Mp3 Player

[naruto1988]

and here are the contestants:

http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/H120.aspx
http://us.creative.com/product...echnicalSpecifications

i seriously cannot decide. the ipod's style and simple design/interface makes it want to get it. however, there is no carrying case or FM tuner or voice recording included. the H120 does not have the stylish look ipod does but it has the 3 things mentioned that ipod doesn't.

can any of you guys shed light on which is the one for me? i don't think i truly need the FM tuner or voice recording. any arguments on which you would prefer? (i'm just a high school student looking for some tunes while on the train)

 

[yELLOthar]

http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/H120.aspx
I'd go with that one.

 

[BW86]

i like the iriver or the ipod

 

[EGGO]

The iPod didn't come with a carrying case? My 1st generation iPod I got a little over 2 years ago came with one. And do you really need a voice recorder?

The FM tuner sounds nice, but you can buy that seperately for the iPod. Nowadays, people just hook it up to their sound system anyway. And there are literally over a hundred websites selling cases for the iPod that's original.

Plus we have our very own ipodhacks.com

 

[naruto1988]

well, i've talked w/ my friend and i've decided on this great deal. lifetime warranty. http://www.costco.com/Browse/P...=&topnav=&cat=

 

[Gurck]

iPods have low sound quality, no tuner, low battery life, no flac/ogg/wma support, force use of iTunes (buggy software), are overpriced, and imo quite ugly, though the kids tend to like the garish lights and white plastic. I'd go with anything but.

 

[naruto1988]

lol. i don't really need the tuner and i got lifetime warranty so i don't care about the battery life. i don't use flac or ogg or wma. if i downloaded something of the sort, i have an excellent encoder. and i do like the "garish lights and white plastic". =) as for the sound quality, i listened on my friend's ipod, my ears can't tell the difference. *shrugs*

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Gurck
iPods have low sound quality, no tuner, low battery life, no flac/ogg/wma support, force use of iTunes (buggy software), are overpriced, and imo quite ugly, though the kids tend to like the garish lights and white plastic. I'd go with anything but.

iPods sound quality is a good as the rest. It just lacks bass. Its best described as "neutral".
An FM tuner in a jukebox is pointless. Why store thousends of tracks if your just gonna use the radio?
Battery life on the 3g for me is about 7hours, 4g`s reported to be about 11hours. More than enough for 90% of the people out there.
They done support flac or ogg, but these are rare formats anyway, and wma gets converted by iTunes. It also supports 2 formats that no other player does, AAC & Apple Lossless.
You dont have to use iTunes. Theres WMP10, EphPod, MMJB and a whole selection of others to choose from.
Overpriced? Maybe, but a £100 price drop aint a bad thing.
Ugly? Thats a moot point. I used to hate how they looked, but i quite like the looks of the 3g/4g/

You just dont like the iPod do you? Some sort of vendetta against Apple? Bad experiance prehaps?

 

[EGGO]

I'll have to disagree with everything Gurck said. Especially about the battery life.

I went on a 9 hour trip from Canada back to my place here in NJ. Nonstop I listened to my iPod and it lasted me the whole trip including bathroom stops. Granted it was on the last bar of life, but damn, 9 hours of me choosing songs and listening to them. That's more than I could ask for since it's rechargable and uses that same wire for charging to also transfer songs from my computer to the iPod (so no need to buy extra wires).

And I don't even HAVE iTunes on my computer and I use it. You can even get other 3rd party programs for ways how to tranfer data to your iPod on that iPodhacks site I gave you, which also lets my iPod have the weather and everything

 

[Adn4n]

Wait is the lifetime warranty from apple or costco? My iPod is malfunctioning, and I don't know what to do.

 

[krazydave]

Ipods are sleek and trendy, but I like em... and yes, they do seem to lack in bass a bit but not too bad. I'm just a big fan of the no button, slide your finger across dial on it.

iRiver on the other hand, I have an older imp-350 mp3 CD player that has the built in FM Tuner... It's actually really nice when you want to hear the news, or if you like some morning shows etc.

In the end I would still go with the iRiver, mainly because it has more features for the buck.
The only thing I dont like about it is it lacks the smooth buttonless front that the iPod has.

 

[gflores]

I'm also considering purchasing an mp3 player. I've seen no advantages towards the Creative model, so I've discarded it. The iRiver is very appealing. It has more features, mainly the FM radio and the voice recorder (which can record a radio broadcast). It also has a small remote control that actually seems useful. I've heard that the iPod is easier to navigate and better organizes one's music. The navigation and the sleek design are what I like about the iPod. I'll probably end up getting the iRiver, if only it were cheaper...

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: yELLOthar
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/H120.aspx
I'd go with that one.

me too

 

[barnett25]

If the hard drive based iRivers are built anything like the flash ones I wouldnt recomend it. I had a flash iRiver that lasted about a year before the circuit board inside cracked under the play button. Also the "scroll stick" thing started being a major pain after a while. It stopped being very sensitive, and it wasnt very ergonomic to begin with. I personally think that the iPod is better becuase it seems built more solidly. But thats just me. Also keep in mind I've only used the flash iRiver.

Edit: Also keep in mind that a 'feature' you dont use isn't really a feature...

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
iPods sound quality is a good as the rest. It just lacks bass. Its best described as "neutral".
An FM tuner in a jukebox is pointless. Why store thousends of tracks if your just gonna use the radio?
Battery life on the 3g for me is about 7hours, 4g`s reported to be about 11hours. More than enough for 90% of the people out there.
They done support flac or ogg, but these are rare formats anyway, and wma gets converted by iTunes. It also supports 2 formats that no other player does, AAC & Apple Lossless.
You dont have to use iTunes. Theres WMP10, EphPod, MMJB and a whole selection of others to choose from.
Overpriced? Maybe, but a £100 price drop aint a bad thing.
Ugly? Thats a moot point. I used to hate how they looked, but i quite like the looks of the 3g/4g/

You just dont like the iPod do you? Some sort of vendetta against Apple? Bad experiance prehaps?

There is more than music on FM, you know On top of lacking bass in their frequency response curve (a move intended to help battery life, which sucks regardless) and having only a token EQ, iPods have high THD, 0.42% vs the iRivers' 0.03%. 0.1% is considered to be the audible threshold. Sound quality isn't "just as good" for these three reasons, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell on the bargain basement phones they ship with them. As you admitted, the battery life is terrible. When going from one lossy format to another, sound quality suffers*. If you support proprietary software & codecs why are you using a Windows PC, as linked to in your sig? Apple lossless and aac are the unnecessary & rare formats. Flac and ogg are gaining popularity as their benefits become more well-known and are all I and many audio enthusiasts encode to. For all their bad points iPods are nevertheless the most expensive players out there - after all, Apple has an immense ad campaign to fund, an ad campaign that influences a depressing percentage of people out there to purchase and defend a terrible product. AOL is similar in this respect.

* Lossy codecs work by "throwing out" data deemed by the codec to be less important for playback quality. Different codecs keep & discard different parts of the data, and so one will generally be lacking data that another would consider worthy of keeping. Since said data is not there when encoding from one lossy to another, you're missing that *and* whatever the new codec deems unworthy of saving. Result is a file with lower quality than it would have with either codec if encoded from a lossless source. This is true for video as well as sound encoding.

 

[Spikey217]

Originally posted by: barnett25
If the hard drive based iRivers are built anything like the flash ones I wouldnt recomend it. I had a flash iRiver that lasted about a year before the circuit board inside cracked under the play button. Also the "scroll stick" thing started being a major pain after a while. It stopped being very sensitive, and it wasnt very ergonomic to begin with. I personally think that the iPod is better becuase it seems built more solidly. But thats just me. Also keep in mind I've only used the flash iRiver.

Edit: Also keep in mind that a 'feature' you dont use isn't really a feature...

May I ask which model you had?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Spikey217
Edit: Also keep in mind that a 'feature' you dont use isn't really a feature...

Good point, no sense paying extra for features you don't need. You can save a lot of money by getting a less expensive player without unneeded features. Or you can pay extra for such a player - the iPod

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Gurck
There is more than music on FM, you know

But it still defeats the idea of a jukebox. In something thats <5Gb, sure, because you can run out of tracks easyily, but with most jukeboxs holding thousends of tracks, enough for days &amp; weeks worth of playback, the purpose of a FM radio in it is a little pointless imo.

On top of lacking bass in their frequency response curve (a move intended to help battery life, which sucks regardless) and having only a token EQ, iPods have high THD, 0.42% vs the iRivers' 0.03%. 0.1% is considered to be the audible threshold. Sound quality isn't "just as good" for these three reasons, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell on the bargain basement phones they ship with them.

oooh, trying to get technical are we? dont bother trying to confuse me with stuff like that. I have a NatDip in Electronics. So dont even bother going there.
Unless your using some £50 headphones, the iPods audio quality is more than good enough for all but audiophiles.

As you admitted, the battery life is terrible.

I didnt say it was terrible, i said that it was good enough for most people. Only people who use their players for 12hours+ a day would have reason to complain.

When going from one lossy format to another, sound quality suffers*.

I know, but the options still there.

If you support proprietary software &amp; codecs why are you using a Windows PC, as linked to in your sig?

Huh? What are you getting at there?

Apple lossless and aac are the unnecessary &amp; rare formats. Flac and ogg are gaining popularity as their benefits become more well-known and are all I and many audio enthusiasts encode to.

Apple Lossless and AAC are both fully compatible with the most used online music store, iTunes, which has a FAR bigger audience than ogg/flac. I know of only a few people who even use those formats.
Becides, if you want to get down to it, they still support the most popular format bar none, MP3s! lol.

For all their bad points iPods are nevertheless the most expensive players out there - after all, Apple has an immense ad campaign to fund, an ad campaign that influences a depressing percentage of people out there to purchase and defend a terrible product. AOL is similar in this respect.

I do admit, that with iPods we are paying for the name, but on the flip side, look at the attention to detail that that extra cash brings. Its uncanny, they think of everything. But that premium for this detail and the name does need dropping to be more competitive with its peers.

 

[Gurck]

If you don't want an FM tuner, fine. Personally I'd want one (and an AM tuner as well, which is why I don't yet have a hdd based player; none have them), but to each his own. However, much like recording, an FM tuner is an option, the lack of which should coincide with a lower price. In all other players this holds true. With the iPod, however, lack of features coincides with a higher price.

Yes, I was trying to get technical I'm not an audiophile by a long shot, but sound quality is important to me, and I would indeed invest $50 or so (which I'd save right off the bat by not buying an iPod) in decent headphones. I've listened to various DAPs and found that even on the included headphones (which are cheap regardless of player) the iPod's SQ is painfully bad.

As an aside, since you seem knowledgeable, maybe you could venture a guess at something I've been wondering about for a while - why don't $400 DAPs have AM tuners? It's been mentioned that they need big antennas, but Walkmans in the 80s that cost $20 had them and they worked well enough, so that answer doesn't satisfy me.

Listening for 15 hours at a time isn't the only reason to want good battery life - who wants to be bothered charging something daily? It's maintenence, and the time spent doing it adds up.

Apple lossless and aac aren't supported by any other player, as far as I know, and I'd imagine it would be a pain getting them to play on a PC (haven't tried it, don't know or care). I'd hardly call that popular. Further, why pay full price for a fraction of the data?

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Gurck
As an aside, since you seem knowledgeable, maybe you could venture a guess at something I've been wondering about for a while - why don't $400 DAPs have AM tuners? It's been mentioned that they need big antennas, but Walkmans in the 80s that cost $20 had them and they worked well enough, so that answer doesn't satisfy me.

I dont know what its like in the US, but AM frequencys arnt used all that often here in the UK.
I dont know the exacting details, but i`d imagine that adding the relevent circuit and antenna for an AM radio as well would require alot of real estate and extra power. As FM is vastly popular, i`d imagine that they stick with it for that reason alone.

Apple lossless and aac aren't supported by any other player, as far as I know, and I'd imagine it would be a pain getting them to play on a PC (haven't tried it, don't know or care). I'd hardly call that popular. Further, why pay full price for a fraction of the data?

Windows iTunes plays it, and i belive several other software players do as well.
It not a format limited to mac bty.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: Gurck
There is more than music on FM, you know

But it still defeats the idea of a jukebox. In something thats <5Gb, sure, because you can run out of tracks easyily, but with most jukeboxs holding thousends of tracks, enough for days &amp; weeks worth of playback, the purpose of a FM radio in it is a little pointless imo.

I disagree here. Without an FM Tuner, you may be without access to breaking news that is on the radio. My Nokia 3300 plays MP3's (enough for me) and Ive used the tuner a lot even though the quality is poor. Kept me up to date during Euro 2004. Plus, one of my favourite radio programs is a chatshow and contains very little music. Most times, Id rather listen to that than music if I had the choice.

As for AAC support, my phone records and can play AAC. Although this doesnt have much bearing on the situation here, just pointing out that there are more AAC capable devices than was given credit for.

 

[0roo0roo]

there are countless cases for ipods. from cheap to uber luxury designer stuff for rich twits. ipod = accessories galore

 

[chilled]

I was disappointed (but not surprised) that the IPod did not support WMA files. It's nice to hear that more devices are supporting AACs now. As for the FM tuner, I would say that is a must for a device of such cost - I really wouldn't want to get a portable radio as well. Having said that its a matter of tastes as not all people use the FM tuner. Ditto for the AM tuner, although I tend not to use it much.

From the perspective of a guy with a Rio flash player
PS. Apple should make a flash player as well...

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: Gurck
As an aside, since you seem knowledgeable, maybe you could venture a guess at something I've been wondering about for a while - why don't $400 DAPs have AM tuners? It's been mentioned that they need big antennas, but Walkmans in the 80s that cost $20 had them and they worked well enough, so that answer doesn't satisfy me.

I dont know what its like in the US, but AM frequencys arnt used all that often here in the UK.
I dont know the exacting details, but i`d imagine that adding the relevent circuit and antenna for an AM radio as well would require alot of real estate and extra power. As FM is vastly popular, i`d imagine that they stick with it for that reason alone.

So we probably won't see AM tuners? That's a bummer... In the US FM is mostly "entertainment" talk radio from ~5am to ~11am, and music the rest. I like to listen to Howard Stern in the mornings if I can swing it, and listening to music is always good as even my ~30gb collection (lots of flacs &amp; high-bitrate oggs really inflate it) can get stale, because it's good to get an idea of what new stuff is out there, and because there might be older stuff I'd like but don't know it yet. With files only, you're limited to what you've bought or, if ye be a filthy pirate, downloaded AM is where it's at for me though - sports, political talk radio, and the best radio show on earth, Coast to Coast AM. If the iRiver had an AM tuner I'd buy one right now without hesitation. I've gotten as far as putting the 40gb model in my Newegg shopping cart, but backed out.

Apple lossless and aac aren't supported by any other player, as far as I know, and I'd imagine it would be a pain getting them to play on a PC (haven't tried it, don't know or care). I'd hardly call that popular. Further, why pay full price for a fraction of the data?

Windows iTunes plays it, and i belive several other software players do as well.
It not a format limited to mac bty.

iTunes is notoriously buggy, especially with large collections (such as mine). I don't want other software players, I want Winamp Also have my doubts that aac sounds as good as ogg - Apple has shown that sound quality isn't something they consider to be of paramount importance...

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Elcs
I disagree here. Without an FM Tuner, you may be without access to breaking news that is on the radio. My Nokia 3300 plays MP3's (enough for me) and Ive used the tuner a lot even though the quality is poor. Kept me up to date during Euro 2004. Plus, one of my favourite radio programs is a chatshow and contains very little music. Most times, Id rather listen to that than music if I had the choice.

But the chances are that you`ll have you phone with you as well as your MP3 player. So why carry two radios?

Afaik, AAC is one of the best loss formats around. I dont know how it compares to to ogg, but i`d imagine that a mpeg4 based codec would be better than mpeg3.