iPod vs. Zune: January 2008 High End MP3 Player Roundup
by Ryan Smith on January 21, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
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
| RightMark Audio Analyzer Summary | |||
| iPod Classic | iPod Touch | Zune 80 | |
| Frequency response | Very good | Excellent | Very good |
| Noise level | Very good | Very good | Good |
| Dynamic range | Very good | Very good | Good |
| THD | Very good | Very good | Excellent |
| THD + Noise | Good | Good | Good |
| IMD + Noise | Very good | Very good | Very good |
| Stereo crosstalk | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent |
| IMD at 10 kHz | Very good | Very good | Very good |
| General performance | Very good | Very good | Very good |
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
ThePooBurner - Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - link
Since the article is on current gen, we should only compare current gen. So you can't say apple is superior because of it's touch wheel when creative has the same. My Zen, the Vision:M is a few years old and can be had for under 200$. For that you get video playback of more formats (and an included transcoder for formats that aren't natively supported) than the Ipod, an FM tuner, a Microphone for dictigraphing, an 8gig jump drive that is seperate from the 30gig main drive, and jump dive like operation for the 30gig main drive, so you can use it on any computer. As far as i know, the Ipod has non of this without buying extra parts. I like the GUI of the Zen better than the Ipod by a lot, though the zune's GUI is actually pretty nice in places. Plus, Creative practically invented sound. I would wager that the sound quality and output, etc. are superior on the Zen compared to the other players as well. My music sounds good n matter what i have hooked to it to produce the sound, be it headphones, speakers, or even a TV. Even sounds great when using my 20$ FM transmitter for playback in my car. Plus my battery lasts for ever. I've gotten fairly close to 24 hours of operation. Granted time depend on a few things, as I've gotten as little as 14 also, but i know that the capability is there to meet the advertised claims, or better. And the 60gig version has even more features than mine does!Actually, other review sites, when my version of the Zen came out, said everything i have said and added "Creative has once again created a superior product to everyone else, but will the market give it the credit it deserves, or will it be like Beta? only time will tell."(that's a paraphrase from memory, so forgive if it isn't 100% exact). In short, the Zen is Better and cheaper than the competition. In every way.
michael2k - Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - link
So you want to compare to today, or a few years old?Because from the Creative web site, only the flash players are in stock. The Vison M, Vision W, and even the Zen are out of stock.
But a theoretical comparison of the Zen M vs the iPod classic shows us that the iPod is smaller and more pocketable, has more storage, and longer battery life. A comparison of the Zen W with the iPod Classic shows that the Classic is still smaller and with a better control scheme, more storage, and better battery life.
Of course what you say about the Vision:M may have been true in 2005 when it was announced... except that even then the iPod was thinner, had greater storage, and similar or better battery life.
So sure the "lead" may jump back and forth every time a refresh is announced, but Apple has "consistently" lead; first with USB mass storage, first with smaller form factor, first with faster connectivity, and first with easier usability. Eventually (2004 really), Creative caught up with their Zen but by then Apple had a huge lead.
So your point, while valid, is also outdated. Look today; if your Vision:M broke, what would you buy? The iPod would be a very strong contender.
yyrkoon - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
Well I did not read the whole article, and only read part of the closing thoughts, but from what I have read, you guys have your priorities wrong compared to what most of the people I have talked to, and have seen on the web are saying. At least concerning the audio player aspect.A lot of people are wanting a device that is simple as possible concerning putting music on it, and a device that also has good quality sound(read: clean, with no background hissing or hum etc, etc). Anyhow, most of what I have read indicated that people would rather pay less for a Creative Stone, or something similar that was small, played music decently, has decent ear buds, and dead simple drag n drop file transferring. A good portion of these people also seem to want a device that does not cause music to stutter/pause on a device while navigating through menus, or folders while looking for a song, or settings.
The problem with the two reviewed items in this article is that I have read that the software that comes with each device is garbage. And they are not alone, as many MANY devices suffer from the same affliction from what I have read.
Anyhow, Creative has DEFINITELY been in this part of the industry much, much longer than Apple, or Microsoft, and so has Sony(Although I must admit I have not had a Sony Walkman in many, many years, but I still have one of the first Creative MP3 players ever with 32MB of memory on it).
I think now days, and personally, I would rather have something that is small, but not tiny, sounds decent, has a USB chargeable battery onboard(I dont have a problem taking such a device apart and replacing the battery myself; if and when it is needed), and somethin g that has drag and drop file transferring with the ability to play any music format whether DRM or not. IF this device were an all around media device, then it MUST have the ability to read PDF files. More than 2-4GB on such a device would be a waste for me however, so we are talking onboard flash, and probably a 8-10 hour battery play time before recharges.
TP715 - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
You might want to take a look at the Cowon D2 and A3. Both have drag and drop and support many audio codecs. D2 is small, available in 2, 4, and 8GB (can increase via the SDHC slot), has USB chargeable battery with 52 hr life and will display TXT files (but not PDF as yet). A3 is probably bigger than you want, but will display DOC and PDF files (with transcoding).Others: AnandTech did mention that this is only the first of reviews on MP3 players, so others will probably be covered. I would suggest they look at Cowon as well as Creative Zen etc. They are available only online, are a bit expensive, and have nonstandard UIs, but they have good audio quality and lots of codec support (incl OGG, FLAC, APE etc.). The also support recording, ie line in.
michael2k - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
I think 119m iPods sold disagree with you.1) Sound quality (if you read the whole article you will see) on the Classic (and correspondingly Nano and Shuffle) iPods are fine.
2) Drag and drop works fine for a couple hundred megabytes (IE, a handful of folders or files) up to a couple gigabytes of files, but falls way short when there are several to tens to hundreds of gigabytes of files. iTunes is then simple (plug and go)
3) The problems described with stuttering/pausing is new, and will probably be fixed. The first 5 generations of iPods did not have this problem.
Anyway, you're welcome to your device. It sounds like you're describing an iPod Touch, so long as you can stand iTunes.
michael2k - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
I think you need to recognized that for some people the included earbuds fit perfectly.Freeseus - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
There's something that I haven't seen mentioned in many of these iPOD reviews that I find very annoying. I'm sure I'm not the only one here. Or perhaps, I simply missed over it as I perused this article (as well as previous ones on other sites).The iPOD UI has significant slowdown/pauses/sluggish "stutter" playback while accessing music, particularly when:
a: attached to a transmitting device (iTRIP, for example)
b: while accessing a long or high-quality song
Many a time I find myself waiting to see the data appear and waiting to see the song begin to play. I don't even need to mention the album art in the new Classic, which suffers the same problem as iTUNES does in general with displaying custom artwork as you scroll through your music.
And in the latest CLASSIC generation of iPODs, the "stutter" is at least twice as bad as it was in the previous generation.
Why has this not been mentioned? I considered getting a ZUNE simply because I was tired of the lacking capabilities of the iPOD's processing/coding. But, I haven't purchased a ZUNE simply because there is no 160gig model.
The newest iPOD classic is a step down from the previous generation. It needs a cleaner, less intense UI and/or some more powerful hardware. End of story.
Ryan Smith - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
It wasn't mentioned because I never experienced it on the 6G hardware. I also own a 5G where I have experienced it, so I see where you're going, but I have never had that issue with the Classic used in this review.cmdrdredd - Monday, January 21, 2008 - link
I find that anandtech has fallen into Apple's traps like so many others. The iPod is hardly the be al end all of players anymore. Hell, the Zune has a FM tuner which Apple expects you to pay for in an accessory. The Zune also bundles earbuds that actually sound good, no Apple's pack in ear buds are nowhere the quality. Plus, I don't have to do the "safely remove hardware" to disconnect my zune, I can just unplug it. Doing that with your iPod can corrupt it completely. The battery life on the Zune I find better than mentioned here. Turn off the WiFi if you don't use it. On the touch if you use the web features it's necessary, but mostly for the Zune you don't need it. It's not ment to do the functions the iPod Touch does via wifi so having it on is unfair in the comparison. The zune has flaws too like the screen not being very high rez for it's size, and inability to put videos into a playlist. The latter of which is easily fixed via software update.The Zune also has the bonus of not using a case that is easily scratched.I also find the UI to be more eye pleasing than the iPod classic because of the ability to customize the background.
I'm honestly just a little sick of people writing off everything else as an option and telling everyone else to just buy an ipod because it's "cool" or "it's an ipod, duh". That's the same as telling everyone to buy a Wii, even when the Wii doesn't have the games people buy an Xbox360 for.
lefenzy - Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - link
I agree with you about the ipod not being the best, but I've never had an issue pulling out my ipod nano without safe renewal.