IPOD USB 2.0 Interface Questions & More!

[FishTankX]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: HomerSapien

Originally posted by: Gurck
Don't be a slave to advertising or do what all the "l33t k1dz" are doing... do your homework before buying a player.

Isnt that what the original poster is doing? Hmm...someone needs to think before they post.

Yep, and it's not me. AT is far from "l33t k1dz", as most of us are in our 20s and what few teens there are aren't the MTV-watching zombie trend-slave type. Unfortunately the few are quite vocal.

Anyways, Im not going to get sucked into a pissing contest.

You're posting... why, then?

You're using headphones that probably cost about <$5 to make. Lossless is overkill for that. If you have a couple grand hifi system, then you will want lossless or if you shell out $150+ for hi quality earbuds.

Itunes store : It comes down to do you want to buy a song for $1 or the album for $9-$15 at record stores, not to mention not having to buy new hard drives to store lossless encoding. (yes, i am aware of other online music stores, but i just dont find the music i like through them)

You do realize that headphone jacks follow a standard, and that digital players will work with phones other than the ones they ship with? That headphones are actually a popular and growing industry? The problems, of course, are that aac < ogg and especially lossless, and that the iPod's headphone jack has terrible sound quality, with attenuated bass (adds a bit to the pathetic battery life) and 0.42% THD. You may argue that sound quality isn't important to you, and my reply is that that's fine, however there's no reason not to save $100+ by getting a non-Apple player which also lacks good sound quality.

The iPod doesn't have poor soundquality. It's renown in many circles for it's excellent neutral sound, and stereophile praised it for it's excellent quality that competed with many CD players. The iPod having 'Poor sound quality' is pure bunk, and quite rediculous.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
The iPod doesn't have poor soundquality. It's renown in many circles for it's excellent neutral sound, and stereophile praised it for it's excellent quality that competed with many CD players. The iPod having 'Poor sound quality' is pure bunk, and quite rediculous.

You may be talking about its line-out, which doesn't suffer from the problems its headphone jack has... however, why buy a portable device if you're only going to use the line-out? Compare this (iPod) to this (iRiver). The pod also checks in at 0.42% THD, while 0.1% is generally what's considered audible (as you know, since you're knowledgeable about sound quality, right? ). The iRiver? 0.04%.

 

[FishTankX]

I know a bit about audio. I'm thinking of picking up a 1212m, some Grado RS-1's and an RA1 eventually. I personally use a D-NE700 as my main portable, but i'm saving up for an iAudio M5. I'm firmly entrenched in the audio world and have owned an MZ-R50 and a personally own an MT-831.

Also, the low impedence bass drop off is due to lack of a certain capacitor but the iH1xx series is far from flat signal wise with amplified bass and treble, with inferior output (iPod is 30+mW, iRiver is 16, if I remember?) and the iRiver's line out isn't as impressive to me as the iPod's.

 

[Gurck]

"I'll throw product numbers around, it's sure to impress people!!11" :laugh:

You didn't address the distortion, the bass attenuation's effect on sq, or why the average user would buy a portable device to use only its line-out. Most importantly you ignored the price and the fact it's so high to pay for the advertising that influences the weak-minded, trendy people who like them more than specs, features, battery life, and price do. iRivers are 20mW/channel btw, not sure why you're making stuff up...

 

[FishTankX]

Okay, so I didn't remember the iRiver's output power. I did get it within 4mW. But at any rate, the iRiver's amp doesn't output as much as the iPod (20+20@16 vs 32+32@32), with decent impedence phones the bass rolloff just doesn't happen beyond ~40Hz. Many people praise the iPod's headphone out performance with the Etymotics phones, which are some of the most resolving phones out there. Wouldn't they look bad, if looked on under such a light by critical head-fi members who are so anal about their audio quality that some of them go so far to say that '320k/s mp3 is crap'?

Now, my question is why are you making up stuff?

http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Data/iPod_test2.htm

That page clearly lists the iPod, even with the lowest impedence phone, the THD is below 0.1

Look around www.head-fi.org and read some of bangraman's comments on the iPod in the portable audio forum. He's quite fond of it's sound quality.

As for iTunes, iTunes is not a piece of junk like you make it out to be. I've used it. And from what i've seen of my friends using it, it provides a very quick and easy way to sync between an iPod and your computer, or even vicaversa. Not too many programs will let you burn a CD of that lecture you recorded with the press of a button.

P.S. I'm not addressing the ipod's soundquality from the perspective of the line out, so don't bring that up. It's headphone out is fine, by the opinions of countless head-fi.org iPod owners, and at this i'm going to take their word for it.

 

[loic2003]

well whilst everyone above is trying to one-up each other by trying to go into further and further detail about each device, I'll tell you -bman46- (any of you guys remember him? he asked a simple question a few days back) that I personally am very happy with my iPod. It isn't often that I listen to music for 8 hours straight, but that's unimportant now that the latest iPods have nearly double the battery life or previous models.

iTunes is very solid. On a windows machine it can have some stability issues due to the OS it's based on (you can't build a skyscraper on the foundations of a bungalow), but personally I've never once had it crash (I downloaded it the day version 1.0 was released and have used it every day since). I love the way the software is designed to make the organisation of large music collections very manageable which I've not seen in any other program.

As for sound quality, well, I'm not some mega nerd audiophile but the quality seems fine. Most of my collection consists of mp3's at 120k or or higher. PLugged into a lound Hi-Fi, it sounds great, and the bass isn't flattened at all (I heard once that mp3's make sounds waves that are slightly 'angular' whihc can messs up the sound..... apparently). The iPod has been used every day for 18 months now, I've jogged, cycled, fallen, crashed and been drunk in charge of the iPod and it's been solid throughout. The battery life is not noticably lower than the day I bought it. The battery *can* be replaced with an after market one-and one of a higher capacity if required.

I can't comment really on the other devices, but I'd advise you to at least skip players that try to do too much (eg video and even picture displaying-yeah I know about the new iPod) as I really feel you just wouldn't use these features. I appreciate the simplicity of selecting a playlist, pressing play and forgetting about the device until it's time to stop using it. I've never once been walking through town and thought "hey it'd be great if I could see some pictures or watch a movie right now". It's rare for me to go travelling long distances, and if I did and wanted entertainment for the way I'd most likely use my iBook where I could play a DVD on a decent screen. Displaying photos is fairly cool if you're into your digital photography. However, I am into photography myself and I prefer, again, to display the pictures on the notebook where you can actually see the picture properly, etc.

In conclusion, the iPod is neat. It looks good, the battery DOES last well and the 'low impedance bass drop off" or "base attenuation" isn't an issue (it's got a sound equaliser so you can set it to whatever you want).

 

[bman46]

"well whilst everyone above is trying to one-up each other by trying to go into further and further detail about each device, I'll tell you -bman46- (any of you guys remember him? he asked a simple question a few days back) that I personally am very happy with my iPod. It isn't often that I listen to music for 8 hours straight, but that's unimportant now that the latest iPods have nearly double the battery life or previous models. "


Thank you for having the ability to answer a question!

 

[Gurck]

Source for the 0.42% THD figure. On iTunes: I'm glad you like it. Personally I'd rather listen to my music without crashing and not have a bloated music player taking up megs upon megs of ram, but to each his own... unfortunately, with an iPod you have no choice.

Originally posted by: loic2003
As for sound quality, well, I'm not some mega nerd audiophile but the quality seems fine.

I'm an aspiring mega nerd audiophile and trust me, they sound bad. But if sound quality isn't important to you - and that's fine, like I said, to each his own - why are you against saving $100 on another, similar player whose manufacturer doesn't have to pay off U2 and buy advertising during sports playoffs?

I'd advise you to at least skip players that try to do too much (eg video and even picture displaying ...
... I've never once been walking through town and thought "hey it'd be great if I could see some pictures or watch a movie right now".

Other players without those features cost far less.

It isn't often that I listen to music for 8 hours straight

All other players have a longer battery life. Why pay more for less battery?

the 'low impedance bass drop off" or "base attenuation" isn't an issue (it's got a sound equaliser so you can set it to whatever you want).

"The [lack of bass response] could easily be compensated by an equalizer setting (even matched to typical impedances of headphones), but the iPod doesn't allow to download custom equalizer settings, and Apple doesn't provide the right one" - Source

The site author also stated that quality aftermarket headphones helped, but didn't come close to alleviating, the problem. However, I can't find it, perhaps it was lost in a site update, or I didn't look hard enough *shrug*. It makes perfect sense; amplify a sh*t source and run it to high quality headphones, it'll still sound like sh*t.

For every point you're defending it on, another player offers more for the same price or the same for far less money. Stop blindly defending them for a minute. Take a look at why you like them so much - is it the white plastic and garish lights? Is it Bono? Is it that the trendy (and quite stupid) MTV crowd feels they're fashionable? Or maybe the ability to make it pink or purple according to your mood with an overpriced piece of plastic? :roll:

Sorry if you feel I'm going offtopic, OP, but the things are sh*t and apparently their BS ad campaign is difficult enough to see through, and their metrosexual appeal so strong, that they're the #1 player. Just wanted to encourage giving it logical, rational thought before you waste your money.

"Both C'T as well as Stereoplay conclude that the iRiver is the best buy" - Source

 

[FishTankX]

Gurck, have you checked prices recently?

The iPod with it's accessories and what not is about $280/20GB after student discounts. $300 wtihout.

The iHP 120 which you praise so valiantly is about 310-340. Iriver H320 which is *significantly* thicker (Yes, i've held them both in person) and probably heavier is about the same range.

What does the iHP offer over the iPod? Drag and drop sync, voice record, and a good EQ. And optical out, which isn't highly regarded as far as audiophile standards.

The bass rolloff only happens with phones of less than 40 or so ohms of impedence. If you have low impedence cans, just don't get an iPod. Simple. But I happen to have a bunch of high impedence cans. I'm not buying the iPOd for other reasons (lack of voice recorder, video, etc..) and am getting an M5. But for pete sakes, won't you respect other people's opinions?

This reminds me of people who go into a thread, and automatically say 'INTEL SUCKS! GET AMD!', only it's worse because there's no *clear* victor. The ipod clearly has strentghs, like neutrality of sound, organizer functions, quick syncs with it's own home program, as well as massive third party support, impressive battery life (recently, ofcourse), powerful GUI, ID3 tag database (which to my knowledge, the iRiver doesn't have very strong support of), etc.. etc.. etc..

You're biting remarks against the iPod smack of zealotry and you refuse to listen to any arguments contrary to your point of view. This isn't conversation, this is ranting. I'm sorry. There's just no hope for people not willing to listen to anyone's point of view on something.

Even the iRiver has strong competitors, like the iAudio M3 and later the M5 which you fail to list. Thinner, lighter, much of the same functionatlity, FLAC support, and a special version with 35 hour battery life. Top that.

(The last remark was a jab at his zealotry, mind you)

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Gurck, have you checked prices recently?

The iPod with it's accessories and what not is about $280/20GB after student discounts. $300 wtihout.
The iHP 120 which you praise so valiantly is about 310-340.

Ah, so the truth comes out, price isn't a concern to you because mom &amp; pop pick up the bills hehe... Newsflash, sport-o, there are people in the world older than 22. I'm sure you think we're all crusty senior citizens and you'll never reach the big 2-0, instead relying on some kind of time warp or Peter Pan story come true, but rest assured, barring bad luck it will happen :laugh:

Anyway, the price is comparable; you're looking at the iHP-120 when you should be looking at its successor, the H320, which Newegg has for $305 - and while their prices are competitive, they're generally not the absolute best out there (though they make up for it with affordable 2-3 day fedex instead of the $10-$20 most places want for UPS ground and with good customer service).

Iriver H320 which is *significantly* thicker (Yes, i've held them both in person) and probably heavier is about the same range.

It's called a real battery and the ability to change it. And why are we changing model numbers now that you no longer need a higher price from an outdated model to back up your argument? Looks like you painted yourself into a corner here

What does the iHP offer over the iPod? Drag and drop sync, voice record, and a good EQ. And optical out, which isn't highly regarded as far as audiophile standards.

You forgot an FM tuner, better sound quality, ogg &amp; wma support, inline remote, the ability to manipulate &amp; move music you own without the very real threat of copy protection features deleting all your music, to name a few... More importantly, you're admitting that the iRiver is a better value, how is that supposed help your argument?

But for pete sakes, won't you respect other people's opinions?

you refuse to listen to any arguments contrary to your point of view.

I respect others' opinions and listen to points, this is called debate. Seems the product you've chosen to defend doesn't stand up to scrutiny too well, now does it? Not my fault, you need to pick your battles more carefully, try not to back losing horses. Please keep this in mind before making baseless accusations.

This reminds me of people who go into a thread, and automatically say 'INTEL SUCKS! GET AMD!'

Don't see why it would, while you've given very few examples to back up your position, instead relying mostly on an "ipOd rulz0rz!!111" sentiment (can't blame you, the iPod doesn't have much going for it), I've said nothing without good reason and backing evidence, often going to the trouble of providing links.

You're biting remarks against the iPod smack of zealotry

There's certainly a zealot/fanboy here - and it's you. I'm speaking logically while you're defending something you don't quite have the vocabulary to express - your submission to their ad campaign. Mental image I'm getting is a kid foaming at the mouth, half-eaten PB&amp;J nearby, Power Rangers on TV in the background, 18 browser windows open, 17 to various porn sites and the 18th to Anandtech... Hit or miss?

 

[torpid]

Just a side note, OGG is not noticeably better than AAC. They both sound about the same once you get into the moderately high bit rate range (128+) and OGG takes a lot more CPU power. The issue with AAC is portability and so forth.

Wherever you get your mp3 player, just be sure it can be returned if you decide it's not for you. There are a lot of mp3 players that will really not appeal to some. In my case it's the creative nomad (including the zen - haven't tried the zen touch). I bought a jukebox 3 after reading glowing reviews and it turned out to be a piece of crap worthy of toilet flushdom.

 

[torpid]

Oh yes, one [more] side note. Don't worry about an FM transmitter and inline remote TOO much. You can get both (in fact you can even get a wireless remote) for the ipod. It would be better to concentrate on other factors, such as how they sound and how easy they are to use, and whether or not you are ok with using itunes or 3rd party software.

One other side note, you might want to check out anapod from red chair software. I haven't used it specifically but the explorer software for rio products is quite good.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Gurck

rant rant rant...

great. Well I'll make a nice soundbyte for Gurck: He doesn't like iPods and he's against them for oh so many reasons.

If you want to listen to Gurck, then don't buy one and use some other device which I'm sure is more than capable of playing MP3's etc and won't cost as much. Fantastic. Pont of view made (here comes the overly long comment in retaliation containing lots of quotes and repeating the same points).

Gurck doesn't like iPods, but they make up like 80% + of the HD MP3 player market share so most people do like them. I personally know 8 people with iPods and they all like them. Not one complaint. They all like iTunes and use it over what they previously used (Winamp, etc). I'm not saying it's the only player out there worth your money, but the iPod is tried and tested, and has proven itself worthy. My friends, incidentally, didn't buy their iPods because of some ad campaign. They each saw and used friend's ipods and loved them so much they wanted their own.

Finally; the one feature that the iPod has above all other devices, and what in my eyes is revolutionary and most certainly worth those few extra dollars (what's $100 these days, like.... £50?! lol) is the scroll wheel. other players have little clicky buttons or smaller fiddly wheels that you can't scroll down an entire 40gig music collection in *one smooth movement*. The scrollwheel rocks and is what has made the iPod so unique. It's not the shiny plastic or metal -although the style is undeniable- it's the beauty of it's interface (software and hardware). I've given my ipod to some people who have no clue about technology (like my mate's 80 year old gran), and within 2 minutes they can use the thing like they grew up using it.

I currently am quite tired of the advertising from apple, and that bloody Vertigo track is really starting to grind. The apple products, however, are amazing and I'd still recommend them over anything else.

 

[Gurck]

Lol, call the waaahmbulance Seriously, stop whining, it's annoying and just reinforces my pet theory that the average iPod proponent is much younger than the average tech-savvy music lover. Did it ever occur to you that if "OMGWTF u h8 my favorite playur!!1!1oneone" is the best you can come up with in the face of logical reasoning why the iPod is a piss-poor DAP, perhaps it's because the ... *drumroll* ... iPod sucks? Your friends sound like real geniuses too :roll:

 

[FishTankX]

http://stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/934/">Stereophile iPod review</a>

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players?ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source"

Head-fi members' assesment of iPod's THD

Stereophile gave a favorable review of the iPod. So that's a credible review source. Criticize Stereophlie, and you've just discredeted some very influential people in the world of Audio.

This head-fi member's measurments paint the iPod as several times better than your measurements, and I can ask him questions. I don't speak german, so I can't confirm your source.

The iPod syncs with callender.

As mentioned by others, the iPod has the scroll wheel.

The iPod has the iTunes music store.

The iPod has iTunes (In contrast to the iHP which has no real dedicated ripping program, big minus for the mass market)

The iPod has voice recording attachments for voice recording. I realize it's an extra expense, but the iPod is not as expensive as you state. Show me one shop that can sell me an iHP-120 for $280 shipped. Then i'll believe it's significantly chepaer.

iRiver's recording is flawed, it introduces noise into the recording and the iHP is not physically capable of recording to a file larger than 795MB.

Not to mention explorer drag and drop isn't an inherently superior way of doing things. It doesn't allow for syncing.

Etc..

I take your personal attack on me as ridiculous. I'm not 18. I'm 20. In college. I do not own an iPod, I've stated *repeatedly* that i'm eyeing the iAudio M5. I do not view the iPod as the be all end all player. I view the Rio karma as the be all end all player. If it had a remote, and didn't have it's nasty problem of higher than average failure rates, I would advocate the Rio Karma as the world's most incredible MP3 player. And I hope the Rio Karma 2 (Chroma?) Fixes that so I can go with that. In my opinion, the Rio Karma is inherently superior to the iHP, save the remote. It has the Rio DJ function, supports ogg (WMA is a steaming piece crap), ID3 tag database, and an incredible parametric EQ. A music *player* at it's best. Not to mention FLAC support (which the iHP sorely lacks).

But I find the need to defend the iPod, which has a legitimate claim to excellence, against people who fail to do their research. You list a german site, which probably reviewed the euro crippled 5+5mw version of the ipod. You fail to mention to list the strengths of the iPod along with the weaknesses, making your assessment one sided and not helping the person inquiring at all. Many people praise the iPod, when used with the right headphones, as having no problems with bass rolloff, (As I restate, this is a capacitor problem. I realize this is a technical flaw. It's about as bad as the iHP's POS optical out) The strengths being the scroll wheel, GUI, and ID3 tag database. The iHP does not work with id3 tags in ogg.

Not to mention all of your articles are totally moot because the only info me or you can find seems to be centered around testing of the 3g iPod and not the 4g ipod.

I won't tollerate any more personal attacks on your part. My trigger finger is itching. Leave this to the DAPs, and our perspectives on them, lest I drag the mods into this.

And as to your major complaint,

"I'm working my way through some electronica with the Sony MDR-G74SL on both the iPod Mini and the Zen Micro. The felt bass feeling that I get is not significantly less on the Mini. So there's a question mark over how relevant these bass fall-off measurements are in real life."
-Bangraman

And don't go dissin bangraman, don't even *go* there. He's tested more DAPs than you. He knows what he's talking about, as he's had the iHP-120, the iPod, the Rio Karma, the iPod Mini, the iAudio M3, etc.. etc..

And as an aspiring audiophile, let me ask you this. Have you spent more than a few hours listening to an ipod?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Have you spent more than a few hours listening to an ipod?

Yep, friend has a 3g. All indications are that 4g sq is the same.

The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players

Many CD players cost $20 and are crap, your point?

Stereophile gave a favorable review of the iPod. So that's a credible review source. Criticize Stereophlie, and you've just discredeted some very influential people in the world of Audio.

These are people who wouldn't dare listen to headphones without an amp. As such, they bypass the iPod's terrible headphone jack, the biggest factor in why it sounds so bad. What do they have to say about its price/features ratio or its SQ vs players with better SQ?

The iPod has the iTunes music store.

Full price for lossy music, great...

The iPod has iTunes (In contrast to the iHP which has no real dedicated ripping program, big minus for the mass market)

Other ways result in a better sounding file, don't install malware known as QuickTime, and aren't nearly as bloaty or buggy.

iRiver's recording is flawed, it introduces noise into the recording and the iHP is not physically capable of recording to a file larger than 795MB.

As opposed to the iPod's recording feature... oh, wait...

The iPod has voice recording attachments for voice recording. I realize it's an extra expense, but the iPod is not as expensive as you state. Show me one shop that can sell me an iHP-120 for $280 shipped. Then i'll believe it's significantly chepaer.

Lol, extra money on top of its already inflated price! Better be extra nice to mom &amp; dad over turkey-day break if you want that too, bucko And as stated, a lot of people are actually older than 22 Q) and not eligible for a student discount. If you want a player with the features of the iPod at a far lower price, check out the hdd-based Dell &amp; Creative players. The iRiver's price is comparable, but it's higher quality &amp; has far more features.

I take your personal attack on me as ridiculous

Then why'd you start with the ad hom attacks? Don't dish it out if you can't take it, son.

I won't tollerate any more personal attacks on your part. My trigger finger is itching. Leave this to the DAPs, and our perspectives on them, lest I drag the mods into this

Please do! You start namecalling in what was a civil debate and now run crying to the mods when your horse loses? I guess that's pretty much explained by:

I'm 20

:laugh:

 

[Excelsior]

Damnit Gurck, I swear an iPod must have done something horrible to you.

"And those who don't need extra features can save $100 or more buying a different player over the iPod."

Sure..but show me an mp3 player $100 cheaper than the iPod that is equal to or better than? You keep spouting the cost factor...yet it is a horrible argument. You must be thinking of Macs.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Damnit Gurck, I swear an iPod must have done something horrible to you.

"And those who don't need extra features can save $100 or more buying a different player over the iPod."

Sure..but show me an mp3 player $100 cheaper than the iPod that is equal to or better than? You keep spouting the cost factor...yet it is a horrible argument. You must be thinking of Macs.

Pretty much any player out there. The extra $100 probably looks something like

$19 - Bono
$1 - R&amp;D (monopolies don't innovate, plain &amp; simple)
$50 - Ads
$10 - Replacing defective units
$20 - Profit

Seriously not worth it. Cost is always a concern, especially when more of it gets you nothing extra, or like in this case, an product which is inferior in most ways.

I wish people would just admit they like it because they want to be trendy.

 

[FishTankX]

Ugh. Forget it, arguing with you isn't worthit.

You've degenerated to acusing me of porn viewing, blindness, (Which I assure you i'm not, as i've said i'm not buying an iPod atleast 3 or 4 times), one sided argument (Note where I state the alternative of the Rio Karma (save the harddrive issue) or the iAudio M5, both of which I believe to be handily superior to the iHP. Which doesn't even support ID3 databases in an OGG collection.)

If i've insulted you as a person, like your sly porn comment, (Which I find highly offensive because i'm a christian), calling me a child etc... let me know. I can assure you I did not. I acused you of Zealotry (I'm 90% sure the majority rules here) and not willing to understand anyone else's mode of argument, which bothers me.

Ultimatley the iHP-120 looses out to the iPod on
-raw output power
-certain features (like PDA functions, games, which are relevant to the general public)
-aesthetics (Excuse me, but several times i've been caught borrowing my friends iHP people remarked that it looked like a tape player)
-Ease of use (Debatable)
-Scroll wheel (Again, certain people don't like this feature, but many, many people do)
-AAC and ALAC support (iRiver doesn't support a single compressed lossless format, and it's arguable that AAC sounds better than OGG)
-The iHP can't even shuffle properly, inside a group. It only shuffles inside a folder.
-Line out (Many, many people would argue that the iPod's line out is superior to the iHP's)
-Size

The iHP-120 looses out to the Rio Karma on
-FLAC support
-Size
-Rio DJ feature
-Parametric EQ
-LAN support
-Sound ( Many would say the Karma sound better)
-Raw output power
-Line out ( Many would say the Karma's line out sounds better)


Now, how many times do I have to reiterate that I don't own an iPod and make no plans to do so in the near future? I hold certain features dear to me. External remote. Voice recording. Lossless support. (Yes, I do have the phones to back it up. Sennheiser HD-25-1, when outside. HD-580 when inside. Thank you very much). Being able to start playing on one folder and have it play through your whole music collection (As I understand it, the iHP is not capable of doing this. It just plays 1 folder at a time) and being able to shuffle your whole music collection. (Again, the iHP falls on it's feet). I don't care about FM. I don't care about line in recording (Get a DAT or a minidisc for that if you're so inclined. The iHP has massive problems with optical in recording, and line in recording is limited to 795MB anyways). My sole argument is that the iPod is a well designed piece of Audio equipment from apple, that combines incredible ease of use with a competent program (iTunes is no worse than windows media player, which the iRiver PMP depends on), stunning aesthetics (No tape player, thank you very much), with neutral sound (With 60+ OHM phones, I admit, though I wouldn't have a problem with that if I were to get one).

And find this thoroughly amusing that you call yourself an audiophile when you use an audigy 2 ZS as your main soundcard (Compared to the $30 Chaintech AV710 which not only sounds better but costs about 1/10th the cost. Where's your value?) and onboard on your SFF. I'm not trashing your choices, mind you. I use an Audigy 2 myself in tandem with an AV-710, and love it to death. But your claim to be a mega audiophile and being able to radically tell apart the sound of the iHP (Which has smiley face internal EQ syndrome, inflated bass and highs) and the iPod doesn't quite match up.

Not to mention that iRiver has practically no presence in the micro player spheres (I mean, you've got apple, rio, and creative just hanging out down there, while iRiver has a hockeypuck of a player that i'd be ashamed to carry around)

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Damnit Gurck, I swear an iPod must have done something horrible to you.

"And those who don't need extra features can save $100 or more buying a different player over the iPod."

Sure..but show me an mp3 player $100 cheaper than the iPod that is equal to or better than? You keep spouting the cost factor...yet it is a horrible argument. You must be thinking of Macs.

Pretty much any player out there. The extra $100 probably looks something like

$19 - Bono
$1 - R&amp;D (monopolies don't innovate, plain &amp; simple)
$50 - Ads
$10 - Replacing defective units
$20 - Profit

Seriously not worth it. Cost is always a concern, especially when more of it gets you nothing extra, or like in this case, an product which is inferior in most ways.

I wish people would just admit they like it because they want to be trendy.

Like I thought..you can't come up with any examples, because they don't exist.

20GB iPod is ~$300. Show me "all of those players out there" that are $200 and are equal to or better than the iPod. :roll:

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
i'm a christian

This explains a lot :laugh:

I acused you of Zealotry

Yep, cheap character attack. It's ok, if I chose to defend such a pos I'd probably resort to personal attacks as well when it became clear I was wrong.

Ultimatley the iHP-120 looses out to the iPod on
-raw output power
-certain features (like PDA functions, games, which are relevant to the general public)
-aesthetics (Excuse me, but several times i've been caught borrowing my friends iHP people remarked that it looked like a tape player)
-Ease of use (Debatable)
-Scroll wheel (Again, certain people don't like this feature, but many, many people do)
-AAC and ALAC support (iRiver doesn't support a single compressed lossless format, and it's arguable that AAC sounds better than OGG)
-The iHP can't even shuffle properly, inside a group. It only shuffles inside a folder.
-Line out (Many, many people would argue that the iPod's line out is superior to the iHP's)
-Size

Again now with the iHP-120? Why is it you pick &amp; choose between that model and its successor depending which helps your argument more? I already called you on this, yet you continue... Anyhow, only a few above points are valid. Aesthetics? I'll admit it's subjective, but come on... the iPod looks like something you'd find in a 5 year old's toy chest. White plastic, gaudy lights, a back that scratches if you look at it the wrong way... ugh. Aac and alac? There are better-sounding &amp; more popular lossy and lossless codecs that the iPod doesn't support. Who cares about that crap, other than suckers who pay a buck a song for lossy music...? Line out? If I want to listen to music at home there are far better choices than a portable device. The only solid thing it has going for it is its ease of use, and that only matters because the average person can barely tie their own shoes. Personally I have no problem with the iRiver's ui, but then I have a brain. Weak shuffling is another good point, though personally I tend to listen to full albums and only rarely use the feature.

Now, how many times do I have to reiterate that I don't own an iPod

Heard you the first time and I'm still not sure why you keep saying it. I don't give a crap what you have.

I don't care about FM. I don't care about line in recording

As I've already stated more than once, if you don't like extra features that's fine - but other players without the features you don't want are far less expensive. iPod loses, again.

My sole argument is that the iPod is a well designed piece of Audio equipment from apple, that combines incredible ease of use with a competent program (iTunes is no worse than windows media player, which the iRiver PMP depends on), stunning aesthetics (No tape player, thank you very much), with neutral sound

It's not well designed, and which I've given far more evidence than you for your argument. It relies on consumer ignorance &amp; apathy, advertising, and fashion to sell... and it's overpriced at that. iTunes is extremely buggy, especially with large collections. It's also bloatware; people without the foggiest idea what directory structure is may need it in the same manner that many need AOL, but I'd rather manipulate files with a file manager, play them with a player, and edit tags with an editor. It's a far more sleek and simple way of doing things, and saves me a lot of ram usage. Oh, and it doesn't install that malware known as QuickTime. Surely someone who supposedly feels that "sleek &amp; simple" is important would agree, no? And neutral sound is a nice way of saying something lacks punch and vitality.

And find this thoroughly amusing that you call yourself an audiophile when you use an audigy 2 ZS as your main soundcard

Ever hear of games?

and onboard on your SFF

At some point in life college children reach a certain age - for many it's 22 - and can no longer whine to mommy and daddy when they want something. Instead they do something called "work", which is not very much fun, for which they receive something in exchange called "money". Still with me? Good, here's where it gets complicated - there are things called "bills". These are basically payments on goods and services, such as a structure in which to live, electricity, and water, among many (many, many, many ) other things. Sometimes people can't have what they want. It's amazing, I know, but trust me on this.

But your claim to be a mega audiophile

mind quoting me?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Damnit Gurck, I swear an iPod must have done something horrible to you.

"And those who don't need extra features can save $100 or more buying a different player over the iPod."

Sure..but show me an mp3 player $100 cheaper than the iPod that is equal to or better than? You keep spouting the cost factor...yet it is a horrible argument. You must be thinking of Macs.

Pretty much any player out there. The extra $100 probably looks something like

$19 - Bono
$1 - R&amp;D (monopolies don't innovate, plain &amp; simple)
$50 - Ads
$10 - Replacing defective units
$20 - Profit

Seriously not worth it. Cost is always a concern, especially when more of it gets you nothing extra, or like in this case, an product which is inferior in most ways.

I wish people would just admit they like it because they want to be trendy.

Like I thought..you can't come up with any examples, because they don't exist.

20GB iPod is ~$300. Show me "all of those players out there" that are $200 and are equal to or better than the iPod. :roll:

All players are equal to or better than the iPod. You can see them at your local gadget shop or on newegg's site, I'm certainly not going to name &amp; link them all for you.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Damnit Gurck, I swear an iPod must have done something horrible to you.

"And those who don't need extra features can save $100 or more buying a different player over the iPod."

Sure..but show me an mp3 player $100 cheaper than the iPod that is equal to or better than? You keep spouting the cost factor...yet it is a horrible argument. You must be thinking of Macs.

Pretty much any player out there. The extra $100 probably looks something like

$19 - Bono
$1 - R&amp;D (monopolies don't innovate, plain &amp; simple)
$50 - Ads
$10 - Replacing defective units
$20 - Profit

Seriously not worth it. Cost is always a concern, especially when more of it gets you nothing extra, or like in this case, an product which is inferior in most ways.

I wish people would just admit they like it because they want to be trendy.

Like I thought..you can't come up with any examples, because they don't exist.

20GB iPod is ~$300. Show me "all of those players out there" that are $200 and are equal to or better than the iPod. :roll:

All players are equal to or better than the iPod. You can see them at your local gadget shop or on newegg's site, I'm certainly not going to name &amp; link them all for you.

You must be joking. I don't see one player that has 20GBs and is also $100 cheaper than the iPod, the closest one is that Archos.

And if monopolies don't innovate, what has MS been doing with Windows?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
You must be joking. I don't see one player that has 20GBs and is also $100 cheaper than the iPod, the closest one is that Archos.

$90 close enough? That one's free, I want $5 per search from here on out

Oh, and for FishTankX - What's this I spy?

And if monopolies don't innovate, what has MS been doing with Windows?

They've been not innovating Sure a few new things will be thrown in, but it's a simple fact that when you've got it good you get complacent. It's not just Apple or M$, it's anyone. It's why married people gain weight, it's why the Yankees haven't won the series lately, etc. I shouldn't have said monopoly though, market dominance would probably be a better term. Semantics though, you get the idea. Heavy windows users still need to reinstall every 6-12 months and reboot when (not if) the OS starts bogging.

 

[FishTankX]

Okay, here is where you claim to be an audiophile

"I'm an aspiring mega nerd audiophile and trust me, they sound bad. But if sound quality isn't important to you - and that's fine, like I said, to each his own - why are you against saving $100 on another, similar player whose manufacturer doesn't have to pay off U2 and buy advertising during sports playoffs? "

And i'd like to know what you're using to judge these players. What headphones are you using?

And as for the money comments, my parents make $7000/yr (Working abroad) and I work minimum wage to buy all of the audio equipment I own. So don't give me that argument, I don't go running back to mommy and daddy for money simply because they don't have much.