown away. I still haven't gotten much of a chance to listen to it as I'm fourth in line in this house, but from just a gadget standpoint, whoa. I am being pulled into the dark side...

CincyKid · Post by **CincyKid** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:55 pm

funny i was planning on grabbing one this weekend myself

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:58 pm

They certainly do look cool...it's too bad they can't hang when it comes to what's most important...sound quality. But you'll look cool.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:58 am

fatheadX wrote:Just got the Nano in the mail today, bought it for the wife. This thing is unreal! This is really the first time I've messed with an Ipod and I am so impressed with how slick the interface is. Granted, I'm still slogging along with my Archos Jukebox Recorder 20, so I'm behind the times, but I am blown away. I still haven't gotten much of a chance to listen to it as I'm fourth in line in this house, but from just a gadget standpoint, whoa. I am being pulled into the dark side...

As you guys play it, can you report how the battery is doing?

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:12 pm

Found out more info on the battery usage. It's 14 hours instead of the Mini's 18. And the Nano can't connect to your Mac or PC with a FireWire cable, as all previous iPods could (except the Shuffle). Instead, the Nano comes with a U.S.B. cable.

So if you don't have the USB 2.0 jack hooked up it may take longer to transfer songs between your computer and nano.

Some differences with the mini:

A new world clock shows you what time it is in several cities of your choice, complete with lap counter, is an enhancement which many joggers and gym members will enjoy.. You can aso lock Nano with a password now.

The Nano's headphone jack is on the bottom edge now.

Iriver, Sony, Dell, Samsung among others have tried to take a piece of the BIG pie from Mac but I think Nano just went skyroof.

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:52 am

Apple finally got me. This thing is just so sexy and small, finally makes me want to see what all the fuss is about.

Girl at work here has a friend who did a bulk-buy of these things. So I'm getting a 4GB for $240 total (includes taxes). That's canadian dollars.

Won't live up to the storage space on my Archos... but it is a hell of a lot smaller. Should be fun.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:23 am

James_E wrote:Apple finally got me. This thing is just so sexy and small, finally makes me want to see what all the fuss is about.

Don't get your hopes up...the Archos is a better player, regardless of the model. Their Jukeboxes were pretty damn good for their time and they hold up well. But you're right, they sure look cool...well until you touch it for a few minutes and it gets scratched and grimey. I still cannot believe they are going with polished aluminum and that scratch attracting plastic top.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:39 pm

Image is everything....

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:44 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
James_E wrote:Apple finally got me. This thing is just so sexy and small, finally makes me want to see what all the fuss is about.
Don't get your hopes up...the Archos is a better player, regardless of the model. Their Jukeboxes were pretty damn good for their time and they hold up well. But you're right, they sure look cool...well until you touch it for a few minutes and it gets scratched and grimey. I still cannot believe they are going with polished aluminum and that scratch attracting plastic top.

My jukebox is dying. It won't keep batteries charged at all. Tried 2 new sets of batteries and I get like 1 hour of battery life. Plus I've been wanting a flash based player.

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:46 pm

10spro wrote:Image is everything....

LOL

not for this 35 year old, married father of two, driving a minivan alot of the time. There's no image being upheld here. It just looks neat and I'd like a flash based player, and I want to try out the iPod line to see just what is so amazing about this UI that everyone raves about. The price is reasonable too.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:51 pm

What was the 6GB going for in CDN?

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:00 pm

10spro wrote:What was the 6GB going for in CDN?

Does the 6GB version even exist yet? Don't see it at the apple online store.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:11 pm

James_E wrote:
10spro wrote:What was the 6GB going for in CDN?
Does the 6GB version even exist yet? Don't see it at the apple online store.

I thought I saw in an add today. They were adverstising the 4 and 6GB. Anyone?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:16 pm

2 and 4 gig Nanos for now. The 6 will probably show up in November. Don't get your hopes up too high James...the sound quality will surely disappoint if you compare it to the Archos, which for it's time was damn fine. If you appreciate the size and the interface...then by all means...it's a fabulous device...other than that though, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not trying to totally diss the thing, but it really is disappointing from a performance standpoint because it is so damn neat to look at. I just don't want people to be suckered in by Apples marketing and the name brand.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:24 pm

Went to an Apple store and I tried the new Bose QC3 acoustic noise cancelling headphones. They are a trimmed version of the QC2, was impressed with the bass sound, although it's pricey: $350 US.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:37 pm

10spro wrote:Went to an Apple store and I tried the new Bose QC3 acoustic noise cancelling headphones. They are a trimmed version of the QC2, was impressed with the bass sound, although it's pricey: $350 US.

iLounge gave the QC3 a lower review than the QC2, which got one of their top ratings.

Reason is, because the QC2 doesn't cover the ear completely, it doesn't block out the background sound as well.

Not too fond of the Bose sound. I think I may check out some studio over-the-ears cans from either AKG or Grado.

The in-ear phones sound good but wearing them for a long time is kind of tiring.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:39 pm

LOL@ the bump. Timely too as I bought the 1GB Creative Nano Plus the other day for $66. Line-in recording and FM recording for less than half the price of the ipod nano.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:26 pm

Hmm... I think I'll be founding the thread bump police, as I'm pretty sure there is a general MP3 player thread this should have gone in. Trying on a pair of headphones in an Apple store does not an iPod nano post make...

I won a 4GB Nano at last year's Christmas part and think it's great, despite hating pretty much every iPod I tried before that. It really is the perfect blend of the full size iPod and the shuffle. You WILL get OCD trying to keep the thing in perfect scratch-free condition though...

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:29 pm

wco81 wrote: iLounge gave the QC3 a lower review than the QC2, which got one of their top ratings.

Reason is, because the QC2 doesn't cover the ear completely, it doesn't block out the background sound as well.

Not too fond of the Bose sound. I think I may check out some studio over-the-ears cans from either AKG or Grado.

The in-ear phones sound good but wearing them for a long time is kind of tiring.

Having owned the QC2's for 4 months prior to trading in for the QC3's, I disagree with the iLounge review. I was also skeptical of the QC3's not blocking out as much sound as the QC2's because they don't cover the entire ear, but my experience has been nothing less than phenomenal and I have noticed no drop in sound quality nor noise-cancelling performance. QC2's were the best headphones I had ever owned until I got the QC3's and now they rank #1 in my book.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:30 pm

iSkin Duo for the Nano is suppose to be an awesome case.