Radiopaq's Sound Jacket improves nano sound quality, according to this handy chart
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Jul 6th 2009 1:47PM
posted Jul 6th 2009 1:47PM
Accessories aimed at the iPod nano 4G crowd are always a curious affair. Isn't the whole point to have your tunes on-the-go, with a minimal of fuss? And aren't costly (and bulky) add-ons the definition of "fuss?" We seriously doubted there was much of a market for the portable speaker attachment we saw a few weeks back, and now it's Radiopaq's turn to get us scratchin' our heads. The iPod Sound Jacket claims to do away with "the distortion that can sometimes result from a static EQ setting" and reveal the "hidden detail in the music that is lost during MP3 compression." In other words, it seems to be a graphic equalizer. One that you have no control over, to boot. Sound familiar? But then again, according to the product literature the device boosts sound quality "up to 60 percent." If only it were able to boost our self esteem by, say, 40 percent or more. Now that would be well worth the £69.99 (roughly $115).
[Via SlashGear]
[Via SlashGear]
O.O ???
Is this another way of saying "first"?
Is that another way of saying "second"?
In order to notice the difference you may well have to splash out another £100 for some better headphones. So the total will be £169.99. (And for Mr/Ms/Dr Dohnuts' information, no, it wasn't. :) )
Is that another way of saying "third"?
This is getting scary now. Hope we haven't annoyed any other Engadget readers yet.
Dohnuts vs Coffee....FIGHT!
When doughnuts and coffee throw down... everyones a winner!
Paul b. Chapel @ Jul 6th 2009 2:16PM
please leave this blog you idiot troll
Please take your own advice and do the same. Your pro-Apple BS only furthers the stereotype. Just because you own a PC and dislike MS doesn't exclude you from being a troll or a Apple fanboy. Please stop. :)
What a stupid product.
The funny thing is, their chart accentuates the flaws with their product, such as the fact that it has almost no bass response.
No. UK price of £69.99 is more like US price of $69.99 ~ $89.99. We Brits are always ripped off.
Maybe if you let Michael Savage back in your country it wouldn't stink so much to be a brit....
(yep, I needlessly interjected politics into this blog post)
Michael Savage is not British, so it is more like "coming (here)", not "back". Personally I don't mind giving you guys Gary McKinnon, too. (Just kidding. Take it lightly.)
We didn't stop him the home secretary Jacqui Smith did and we all hate her she's a total bitch.
Or you could save $115 and use a bitrate with less compression.
That only takes you so far. Eventually you have to accept that the sound processor in iPods is mediocre. Mind you, if you're concerned about that, then you probably bought a different DAP anyway.
Sure it bypasses the iPod audio processor going through the dock connector. But it then fills in the gaps where tones was lost by compression.
I'd rather use a media player with a sub-par processor then a higher-end processor that makes educated guesses where holes are.
You are correct though, if you're looking for a higher-end media player, the iPod ain't on the list.
The sound processor is mediocre?
You guys are hilarious. Your expertise is truly extraordinary.
Please tell us with your infinite wisdom and all what processor is in the Nano and where it stacks up against other processors?
Apple actually doesn't suck from the line out, which bypasses the cruddy internal amplifier.
You are mistaken. You bypass the audio processors when you go through the dock connector. When you use the headphones jack aka line out, you're using the internal processing.
Problem is that the amp is probably crap anyway. Still the line out of the nano is better than the headphone jack so it probably does offer a moderate increase in performance if you use high impedance headphones.
Funny, that's what happens to me when I hear Bonnie Tyler.
A laser bolt goes through your head?
Don't diss Bonnie! She's a musical genius!
Yes!
It doesn't feel that good either, but I can't here her music so it's not all that bad.
The first time it seemed like innocent fun...the second time I thought it must have been some kind of egregious error...this is the third Bonnie Tyler reference in a month. It looks like the unholy warbler has managed to break through the security at Engadget HQ.
This is it people; this is what you've been training all these years for...open fire, and for heaven's sake, don't look into her eyes.
HAHAHA!
I seriously doubt this thing makes any positive difference.
I bet someone buys one and puts apples standard earphones into it.
yes, I have blown about 4 sets of apple buds. There is a reason I use my Sennheiser headphones, but you can't use them at the gym.
You hit on my general issue with these things. I drives me nuts that people talk about sound quality and then use earbuds. Eliminate the weakest link (earbuds) and then start caring about other issues.
Btw: I understand earbuds do serve a purpose, but sound quality isn't their strong point.
Oooh, looks like kids these days are near deaf anyway.
"it is physically impossible to tell the difference between 96kbps encoded AAC (which is near-perfect audio)"
You are completely ignorant. The stupidity of your comments simply amazes me.
Don't get me wrong, AAC is a good format for PMPs, but thats about it. Even with average computer speakers many can tell the difference between AAC and FLAC. FLAC keeps a bit-for-bit copy, perfect for archival purposes. Also depending on the material you are listening to it will become increasingly ovbious if you are listening to an AAC or FLAC, moreover even with most songs hi-hats and other high pitched sounds become 'watery' at 96kbps.
What will you be saying next, that friggin 480x270 iPod video is exactly the same as DVD. Sheesh gimme a break.
lol FLAC. Paul I hate to tell you this but you might catch some flak for that one! bud um chink.
Seriously though why are people creating products that make a device bigger when that device is marketed for it small size?
People who buy nanos probably aren't worried about sound quality but rather the size.
Looks like it just boost some EQ and increase the volume. Big whoop. It's a scam/money grabber.
It's true though, when people hear a louder music, they think it's "better," thus the loudness war on CD mastering. What's next, the return of "Mega Bass?" LOL.
Not only will MegaBass return, but there will also be a "brightness war" on TV and movies... Weeeeeeeeeeee!
The future is so much fun :-D
Are you insane?!?! (Although I suspect you to be an impostor troll, I shall reply nonetheless)
I do hope you mean 196kbps. Then you would be going somewhere with your logic. On a *portable* media player 196kbps is about anyone with a good set of ears needs for being on the go. If you are on the road you most likely are not carrying around your full size grados headphones or your $800 sens, thus you really need a player on which your portable heaphones or earbuds will sound the best. Ipod and Zune really fall hard here. Ipod is just plain bad, Zune is pretty good flat at 196kbps but it lacks customizability. Both ipod and zune lack sound enhancement software on the player. This is what samsung and cowon players above the rest (plus their superior flat sound quality). Anyone who has ever heard DNSE or BBE will tell you it makes a portable device the ultimate in portable audio. I say all that to get the point that portable audio is not limited to the ipod and to urge you fellow audiophiles to be sensible. And to all else: if you are going to buy this contraption go ahead and look at the cowon S9 or the samsung p3. Your ears will thank you.
Filtering the signal through Barbara Mandrell makes all the difference.
That's Bonnie Tyler
Is that C.C.Catch being shown on Engadget's pic of this product?
curious to find out what opamp it uses... anyone have any idea?
I'm afraid of her hair...
This product is a perfect analogy to how the apple-haters claim windows offers more "customization" which actually translates into 99% of the market never needing such useless features.
This thing might actually work. The problem of many amplifiers in mp3-players is that they are very weak. If you use a second one you can run the first one at lower volume giving less distortion and stronger bass. Especially with "inefficient" headphones this can be a huge improvement of the quality. The price is high, though. I use a Fiio E5 which goes for about $20 on ebay.
on the entire ipod line the "ipod classic" is still the only one I have ever used that has a decent amp (and wow...sounds the best)
Fiio E5 looks pretty good, i was going to get a boostaroo but this has a slightly nicer form factor...still would love a amp as an iphone jacket...
It is physically impossible to tell the difference between Paul's comment and a big sack of bull excrement.
Loonie:
The bag doesn't smell quite as bad.
Everything improves the Nano sound quality, but by how much?
I was about to say its the first comment you made that I agreed with. Then I saw the "b".
Sweet! An external, always on Loudness button! Finally something that takes the guess work out of making music sound like shit...
It depends on how well your ears are trained. I play the piano, and I notice I can hear things that non-musicians can't. I'm not a professional pianist, but my ears are trained enough to notice that professional (classical) musicians can hear things that even I can't. My teacher points out my mistakes in sound all the time. I think 10 years of intense ear training, I can hear what professionals can, but since I'm lazy, that means never.
I know professional pianists who can tell if someone has played before them on their favorite stage piano after it has been tuned. Then there are some who can tell if a window has been open over night just by playing on a piano and so on. I can tell if a sound source has been shifted 1/4" right or left from 2 feet away. And if pianists are this sensitive, just imagine violinists, where they rely more on their ears than pianists do.
I strongly disagree. If you listen to music with a decent pair of headphones, you can easily tell the difference. It's a lot harder to notice the difference through a normal pair of speakers.
I wonder what metrics are used when they say it "Improves the Audible performance of any MP3 track by at least 60% or more when used with headphones, earphones or IPod audio docks"
Like dude.. that sounds 60% better...
@ bartoron
You say that it's harder to hear the difference through speakers but I can hear it easily. Does that mean I have good ear training? :P
louder isn't better.
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that even in their own graph there is virtually no difference in frequency response and "double amplification" means a laughable 3dB?
(Well, to be fair 3dB _is_ double.. But it's useless...)
iPods run AAC just convert all your music to AAC for the same effect.
What?
If anything, converting between file types will make the sound worse.
Or maybe just buy a better quality player ?
lol why do you guys bother to respond to this post. I'm sure Paul thinks 128kbps DRM'ed AAC played off the iPod nano headphone opamp is already the best audio ever. And of course he uses the stock iPod buds, because Steve Jobs made them so clearly no headphone could ever be better.
Bullshit.