Trade-in for Classic?

[whitepod]

Lately I've been thinking i might trade my 16gb Touch for a 160gb classic. The reason--Space. With my Touch I only put VERY little music on it. But with the 160gb I could get all my music on it and begin ripping new cds.

My Touch is now unJailbroken and i've had all the "great" apps and emulators but it just wasn't doing it for me. I now have a clean 1.1.3 instlalled. I rarely use the wifi but my main reason of wanting to keep it is SDK. But, the only thing I'm really looking for that is games and particulary Phase and I can already get that with the Classic.

I guess another reason I want to keep the Touch is because it is so revolutionary, but i guess the 2nd generation is going to be even better. Does anyone have any suggestion, or does anyone have both and can help me out?

[BlackWolf]

well, sounds like you already made up your mind and want to get a classic. sound like this the device that better suits you. if you need lots of space and don't really use wifi, then why keep the touch? Yeah, the touchscreen rocks, but is that really worth it?

I, personally, don't like the classic since I think the sound quality is far worse than the touch (and I don't think the touch has good sound quality either, so ...).
but I maybe would have sticked with my classic if I had more music. since I only got about 5gigs of music the touch was the better choice for me ...

[whitepod]

Yes, but to me the SDK and having the coolest thing a very important, thus the difficult decision.

[honeybee1236]

Please read the Forum Policy and don't cross post in the forums. I deleted your other post.

[whitepod]

i did that becuase i didn't want a bias opinion, so thanks for ruining that...

[rockmyplimsoul]

Well, here's an un-biased opinion from one who owns both a Classic and a Touch, with a 60GB library mostly made up of music.

I've had the Classic for about 2 months now and I'm quite happy with it (prev had a 5th gen for 2 years). The Classic has had its share of minor annoyances, but I'm lucky I guess since I have not had the level of problems you see reported here. The biggest problem I had was the slow menu response navigating in and out of playlist folders, but that has been corrected with the 1.1 release. But some complain about hiss and static, incompatibility with accessories, etc. etc., so caveat emptor.

I've had a 16GB Touch for about 5 days now and am very happy with it so far. It only holds about 1/4 of my library, so not having everything at my finger tips is taking some getting used to. However, I'm used to re-syncing my iPod pretty much everyday anyway, so I'm using the "smart playlist rotation approach" to keep my library cycling through the Touch. Once I listen to songs, they are replaced on the next sync. It takes a bit of work to set up, but once the playlists are designed then it shouldn't take much maintenance.

[whitepod]

Thank you. But, which one do you like more? Which one would you recommend to a friend? Which one do you use more frequently?

[Allocentric]

I'm also working with both a Classic and a Touch, so I figured I'd toss in my own opinion, too.

The Classic I've had since October, and it's been an amazing device. While it did have some issues in the beginning, firmware updates have made it an excellent iPod - and for the moment - the best I've owned. My library is roughly 42GB, mostly music, and I certainly enjoy carting around photos, videos, and games. While there's some that have no issue using the smart playlist rotation method of music management, I like having a full copy of my library to go (and to act as a backup for my computer), and the Classic allows me to do that. Plus, with addition of truly outstanding gaming titles for the iPod (such as Phase and Peggle), it's become an all-in-one entertainment device.

The Touch I've had a couple weeks, though I picked it up primarily to act as an internet tablet, and also to gauge whether or not I'd consider an full-on iPhone to replace my PalmOS-based Treo (currently, the Treo wins hands-down). The screen is gorgeous, and I haven't found the lack of physical controls to be much of an issue. But, space is tight, and while it's the best video playback device out there, it lacks the capacity to allow for files to simply be kept "in reserve" for later viewing. As a portable internet tablet, it's amazing, but I know that's not your intended use.

Here's the benefits I see to each (obviously, these are only my opinions):

Classic Benefits
Cleaner audio (to my ears)
Outstanding battery life
Great capacity / Carry your whole library
Calendar on device reflects separate iCal calendars from computer (the Touch groups them together into one calendar)
To Do lists sync from iCal (why doesn't the Touch have this?!)
Browsing the song list also shows artist (under song name)
Support for nested playlists
Podcast descriptions shown on device
Support for games

Touch Benefits
Gorgeous screen / better for video
Music artwork displayed near-full screen / listening is a visual experience
Speedier CoverFlow
Hackable (the Classic is completely closed for the moment)
WiFi!
All those apps: Mail, Google Maps, Calculator, editable Notes, plus the web apps
Editable Calendar (can actually add/delete events)
Ability to delete videos directly from device
Can view all chapter stops in Enhanced AAC Podcasts from one screen
Can actually zoom in and scroll around photos
Includes a timer (Classic only has a stopwatch)

From my perspective, if your focus is largely music, the Classic is the better device since you get the nested playlist support, cleaner audio, more informative song display, and the faster/more responsive physical controls. However, as a portable computer / internet tablet / photo viewer / video display, the Touch beats the pants off the Classic. Who knows what added benefits the SDK release will bring.

They're both great devices (I'm glad I have both), but you need to pick the one that best suits your portable entertainment needs. :)

[whitepod]

Wow. I am already handingout the best review of 08 to you! Thank you so much! Can you elaborate on the nested playlist?

[Allocentric]

Can you elaborate on the nested playlist?In iTunes you're able to create a series of folders that contain playlists. For example you might create a folder labeled "Workout" and within that have playlists called "High Energy," "All Hip Hop," "Retro Running," etc. Then you might also have a separate folder called "Band Mixes" which contains individual playlists for each of your favorite bands (useful for when you want some, but not all songs, related to a particular artist). In addition, I have a few programs on my computer which generate their own playlists in iTunes, and all of those I have lumped inside of a folder I created called "System".

On the iPod classic, the nested structure from iTunes (playlists inside of folders) is fully supported. So, when I first bring up the playlist view on my iPod classic I see the folders "Workout," "Band Mixes," and "System," along with any playlist I have that isn't in a specific folder (such as the default "Purchased" playlist that iTunes creates when you buy anything from the iTunes store). If I want to view the playlists inside the "Workout" folder, I just select that folder on the iPod classic, and it allows me to view the playlists inside that folder. It's a very handy feature when you have numerous playlists - as I do - and would rather not navigate through a long list.

On the iPod touch, all playlists can be moved over (even if they're inside folders on iTunes), but they all exist on the same level. So each playlist that was inside the "Workout" folder on iTunes is essentially moved to the top-level on the iPod touch, and is listed alongside every other playlist.

To put it another way: Say, I have about 10 folders in iTunes, and each one of those folders contains around 5 playlists (which creates a total of 50 playlists). On my Classic, I can view each folder separately, and then view only the 5 playlists within that folder. On the Touch I can only view all 50 playlists in one big, long list.

Obviously, if you don't have many playlists, it's not a big deal to have them all in one list. But I was thankful when the Classic introduced nested support, and I hope that nested support arrives on the iPod touch in a future update.

I realize it was a bit of a long-winded explanation, but I hope that clears things up a bit.

[whitepod]

Thanks alot! I think I'm selling my touch for a classic!

[Allocentric]

I'm glad to help, but I do hope that you base your decision on more than just my opinion. BlackWolf feels the sound quality is better on the iPod touch. CoverFlow isn't as great on the Classic, either. And if "having the coolest thing is important," as you indicated in a prior post... well, the iPod touch is definitely cooler than the iPod classic.

From a practical standpoint, *I* think the Classic is better than the Touch as a music playing device. And for what it's worth, the new split screen views and the games are pretty cool on the Classic (enough so that a friend of mine is picking up the lowest-end 3rd gen nano, just to get Peggle & Phase. [The Classic and the 3rd Gen Nano have the same user interface & functionality]).

But, if coolness trumps the features of the Classic, then you might be happier sticking with your iPod touch. And there's nothing wrong with placing an emphasis on style. If you can, get to an Apple store (or other place that has iPods on display), and play around with a Classic for a bit. Better yet, if you know of a friend with a Classic, ask to mess around with it for a few minutes. The last thing you'd want to do is sell the touch, get the classic, and then wish you had the touch later on (especially after whatever comes out post-SDK).

By the way, you mentioned that you wanted to keep the Touch because it's so revolutionary, but supposed the 2nd generation will be even better. Of course the 2nd gen will be better! And the 3rd gen will be better than that! The point is, technology always has been, and always will be, a moving target. Something better is *always* around the corner, and many of us gadget-freaks have purchased something only to have a newer, better version show up a month or two later. Ultimately, you should base your decision on your needs *right now,* with a slight eye to the future.

Do that, enjoy your purchase for a good long while without second guessing, and then upgrade when finances and new features make it look like good option.

I'm not trying to make your decision more confusing, but remember that I like both the Touch and the Classic for the reasons I outlined two posts earlier. Go with what's best for *you*.

Good luck! :)

[whitepod]

Well, I guess I haven't really decided yet, does anybody else have any advice?

[kornchild2002]

I suggest that you keep your iPod touch. I actually went from a 160GB iPod classic to a 16GB iPod touch. I have over 100GB worth of content in my library and I thought it would be great to carry around absolutely everything I owned. The firmware was buggy (it is still a little buggy these days), I wasn't getting anywhere near the 40 hours of advertised battery life for audio (more like 23), and I wasn't really happy that it was the same iPod as I owned before just with a new interface, a bigger capacity, and supposedly better battery playback time. I had a 5G 60GB iPod and wanted an upgrade since it had been 2 years since I purchased it (I normally always upgrade about once every 2 years) but the new iPod classics weren't really revolutionary when compared with the 5G/5.5G iPod.

So I went with the 16GB iPod touch and haven't looked back. I like the iPod touch a lot more simply because it has a larger screen, runs better software, and I am on campus about 3-4 hours out of the day and the wi-fi comes in handy. I normally put about 1500 songs on my iPod touch which consists of my best of music. It is all the music that have 3 or more stars for their rating. Those 1500 songs would last me over 3 days if I sit down and listened to them 24 hours a day. That is more than enough music to last me a good month without repeating a single song. I also have over 200 music videos on my iPod touch which would last me about 24 hours if I sat down and watched them all day. I watch music videos maybe one in a while but I don't sit down and just watch them. I then have one full length movie (about 2 hours in length) and have 1GB of space left over. I could very well get rid of some of the music videos as I have 4 concerts (about 2 hours in length) from artists that I like but don't like well enough to carry a full concert around (such as Linkin Park or Green Day).

So I went from an iPod classic to a iPod touch. If you must carry around absolutely all your media then there is no question that the iPod classic is for you. If you don't mind filtering down your media then go ahead and keep the iPod touch. I do have a question for you though: what kind of compression are you using for your digital audio files? I see in your original post that you said you couldn't fit much music on there at all. What bitrate are you using for your music files?

[whitepod]

It depends all my songs are now only 128-256kbps, but one reason i would like to get the classic would be to use a higher bitrate 320 probably. I know it will cut down on battery but it'd be worth it I believe.

[Wilder_K_Wight]

If you're using AAC audio (which is MP4, and much better than the now-ancient MP3 format), then doing 320kbps is almost pointless. The difference between 192kbps and 320kbps in AAC is negligible, and not worth the increase in space.

If you're going to do that, you might as well just go for Apple Lossless. There's a significant jump in quality if you use Lossless, and a jump in space required, but the balance of space versus quality is much better in Lossless than in 320kbps AAC.

If you're still using MP3, then shame on you. MP3 is over 12 years old now, and the MPEG group has long stood by MP4 (AAC) as its successor. AAC has better compression, better sound quality, and more complex encoding techniques. It's just better in every single way.

If you don't believe me, then rip a song in AAC 320kbps, 192kbps, and in MP3 320kbps.

Listen to them blindly. That is, randomly pick them each and listen to them without knowing which is which. I doubt you'll hear any significant differences except between the AAC 320kbps and the MP3 320kbps, but when you check you'll see that the MP3 is taking up more space and doesn't sound as good.

IF you notice a difference at all.

[Stay Alive 305]

Why don't you sell your iPod touch and buy a 32 gig iPod touch?

[kornchild2002]

If you're using AAC audio (which is MP4, and much better than the now-ancient MP3 format), then doing 320kbps is almost pointless. The difference between 192kbps and 320kbps in AAC is negligible, and not worth the increase in space.

I agree. The AAC format's strongest bitrates are actually in the 128-160kbps, after that it begins to sound the same as mp3.

If you're going to do that, you might as well just go for Apple Lossless. There's a significant jump in quality if you use Lossless, and a jump in space required, but the balance of space versus quality is much better in Lossless than in 320kbps AAC.

Well, I would suggest conducting an actual blind ABX test before making that statement. If you can actually distinguish a 128/160/192/224/256/320kbps AAC/mp3 file from a lossless file then you have well trained ears as 99% of people cannot distinguish between 192kbps and lossless let alone 320kbps. Lossless is not meant for portable listening, plain and simple. It is designed for archiving purposes.

If you're still using MP3, then shame on you. MP3 is over 12 years old now, and the MPEG group has long stood by MP4 (AAC) as its successor. AAC has better compression, better sound quality, and more complex encoding techniques. It's just better in every single way.

Shame on you for thinking that mp3 isn't high quality enough just because it is old. The AAC format was actually developed back in 1997 so it is 11 years old. That must mean that it sucks because it is 11 years old. If you go with that model then ATRAC3 would have better sound quality as it is 9 years old. But wait, ATRAC3 actually sucks when compared to crappy formats such as standard WMA. So that logic doesn't hold up. The Lame mp3 encoder can perform very similarly to both Nero AAC and iTunes AAC. All formats and encoders begin sounding alike once you get up to the 192kbps bitrate range and above so that ends that nonsense of "It's just better in every single way." AAC applies the same lowpass filters that mp3 does and everything.

If you don't believe me, then rip a song in AAC 320kbps, 192kbps, and in MP3 320kbps.
Listen to them blindly. That is, randomly pick them each and listen to them without knowing which is which. I doubt you'll hear any significant differences except between the AAC 320kbps and the MP3 320kbps, but when you check you'll see that the MP3 is taking up more space and doesn't sound as good.
IF you notice a difference at all.

I don't believe you. That is not a true blind test. You need to conduct a true blind ABX test in order to make comments such as the ones you made. Download a program called foobar2000 (there is a different program similar for Mac OS X) and install every option. Then conduct a blind ABX test between a -V 2 --vbr-new Lame mp3 file and a lossless file, I am willing to bet that you won't hear the difference between the two as most people can't. But wait, I thought mp3 sucked as it is 12 years old. That is simply not the case and if it was it would suck nearly just as much as the 11 year old AAC format and the 9 year old ATRAC3 format would be the best.

I don't mean to sound rude or anything but your comments don't hold any merit when it comes to AAC. I am guessing that you believed the technical mumbo jumbo given to you by Apple, Sony, or the other various companies. It is true that AAC is technically superior than mp3 but the Lame mp3 encoder keeps giving AAC a run for its money. The Lame mp3 encoder is continually being developed on in order to increase the quality and efficiency of the encoder. As I said, you can prove me wrong by actually conducting a blind ABX test and producing the real results. The test you described holds no merit and you can still fall victim to the placebo affect.


It depends all my songs are now only 128-256kbps, but one reason i would like to get the classic would be to use a higher bitrate 320 probably. I know it will cut down on battery but it'd be worth it I believe.

320kbps is a waste of bits no matter which format you use. Conduct a blind ABX test and see for yourself that 320kbps is definitely not worth the huge file size or reduction in battery life. Most modern day encoders top out at around 192kbps VBR so I would stick with that. Portable listening environments can let you go down even lower. Places like your car, walking down the street, subways, etc. often cover up frequencies that would let you benefit from higher bitrate encoding. It doesn't matter if you use $100+ headphones or not (or have noise canceling headphones), portable environments just don't let you hear the benefit of high bitrate encoding. You must first analyze your primary listening environment. Since these are the iPod boards, I assume that you take your music with you. As I said, conduct a blind ABX test for yourself (I described what a true blind test is above) and you will be surprised. Use your best set of headphones for the test though as speaker systems can't be used. The reason why is that most rooms are not acoustically tuned, there are many objects in a room in which sound can bounce off of them thus covering up certain frequencies or altering the way a music file will sound. You can use speakers if you are in a sound studio though as they are acoustically tuned.