I got my free iPod!!!

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

<on the Rio Karma> I don't see a size mentioned, no battery life mentioned, it's not cheaper, doesn't mention if it can be used as just a hard drive (bootable and all), and no firewire. Not bad though. Definitely like the look of the ipod better, and I hate java.

Cheaper - aren't iPods more? I've focused more on the iRivers, but I've yet to notice a more expensive DAP than the iPod.

Firewire - USB 2 is generally as fast.

Size - the reason the iPod is so small is its miniscule battery. If you want to bring size into it, I guess size can cancel out the battery life issue. You still have other issues to account for though.

..sigh...not that gurck isn't a troll, but I have to help him out a little:

:disgust:

I get admonished by the mods for bringing grudges to other threads, but... Ah well, I guess Lifer status and a few-year-old join date get you a few privelages :|

I've got to run for a few, don't take lack of a response as lack of discussion - and on the word discussion, let's try to keep it that, ok?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gurck
n0c - I'm far from an audiophile. My choice of sound card and headphones would get me laughed straight off of an audiophile site like head-fi.org (yes it's also a headphone site, but most posters are hardcore audiophiles), yet I insist that IMO they're good components. Your dismissal of other file formats is related to your dismissal of sound quality, so see the above for details on that. I prefer ogg over mp3, and flac over both - many people who own sound systems of some quality agree with me, though those with low quality sound systems (like an iPod) can't tell the difference.

I probably couldn't tell the difference anyhow. Which is why I pretty much ignored those arguments.

Further, it's my opinion that the iPod's low SQ is intentional, and serves to mask the low SQ of music bought through iTunes. On features, more is better. You saying they don't matter is the equivalent to saying a Yugo = a Ferarri because they both transport you from point A to point B.

Heh, not at all. Of course, I don't see the point in buying a ferrari if all you need is a car to get you to work and back. If I want an mp3 player, I want a device that plays mp3s. I don't see the point in having a bunch of extra features that will never get used.

 

[Ketteringo]

Originally posted by: aphex
?^?

I agree

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Further, it's my opinion that the iPod's low SQ is intentional, and serves to mask the low SQ of music bought through iTunes. On features, more is better. You saying they don't matter is the equivalent to saying a Yugo = a Ferarri because they both transport you from point A to point B.

Heh, not at all. Of course, I don't see the point in buying a ferrari if all you need is a car to get you to work and back. If I want an mp3 player, I want a device that plays mp3s. I don't see the point in having a bunch of extra features that will never get used.

Many people have use for those features. If you don't, though, that's great - you get to save money by buying a DAP with fewer features. Unless, that is, you buy an iPod

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

<on the Rio Karma> I don't see a size mentioned, no battery life mentioned, it's not cheaper, doesn't mention if it can be used as just a hard drive (bootable and all), and no firewire. Not bad though. Definitely like the look of the ipod better, and I hate java.

Cheaper - aren't iPods more? I've focused more on the iRivers, but I've yet to notice a more expensive DAP than the iPod.

The 20GB iPod was listed as $299, as was the 20GB Rio Karma.

Firewire - USB 2 is generally as fast.

I don't like USB for anything beyond mice. I think Firewire is the better technology. And I've got firewire ports on the iBook, I might as well use them.

Size - the reason the iPod is so small is its miniscule battery. If you want to bring size into it, I guess size can cancel out the battery life issue. You still have other issues to account for though.

Size is increadibly important when talking about portable peripherals.

As I said, I couldn't tell the difference between all of the audio formats and anything but the most exaggerated examples of quality differences if you had a gun to my head. I explained my stance on features in my last post. And I explained the looks thing. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to make the iPod look any different.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: werk
..sigh...not that gurck isn't a troll, but I have to help him out a little:

Is there a hard drive mp3 player, the same size or smaller, for less money, that works on both Macs and x86 based PCs, that has a better battery life?

Rio Karma will work on any os that can run java apps.

I don't see a size mentioned, no battery life mentioned, it's not cheaper, doesn't mention if it can be used as just a hard drive (bootable and all), and no firewire. Not bad though. Definitely like the look of the ipod better, and I hate java.

It's thicker and slightly wider than the ipod, but shorter. It is lighter than the iPod. It gets 15 hours of battery life per charge. It is cheaper than the iPod. The rest weren't mentioned in your original post, it has data capabilities, but it requires a helper app (which can be downloaded from the player to any system using the network connection). Firewire and USB2.0 are basically interchangeable, IMO.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Further, it's my opinion that the iPod's low SQ is intentional, and serves to mask the low SQ of music bought through iTunes. On features, more is better. You saying they don't matter is the equivalent to saying a Yugo = a Ferarri because they both transport you from point A to point B.

Heh, not at all. Of course, I don't see the point in buying a ferrari if all you need is a car to get you to work and back. If I want an mp3 player, I want a device that plays mp3s. I don't see the point in having a bunch of extra features that will never get used.

Many people have use for those features. If you don't, though, that's great - you get to save money by buying a DAP with fewer features. Unless, that is, you buy an iPod

I don't need one at all, which I why I don't own an iPod. If I got one, it would be for my car, but I'm hoping someone comes out with an even better solution for vehicles.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
Your thread title really caught our eye.
AnandTech Moderator

LMAO!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: werk

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: werk
..sigh...not that gurck isn't a troll, but I have to help him out a little:

Is there a hard drive mp3 player, the same size or smaller, for less money, that works on both Macs and x86 based PCs, that has a better battery life?

Rio Karma will work on any os that can run java apps.

I don't see a size mentioned, no battery life mentioned, it's not cheaper, doesn't mention if it can be used as just a hard drive (bootable and all), and no firewire. Not bad though. Definitely like the look of the ipod better, and I hate java.

It's thicker and slightly wider than the ipod, but shorter. It is lighter than the iPod. It gets 15 hours of battery life per charge.

None of which is mentioned on the sight.

It is cheaper than the iPod.

According to the site, it is $299 for a 20GB model. The Apple store lists the 20GB ipod as $299. Unless my edu discount is cached somewhere, in which case I'm wrong.

The rest weren't mentioned in your original post,

I know, just extra features that I thought of as I looked at the rio site.

it has data capabilities, but it requires a helper app (which can be downloaded from the player to any system using the network connection).

Too much work. I'd rather have something that just works.

Firewire and USB2.0 are basically interchangeable, IMO.

My iBook doesn't have USB 2.0, but it has the better (this part is IMO) firewire.

 

[welst10]

wow, congrats. I want an ipod too. Too bad I missed the amazon 50 giftcard deal.

 

[loup garou]

Yeah, n0c, I don't know what they did to Rio's site, a lot of the detailed specs are now missing. The MSRP for both players are the same, but stores sell the Karma for $250 or less regularly. My gf got mine for me last christmas for under $200 after some artful pricematching and rebate!

 

[welst10]

Originally posted by: PoPPeR

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: Gurck
You're saying you could have used the dough toward any player, but got the most expensive one with the worst sound quality, fewest features, lowest battery life, and most gaudy looks? Um... congrats?

lmao, bad sound quality...ignant knob

This post speaks for itself, it says "the only people who could like iPods are too dumb to spell two very simple words"... at any rate the iPods suffer from low sound quality for two quite indisputable reasons:

1) 0.42% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion, since I know you haven't a clue what that means). 0.1% is considered noticeable. iRivers have 0.03%.

2) Bass range attenuation, which makes for less accurate musical reproduction. Since accurate musical reproduction equals sound quality, looks like the iPod is out there too.

Further, they have a crap EQ which doesn't even allow a pathetic attempt to fix these problems.

One source of many...

Noob.

christ did an ipod steal your girlfriend or something

Gurck, where did you get the THD specs? i went to apple site and couldn't find it. If what you said is true, I might reconsider my decision to buy one.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: werk
Yeah, n0c, I don't know what they did to Rio's site, a lot of the detailed specs are now missing. The MSRP for both players are the same, but stores sell the Karma for $250 or less regularly. My gf got mine for me last christmas for under $200 after some artful pricematching and rebate!

Nice.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: thejackal1

Originally posted by: Gurck
You're saying you could have used the dough toward any player, but got the most expensive one with the worst sound quality, fewest features, lowest battery life, and most gaudy looks? Um... congrats?

I guess you never used one before.

i have one, he's definitely right.
the sound quality does kinda suck, and the battery life is disgusting.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck
I won't quote the above posts so as to keep my post from taking up 3 feet of vertical space.

powermak4000 - two threads in which... what? You seem to have a fairly skewed view of reality, I'm very anxious to hear your interpretation of the outcome of this thread and the last in which we spoke. And the market only plays a secondary role in setting prices. I've taken far more courses in, and read far more on economics than you (just assuming this based on my age being roughly twice yours and your tendency to spout off at the mouth on internet forums vs. my tendency to do things like read and learn). The iPod is priced highly for the same reason AOL internet is - there's a higher demand for it, and a company willing to exploit this. Is AOL better? Are iPods better? I'd prefer we look at factual information to determine this. However, you seem a bit reluctant to do so....

n0c - I'm far from an audiophile. My choice of sound card and headphones would get me laughed straight off of an audiophile site like head-fi.org (yes it's also a headphone site, but most posters are hardcore audiophiles), yet I insist that IMO they're good components. Your dismissal of other file formats is related to your dismissal of sound quality, so see the above for details on that. I prefer ogg over mp3, and flac over both - many people who own sound systems of some quality agree with me, though those with low quality sound systems (like an iPod) can't tell the difference. Further, it's my opinion that the iPod's low SQ is intentional, and serves to mask the low SQ of music bought through iTunes. On features, more is better. You saying they don't matter is the equivalent to saying a Yugo = a Ferarri because they both transport you from point A to point B.

Edit:

Originally posted by: Excelsior
So you can't name one that beats it..overall...you just continue to bash it. Name a player that beats it in every category.

iRivers

It doesn't, because it costs the same as the ipod does (I assumed cost was one of the categories). That, and many would say the UI is still better on the iPod.

And I still don't see where you are getting this idea that the iPod is the most expensive DAP.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: PoPPeR

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: Gurck
You're saying you could have used the dough toward any player, but got the most expensive one with the worst sound quality, fewest features, lowest battery life, and most gaudy looks? Um... congrats?

lmao, bad sound quality...ignant knob

This post speaks for itself, it says "the only people who could like iPods are too dumb to spell two very simple words"... at any rate the iPods suffer from low sound quality for two quite indisputable reasons:

1) 0.42% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion, since I know you haven't a clue what that means). 0.1% is considered noticeable. iRivers have 0.03%.

2) Bass range attenuation, which makes for less accurate musical reproduction. Since accurate musical reproduction equals sound quality, looks like the iPod is out there too.

Further, they have a crap EQ which doesn't even allow a pathetic attempt to fix these problems.

One source of many...

Noob.

christ did an ipod steal your girlfriend or something

I figured since I'm one of the few people that owns both, I can comment on some of these. First and foremost is, iRiver lists their official THD at .1% for the H120, but through testing, we know that it is probably much lower. sound quality is easily comparable to the iPod, and since the output is higher, can actually handle some slightly larger cans unamped. However, since you guys aren't audiophiles, i don't think that'll make much of a difference to you guys. The point that I'm trying to get to is that Gurck obviously doesn't own an iPod and just wants to bag on it.

here are the things wrong with the iRiver offering:
1. no firmware update for more than 6 months (they've repeatedly missed deadlines)
2. no random shuffle
3. insanely long bootup time
4. an undeniably ugly design with a plastic joystick (good thing iSkin just released a slip cover for the H series)
5. a fake optical in/out that produces way more distortion than what is expected
6. no gapless playback
7. cannot delete tracks on the player itself
8. cannot create playlists on the player
9. hard drive bug keeps it from spindown... so it is always spinning and wasting your battery life while creating annoying whirling sounds.
10. audible clicking sound while you are recording stuff

i'm sure there's more, but i'll have to think of them later. My point is, the iRiver is a great player but isn't the end-all superior player that their fanatics claim they are. Sure it can play OGG and WMA, but then again, who really encodes their music in that format? Take 10 audiophiles and give them mp3's encoded at 320 and I really doubt a single one of them can tell the difference between that and similarly encoded wma and ogg files.

stuff that the iRiver does right:
1. fm, mp3, wma, ogg, recorder
2. srs surround, lots of sound options
3. comparable form factor
4. long battery life
5. usb mass storage device (also present in iPods, however the music won't be recognized without an index file)
6. comes with a really nice leather case that does its job despite doubling the size of the player
7. includes cresyn earbuds comparable to the sennheiser mx300
8. is not an iPod- you can be cool and unique.

the only other top players to offer unique functions is the m3, karma, and creative's. it's all up to personnal preference what one likes.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: PoPPeR

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: Gurck
You're saying you could have used the dough toward any player, but got the most expensive one with the worst sound quality, fewest features, lowest battery life, and most gaudy looks? Um... congrats?

lmao, bad sound quality...ignant knob

This post speaks for itself, it says "the only people who could like iPods are too dumb to spell two very simple words"... at any rate the iPods suffer from low sound quality for two quite indisputable reasons:

1) 0.42% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion, since I know you haven't a clue what that means). 0.1% is considered noticeable. iRivers have 0.03%.

2) Bass range attenuation, which makes for less accurate musical reproduction. Since accurate musical reproduction equals sound quality, looks like the iPod is out there too.

Further, they have a crap EQ which doesn't even allow a pathetic attempt to fix these problems.

One source of many...

Noob.

christ did an ipod steal your girlfriend or something

I figured since I'm one of the few people that owns both, I can comment on some of these. First and foremost is, iRiver lists their official THD at .1% for the H120, but through testing, we know that it is probably much lower. sound quality is easily comparable to the iPod, and since the output is higher, can actually handle some slightly larger cans unamped. However, since you guys aren't audiophiles, i don't think that'll make much of a difference to you guys. The point that I'm trying to get to is that Gurck obviously doesn't own an iPod and just wants to bag on it.

here are the things wrong with the iRiver offering:
1. no firmware update for more than 6 months (they've repeatedly missed deadlines)
2. no random shuffle
3. insanely long bootup time
4. an undeniably ugly design with a plastic joystick (good thing iSkin just released a slip cover for the H series)
5. a fake optical in/out that produces way more distortion than what is expected
6. no gapless playback
7. cannot delete tracks on the player itself
8. cannot create playlists on the player
9. hard drive bug keeps it from spindown... so it is always spinning and wasting your battery life while creating annoying whirling sounds.
10. audible clicking sound while you are recording stuff

i'm sure there's more, but i'll have to think of them later. My point is, the iRiver is a great player but isn't the end-all superior player that their fanatics claim they are. Sure it can play OGG and WMA, but then again, who really encodes their music in that format? Take 10 audiophiles and give them mp3's encoded at 320 and I really doubt a single one of them can tell the difference between that and similarly encoded wma and ogg files.

stuff that the iRiver does right:
1. fm, mp3, wma, ogg, recorder
2. srs surround, lots of sound options
3. comparable form factor
4. long battery life
5. usb mass storage device (also present in iPods, however the music won't be recognized without an index file)
6. comes with a really nice leather case that does its job despite doubling the size of the player
7. includes cresyn earbuds comparable to the sennheiser mx300
8. is not an iPod- you can be cool and unique.

the only other top players to offer unique functions is the m3, karma, and creative's. it's all up to personnal preference what one likes.

Excellent post. :thumbsup:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
As I said, I couldn't tell the difference between all of the audio formats and anything but the most exaggerated examples of quality differences if you had a gun to my head. I explained my stance on features in my last post. And I explained the looks thing. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to make the iPod look any different.

What do you listen to music through that you can't tell the difference? ie. what receiver and/or sound card, what speakers or headphones? The difference between mp3 (even 256 vbr lame) and 192 ogg is glaring to me - ogg is the victor - through my Sennheiser hd280pros, and noticeable even through my Creative Gigaworks system (though not as pronounced as through the phones). Both driven by a Creative Audigy 2 ZS. Ogg sounds more open, with greater clarity, and doesn't "smush" drumbeats the way mp3 can, even in high bitrates. Also, have you listened to different musical genres? Something where the soundfield is saturated with guitars &amp; drums, like Slayer for instance (nothing against them, I happen to like them), will make any differences harder to discern. With classical, otoh, it will be glaring. Anything in between will be... well, in between

On price - MSRP !=!=!=!= street price! The two have only a passing acquaintance. And firewire is roughly equal in real-world speed tests to usb2. If you think you're special because your mac has firewire ports, think again - I have three without even trying on my pc. As well as four usb 2.0 ports.

Originally posted by: welst10
Gurck, where did you get the THD specs? i went to apple site and couldn't find it. If what you said is true, I might reconsider my decision to buy one.

Here

Originally posted by: ed21x
Sure it can play OGG and WMA, but then again, who really encodes their music in that format?

I do. Ogg sounds better, period.

Take 10 audiophiles and give them mp3's encoded at 320 and I really doubt a single one of them can tell the difference between that and similarly encoded wma and ogg files.

320bit mp3 vs 192bit ogg, and you may be right. However the oggs will allow nearly double the storage. Your comment on the iRiver's looks is entirely subjective. I happen to think it looks refined &amp; dignified, vs. the ostentatious &amp; childish white plastic and neon lights of the iPod.

But flame me all you want, it just proves your bias.

OTOH your other (factual) comments on the iRiver are appreciated, though it's a bit hard to read them through the pro-iPod propaganda (high SQ? children have commented on its low SQ, and all they listen to is britney spears - and numbers still back them up). While I'm in the market for a good, feature-packed DAP, I won't even consider one until it includes an AM tuner. But some of the downsides of the iRiver are food for thought, for sure.

 

[Rainsford]

I buy stuff off iTunes...I rip stuff in AAC format...I use iTunes because it has nice features...

You people spazzing out about iPods need to realize there are a lot of people out there who have good reasons to get them. Oh, ogg sounds better? Well since I only play stuff on my middle of the road headphones/system/car speakers and I would only have to re-encode everything I own, there's no reason I wouldn't want to go with ogg, right?

Yes, I'm sure you hate the iPod and would never buy one...I would. WTF are we arguing about?

 

[nan0bug]

CD's cost less than a dollar a pop and hold 3/4 a gig of mp3s. HD based players are a waste of cash if you ask me.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
As I said, I couldn't tell the difference between all of the audio formats and anything but the most exaggerated examples of quality differences if you had a gun to my head. I explained my stance on features in my last post. And I explained the looks thing. It wouldn't make sense for Apple to make the iPod look any different.

What do you listen to music through that you can't tell the difference? ie. what receiver and/or sound card, what speakers or headphones?

SB Live! No clue about the speakers. My hearing is horrible.

The difference between mp3 (even 256 vbr lame) and 192 ogg is glaring to me - ogg is the victor - through my Sennheiser hd280pros, and noticeable even through my Creative Gigaworks system (though not as pronounced as through the phones). Both driven by a Creative Audigy 2 ZS. Ogg sounds more open, with greater clarity, and doesn't "smush" drumbeats the way mp3 can, even in high bitrates. Also, have you listened to different musical genres? Something where the soundfield is saturated with guitars &amp; drums, like Slayer for instance (nothing against them, I happen to like them), will make any differences harder to discern. With classical, otoh, it will be glaring. Anything in between will be... well, in between

I've only listened to stuff I normally listen to: industrial, pop, classic rock, metal, classical, electronica. And I really can't tell the difference between well encoded oggs and well encoded mp3s. I can sometimes tell when a low bitrate is used, but even that is fairly rare for me. I just have horrible hearing.

On price - MSRP !=!=!=!= street price! The two have only a passing acquaintance.

The difference in real world pricing was already pointed out.

And firewire is roughly equal in real-world speed tests to usb2.

Great. Good for Intel. Doesn't change a thing.

If you think you're special because your mac has firewire ports, think again - I have three without even trying on my pc. As well as four usb 2.0 ports.

That's not it at all, but thanks for telling me.

 

[imported_Mike]

lmao, bad sound quality...ignant knob

This post speaks for itself, it says "the only people who could like iPods are too dumb to spell two very simple words"... at any rate the iPods suffer from low sound quality for two quite indisputable reasons:

I didn't misspell any words....nor do I own an ipod, nor will I ever buy one. I agree, the battery life sucks &amp; the "scratch all" back pisses me off. I dislike iTunes aswell

Your assumptions are lame gurck &amp; they only make you look like even more of a flamer.

1) 0.42% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion, since I know you haven't a clue what that means). 0.1% is considered noticeable. iRivers have 0.03%.

2) Bass range attenuation, which makes for less accurate musical reproduction. Since accurate musical reproduction equals sound quality, looks like the iPod is out there too.

Further, they have a crap EQ which doesn't even allow a pathetic attempt to fix these problems.

One source of many...

You tool, you think 99.9% of the people buying ipods gives a fvck about any of that? Why should they? Its a damn portable mp3 player so they don't get bored off their asses. Lets face it, there is no perfect portable decvice out there yet &amp; your hatred for the ipod is backed by facts, but they're facts that less than 10% of people looking at portable devices will consider.

If you want to "rebel" against the common thought, the choice of the mass's...thats all fine and dandy, but it would be better if you do it without becoming an asshat troll.

 

[HermDogg]

*golf clap for CheapArse*

Well played.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: CheapArse

lmao, bad sound quality...ignant knob

This post speaks for itself, it says "the only people who could like iPods are too dumb to spell two very simple words"... at any rate the iPods suffer from low sound quality for two quite indisputable reasons:

I didn't misspell any words....nor do I own an ipod, nor will I ever buy one. I agree, the battery life sucks &amp; the "scratch all" back pisses me off. I dislike iTunes aswell

Your assumptions are lame gurck &amp; they only make you look like even more of a flamer.

1) 0.42% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion, since I know you haven't a clue what that means). 0.1% is considered noticeable. iRivers have 0.03%.

2) Bass range attenuation, which makes for less accurate musical reproduction. Since accurate musical reproduction equals sound quality, looks like the iPod is out there too.

Further, they have a crap EQ which doesn't even allow a pathetic attempt to fix these problems.

One source of many...

You tool, you think 99.9% of the people buying ipods gives a fvck about any of that? Why should they? Its a damn portable mp3 player so they don't get bored off their asses. Lets face it, there is no perfect portable decvice out there yet &amp; your hatred for the ipod is backed by facts, but they're facts that less than 10% of people looking at portable devices will consider.

If you want to "rebel" against the common thought, the choice of the mass's...thats all fine and dandy, but it would be better if you do it without becoming an asshat troll.

Thank you for your anti-iPod ad... I especially like the "less than 10% of people would want to save 50% off a DAP" portion of your argument, lol... Let's face it - mom &amp; pop bought you that lovely piece of white plastic &amp; flashing neon lights and you now feel compelled to flame anyone who calls it like it is to defend their honor, does that about cover it?

 

[brtspears2]

When I got my iPod, I didn't look at the deep specs. I picked it up, I compared it side to side with other players in its class. Overall the iPod did everything easier and was slicker.

Besides if everyone else loved the iRiver, we would be seeing freeirivers.com or something like that. Or Apple marketing is just too good. Or the iPod is just too good in more aspects than on paper.