Art, it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the new nano sounded worse (I've read reviews that say the new shuffle sounds worse than the old one).
The new ipod nano could have been one of three exercises for apple:
1) A simple recasing because of complaints about how easily the original scratched. No sound change.
2) An improved design, giving better sound to the user.
3) A cost reduction exercise to maintain profit margins. Sound quality might deteriorate, but since most users listen to 128kbps through earbuds they will not notice.
I must admit that I listened to a new nano 2Gb running 192AAC files through Sennheiser HD280 headphones and thought the sound was pretty decent, comparable to an old panasonic portable CD I have.
I've found that 192AAC sounds substantially better than 128AAC or 128MP3, but going to higher bit rates is not noticable unless you're using expensive cans in a quiet environment.
The new ipod nano could have been one of three exercises for apple:
1) A simple recasing because of complaints about how easily the original scratched. No sound change.
2) An improved design, giving better sound to the user.
3) A cost reduction exercise to maintain profit margins. Sound quality might deteriorate, but since most users listen to 128kbps through earbuds they will not notice.
I must admit that I listened to a new nano 2Gb running 192AAC files through Sennheiser HD280 headphones and thought the sound was pretty decent, comparable to an old panasonic portable CD I have.
I've found that 192AAC sounds substantially better than 128AAC or 128MP3, but going to higher bit rates is not noticable unless you're using expensive cans in a quiet environment.