Sony A845 V's IPods Nano V's IPod Touch
Ok its getting closer to my birthday and my wife will be buying me a new mp3 player
Now i've been reading review after review on many different sites now which wasn't probably the best idea , and i'm still no wiser then when i started .
Firstly my birthday budget would only allow me to have either the 16gig Nano or A845 and the 8gig Touch
Now i know the Nano is good and from what i can gather the Touch is better on sound so i can sacrifice the memory loss as all my recording are @ 320kps stored in iTunes
But on some other sites the Sony A845 has been rated better for sound quality over the Nano
Would anyone like to shed more light on my dilemma ?
landzw - I won't beat around the bush here, and some might disagree but...
I'm on my 4th iPod now - the 64GB Touch. If you won't be ripping to more than 320kb and don't want the other bells and whistles, stick to the Nano. I firmly believe it is the best sounding iPod of the entire current range.
Edit: If my iPod Nano 'fatty' was anything to go by 256k AAC was great - don't think you need to go higher if you're just using buds.
Thanks for the reply's guys , i've managed to have a play with a touch which it was a lot of fun but i'm not fully sure i would use the other features very often .
I like though the way you see your cd collection with all the covers and just being able to scroll through them all with easy
can you do the same sort of thing with the nano?
Get the Touch. Any difference in sound quality will be negligible except through very good headphones, and the Touch is one of the world's beautiful objects (that coincidentally allows you to play angry birds).
You can scroll through the CD collection in the Nano as well, in a different sort of way (because of the smaller non-touch screen in the Nano). The main advantage of the Touch is that there are a lot more uses than the Nano. The extra features are hugely addictive (think JD & angry birds 
).
WHF says that audio is slightly better on the iPod Touch than the Nano (but the Nano itself is very good audio quality wise). Only you can decide between more space of the Nano vs. extra features of the iPod Touch.
For outright audio quality, Sony is better.
I had almost made up my mind there with the iPod Touch before you made that last statement bigboss 
So what what is angry birds?
If you haven't made up your mind yet, you can also consider the Cowon J3.
Just remember compared to the nano and sony the touch will have a terrible battery life.
JohnDuncan:Get the Touch. Any difference in sound quality will be negligible except through very good headphones, and the Touch is one of the world's beautiful objects (that coincidentally allows you to play angry birds).
I do beg to differ kind Sir - on my same Senn CX300s my old iPod Nano 'fatty' comprehensively beat my iPod touch for sound.
It's not as bad as the Classic but the Touch lacks a smidgen of dynamics.
(See my other OP on the classic - HFW's latest issue describes the Classic's sound as 'dull and lifeless').
Not had a Sony.
But I've had a Nano and Touch and there's no contest. I would pick the Touch 100 times out of 100.
It's beutiful to use has access to the app store.
I use an iphone now (which is a Touch with phone features) and it would be the last of my personal gadgets that I would be without.
You have some doubts about whether you would use additional features of Touch. YOU WILL esp. if you have wi-fi access.
manicm:JohnDuncan:Get the Touch. Any difference in sound quality will be negligible except through very good headphones, and the Touch is one of the world's beautiful objects (that coincidentally allows you to play angry birds).I do beg to differ kind Sir - on my same Senn CX300s my old iPod Nano 'fatty' comprehensively beat my iPod touch for sound.
It's not as bad as the Classic but the Touch lacks a smidgen of dynamics.
(See my other OP on the classic - HFW's latest issue describes the Classic's sound as 'dull and lifeless').
"a smidgen of dynamics"/"angry birds".
I'm not sure I get your point...
manicm:JohnDuncan:Get the Touch. Any difference in sound quality will be negligible except through very good headphones, and the Touch is one of the world's beautiful objects (that coincidentally allows you to play angry birds).I do beg to differ kind Sir - on my same Senn CX300s my old iPod Nano 'fatty' comprehensively beat my iPod touch for sound.
It's not as bad as the Classic but the Touch lacks a smidgen of dynamics.
(See my other OP on the classic - HFW's latest issue describes the Classic's sound as 'dull and lifeless').
"a smidgen of dynamics"/"angry birds".
I'm not sure I get your point...
lacks a bit of punch
landzw:I had almost made up my mind there with the iPod Touch before you made that last statement bigboss
So what what is angry birds?
If I were you, I would still go for iPod Touch. The quality difference in sound is usually perceptible only with high end headphones. 
Well i do use CX95s which i know aren't range topping headphones but i do love there sound
- Login to post comments
Yes, some reviewers rate the Sony to be better than the ipod for outright sound quality. However, for a birthday gift, an iPod Touch is the best option IMHO, because it's much more than a music device. It's essentially an iPhone without the phone feature. There are a lot of apps (free & paid) which you can download from itunes. It also plays videos which look gorgeous on its beautiful screen. It also has built-in wi-fi for internet access. Youtube plays really well on it. The touch screen is the best on the market.
Oh yes, it sounds really good.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router