iPod vs. Zune: January 2008 High End MP3 Player Roundup

Audio/Video Quality

Digital audio quality has seen a big jump over the last several years. Both MP3 players and motherboard integrated audio have been the beneficiaries of newer Digital-to-Analog Converters that produce better sound with lower power usage and less susceptibility to the kind of EM noise that can be produced by the environments these devices can produce. The result is that while MP3 players aren't (and probably never will be) audiophile quality, they're easily good enough for anyone else. In fact the kind of quality that a good MP3 player should be able to produce these days should be better than most of the earbuds included with them, so there is little immediate room for improvement here.

To make sure all of our MP3 players were producing acceptable sound, we've measured them both objectively and subjectively. For our subjective testing we've listened to each one both through their included earbuds and a set of Sennheiser HD-497 headphones to listen for any problems or differences among them. For our objective testing we turn to the RightMark Audio Analyzer, measuring each device after having been patched in to a SoundBlaster XtremeMusic sound card under Windows XP. Because we don't have a pure reference source we can't create a baseline to compare the MP3 players to, but we're more interested in how they compare to each other.

Frequency Response

Noise Level

Stereo Crosstalk

As we expected, all 3 devices perform approximately the same. The iPod Classic and iPod Touch are the closest, while the Zune falls ever so slightly behind. RMAA's own benchmarking standards rate the general performance of all of the devices at "very good" which we would agree with. From a mechanical perspective there are no significant problems or differences among the devices.

Subjectively we find ourselves agreeing with RMAA when using our Sennheiser headphones. The perceived sound quality produced by each device is the same among several types of music with nothing sounding off.

The results only change when we move to the earbuds included with each respective device. Earbuds generally lack bass due to their size, but the iPod earbuds in particular have it the worst. Music coming from them just lacks much in the way of bass even with equalizer settings apply and we can't ditch a tinny sensation. It's poor enough that we'd definitely switch to different earbuds.

The Zune's earbuds on the other hand, while still no match to a superior set of headphones, are very pleasing. They still lack bass like earbuds do but it's not even half as bad as with the iPod earbuds. Furthermore we don't get any sensation of them being tinny. As far as earbuds go we're happy with what we got out of them.

Video

All 3 MP3 players start out with an immediate disadvantage in video quality because they only display 16bit color. The vast majority of the time this is good enough for a device with such a small screen, but in the right photos and videos we can see some banding that results from the limited display. Strangely the Zune seems to suffer more from this than either iPod, we suspect it's due to the Zune's screen having the greatest contrast.

We do not have a colorimeter suitable for an MP3 player, so all of our considerations for video quality are subjective.

Touch, Zune, and Classic Image Quality

Among the MP3 players, we have a hard time deciding between the iPod Classic and the Zune for best quality. The iPod Classic's only real weakness is the size of the screen, meanwhile it's the only device to use an LED backlight which means it's capable of a higher level of contrast. Otherwise the Zune is brighter than the Classic at both default and max brightness settings and in spite of the Classic's LED backlight we feel that the Zune is able to pull off higher contrasts. The difference likely comes down to how each is handling gamma, Microsoft particular in an attempt to make the Zune look more vivid, and to our subjective eyes it's working.

On the other hand, the Zune and the Classic have the same screen resolution (320x240) but very different screen dimensions. Both iPods have a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch while the Zune is only 128 pixels per inch. The result is that the Classic has a slightly sharper image, but it's not all that significant. Rather the significant difference is that at a lower PPI the Zune starts to suffer from the screen door effect, it's possible to see the lines separating the pixels and consequently identify the individual pixels (unfortunately this isn't something that's possible to pick up on a camera, you'll have to take our word on it). For many people this shouldn't be a problem, but it's something that everyone will notice at one time or another; personally we find the screen door effect rather distracting. With a 3.2" screen, Microsoft should have gone with a higher resolution LCD. The Zune screen also is more obvious about banding artifacts that result from a 16bit display; this is likely due to the better contrast the screen can produce

Finally we have the Touch, which we've held off mentioning until now. The Touch has the appropriate resolution for a screen of its size (480x320) but the LCD used isn't very spectacular. The Touch can't match the brightness of the Zune, nor can it match the contrast ratio. While the Zune is vibrant the Touch is just plain and the Classic looks a little better than the Touch.

Furthermore the Touch suffers the most from the viewing angle problems that occur in the TN panels in these devices. The Touch simply can't be held very far off-angle before the image rapidly deteriorates, while both the Zune and Classic can be held more off-angle and both deteriorate at a less rapid pace. None of the screens are perfect but the Touch is the only device where you're likely to consciously notice the issue.

Given what we know we'd still pick the Touch as having the best video quality overall due to the higher resolution and less obvious banding, but it wasn't an easy choice. The Zune would be second with the greater contrast and vivid screen helping to make up for the lack of resolution, and finally the Classic below the Zune due to the small screen. The result is that while it's easy to write off the Classic for last place, deciding between the Touch and the Zune is much harder; it's probably something every person is going to want to look at themselves if they're going to make heavy use of the video playback features of the two devices.