Rio Carbon > iPod Mini?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Actually, I'm not going to try to persuade anyone. Since I'm not an iPod owner, instead I'm going to elicit your first-hand experience with that product and try to come up with a qualified comparison between the two players. If you spot an error in my post, please comment below to correct it. Here goes.

Rio Carbon vs. iPod Mini

Size
The Rio Carbon comes in at 3.3" H x 2.5" W x 0.6" D = 4.95^3.
The iPod Mini is 3.6" H x 2.0" W x 0.5" D = 3.6^3.

They're shaped differently (the Mini, the Carbon) so this can't really be a direct comparison, but where one is a bit thicker the other is a bit taller. Negligible depth difference. I enjoy the egg-slice shape of the Carbon in my hand, but that's a personal preference.

By the numbers, the iPod Mini is a winner by size.


Weight
Rio Carbon weight: 3.2 oz
iPod Mini weight: 3.6 oz

Who would ever notice? Nobody. But, technically speaking, the Carbon wins.


Cost
Directly from the manufacturer websites:
Rio Carbon 5 GB = $199.99 USD - $20 USD mail-in rebate
iPod Mini 4 GB = $199.00 USD
iPod Mini 6 GB = $249.00 USD

The two models of the Mini make this hard to call cleanly. At the $199 USD price point, the Rio Carbon obviously wins. Is $50 USD worth 1 GB of space to you?

Additionally, we're AnandTechers. WTFBBQ? No coupon, no sale! :p No winner.


Carrying Capacity
At $199, you have a 5 GB Rio Carbon slaying the 4 GB iPod Mini. The Mini's new fratneral twin trumps the Carbon by going all the way to 6 GB. One wonders why someone would not just buy a regular iPod as we creep up towards 10 GB, but, well, let's not go there.

No winner.


File Formats
Rio Carbon = MP3, WMA and Audible
iPod Mini = MP3, AAC, Audible and Apple Lossless

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.


Computer Connectivity
The Rio Carbon's interface with a PC running newer versions of Windows could not be better:
1. Plug Rio Carbon into PC using included USB cable.
2. Rio Carbon is recognized, without the need for any driver installation, as a portable HDD.
3. Drag and drop music over the USB 2.0 connection to the /Music folder on the Carbon in Windows Explorer.

Want to charge the Carbon?
1. Plug Rio Carbon into PC using included USB cable.
2. Carbon goes into idle state, starts charging off of the USB connection. Optionally use the USB cable to connect to the AC charger also included in the Carbon package.

This is where, IMO, the Rio Carbon pulls ahead. You'll never even need to use software off of the included CD from Rio. Drag, drop, go. What makes this even better is the driverless nature of the Carbon - want to use the Carbon as a portable HDD? Go for it! Create a folder on the Carbon's HDD and keep the USB cable with you to connect it wherever you are (work, school lab). It'll even charge itself up if you're low on battery after your long commute in!


Other Uses
Rio Carbon: Portable HDD to replace your USB keychain with aforementioned 100% compatibility with new Windows systems, stopwatch.

iPod Mini: Portable HDD. (Albeit limited because if its driver-requiring nature?)


Player Interface
The Rio Carbon runs into two roadblocks here.
1. No playlist creation on-the-go. By default, you can sort and create playlists by artist name, album, track name, year, and the useful "What's New" sorter - which lets you play only the music you've uploaded to the Carbon in the last 24 hours, last 7 days, last two weeks, etc. But no truly dynamic playlist creation, you'll have to do that on your PC beforehand.
2. The screen doesn't display all that much at a time. Take a look. Granted, you're listening to your earphones - not staring at the screen as if it was a videogame. Just a minor quibble but one I thought was worth mentioning.

However, I like the hardware interface of the Rio Carbon over that of the iPod Mini. See that jog dial on the top of the player, left side? Using that thing to scroll through your songs is really, really efficient. That's a plus over the scroll-in-circles interface of the Mini in my book.

Another thing: The lock controls on the Rio Carbon are fabulous. You press the menu button + center key to lock the controls, but before doing that you can access Lock Setup and specify what exactly you want disabled during lock mode. I disable everything except for the jog dial which acts as a volume control, allowing me to 'mute' or turn up the volume by giving the wheel a whirl when the player is in my pocket. Neato.


Battery Life
For the Carbon, Rio claims 18-20 hours. PCWorld managed 20 hours and 37 minutes.

The older 4 GB iPod Mini manages 8-10 hours, while the new 4 GB and 6 GB models should do 16-18. That pulls the Mini about even with the Carbon.


Accessories
Well, obviously this is no contest whatsoever. You can probably buy a iPod Mini dildo at this point in time, whereas all the Rio Carbon gets (aside from the included case, from which you must pull the Carbon out of to access its controls) is an assortment of extremely ugly and expensive 3rd-party cases (one, two or three). You just can't mess with Apple on this one.


Coolness Factor
Owning something different, versus being part of a cool clique? Those all-white earbuds are snazzy and act as an immediate identifier of an iPod owner, even if they're a bit lacking in sound quality (IMO). The Carbon's earbuds are silver, but even worse in quality - specifically, the midrange. I opted to purchase the Sennheiser MX400 earbuds.

The Rio Carbon catches a lot of attention because of its blue-hued backlighting for the screen, and red hue backlighting for the controls and word "Rio" on the front side. To keep those eyes peeled, the Rio fades the backlighting to nothing to produce a very cool effect.

No winner.


Conclusion
Obviously, this is a close horse race. I don't really care to try to convince anyone of one player's merits over another, even if I do tout the Rio Carbon pretty highly in this post. This is just to let everyone know that there is at least one strong competitor to the Mini. So, try giving it a test run. The Rio Carbon is available at Best Buy locations in the U.S. and Canada (or online), as well as directly from Rio's website. You won't be sorry!


Links
Rio Carbon official page
PC Magazine review of the Rio Carbon
CNet reviews the Rio Carbon
GearLive Carbon Review
TopicPoint - Rio Carbon MP3 Player Review
Omar Shahine - Rio Carbon vs iPod
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Excellent comparison. :thumbsup:

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.
I am, and it was precisely the reason I purchased a Karma instead of an iPod.

Also, I still prefer the Zen Micro over either the mini or the Carbon.
 

RagingBITCH

Lifer
Sep 27, 2003
17,618
2
76
Obviously, this is a close horse race. I don't really care to try to convince anyone of one player's merits over another, even if I do tout the Rio Carbon pretty highly in this post

But your whole post was about "look at how great the Carbon is over the iPod Mini based off paper specs". :p
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: werk
Excellent comparison.

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.
I am, and it was precisely the reason I purchased a Karma instead of an iPod.
Thanks. :)

I joined the MP3 player game a long time ago - 2000, I think. Back then I re-encoded my MP3s as 96 or 128 kbps WMA files because my Creative Nomad II had a measly 128MB of space on it. Great player for the times though, especially with 8-10 hours of battery life off of a single replaceable AA battery.

Today, unless you have a sizable CD collection and do your own encoding to WMA there doesn't seem to be much point in insisting on WMA support. I do wish that these manufacturers could somehow open up the software architecture to the Net community and let us throw on Ogg support and whatnot. But it's probably a lot more difficult to do that than just handing people the original code.

Edit: I used 'though' like thirteen times in this post.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,389
8,547
126
Originally posted by: werk
Excellent comparison. :thumbsup:

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.
I am, and it was precisely the reason I purchased a Karma instead of an iPod.

Also, I still prefer the Zen Micro over either the mini or the Carbon.

ew you like WMA? hand in your lifer card!
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: spanky
jeebuz u put a lot of effort into this post.
I like to stretch my writing muscles from time to time. :D
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Obviously, this is a close horse race. I don't really care to try to convince anyone of one player's merits over another, even if I do tout the Rio Carbon pretty highly in this post

But your whole post was about "look at how great the Carbon is over the iPod Mini based off paper specs". :p
I know that there are enough iPod Mini fanboys out there that they'd make up the difference in impartiality. Plus, a truly neutral tone would have meant a really boring review. :p
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: intogamer
the ipod mini are way nicer!
your whole post reduced to a single line
Haha!
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: werk
Excellent comparison.

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.
I am, and it was precisely the reason I purchased a Karma instead of an iPod.
Thanks. :)

I joined the MP3 player game a long time ago - 2000, I think. Back then I re-encoded my MP3s as 96 or 128 kbps WMA files because my Creative Nomad II had a measly 128MB of space on it. Great player for the times though, especially with 8-10 hours of battery life off of a single replaceable AA battery.

Now, though, unless you have a sizable CD collection and do your own encoding to WMA there doesn't seem to be much point in insisting on WMA support. I do wish that these manufacturers could somehow open up the software architecture to the Net community and let us throw on Ogg support and whatnot. It's probably a lot more difficult to do that than just handing people the original code, though.
I just like the simplicity of using WMP10 to rip to WMA lossless, then transcode to WMA 160kbps on the fly when I sync my Karma. It was a bit kludgier prior to 10, using RedChair's RioRad Explorer, but now doing it all through WMP10 is a snap. My gf does the same with her Zen Micro. She was amazed at how simple it was.
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: werk
Excellent comparison. :thumbsup:

Not many of us are WMA fanboys, so that's not going to be anyone's decision-making factor.
I am, and it was precisely the reason I purchased a Karma instead of an iPod.

Also, I still prefer the Zen Micro over either the mini or the Carbon.

ew you like WMA? hand in your lifer card!
I have never had anyone give a good, logical reason why they dislike wma except "ew it's Microsoft, it has to be bad!"
 

Originally posted by: yllus
I joined the MP3 player game a long time ago - 2000, I think. Back then I re-encoded my MP3s as 96 or 128 kbps WMA files because my Creative Nomad II had a measly 128MB of space on it. Great player for the times though, especially with 8-10 hours of battery life off of a single replaceable AA battery.
Were you in on the Nomad II hot deal from emusic? I still have mine, still makes a good digital recorder.

Who cares about space? Blah. I had a 4GB mini with 1.5GB free. That's with two albums encoded in Apple lossless format. I have no desire to lug my entire 30GB collection around on the off chance I feel like listening to the 1998 Felicity soundtrack one morning on the subway.



 

HN

Diamond Member
Jan 19, 2001
8,186
4
0
One thing:

for the 4GB, you give the price point of $199 (which is for the new model), but in the battery life section, you say it only has 8-10 (which is the old model). the ~18 hr. battery life applies to both the new 4GB as well as the 6GB.
 

Dubb

Platinum Member
Mar 25, 2003
2,495
0
0
good job.

I too tend to gravitate towards the rio products. I gotta have gapless (which the carbon doesn't have :() and the little things, like the "selective lock" feature, are just plain cool.

for me the carbon would be the A+++ small player if it had some of the karma's features, namely gapless and vorbis. but ah well, karma's still doing fine.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
to be fair you should have technically declared a winner in size. more than a square inch in size is a decent difference when comparing things of such small size.



Size
The Rio Carbon comes in at 3.3" H x 2.5" W x 0.6" D.=4.95^3
The iPod Mini is 3.6" H x 2.0" W x 0.5" D.=3.6^3


you know..since you did for weight
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: Dubb
good job.

I too tend to gravitate towards the rio products. I gotta have gapless (which the carbon doesn't have :() and the little things, like the "selective lock" feature, are just plain cool.

for me the carbon would be the A+++ small player if it had some of the karma's features, namely gapless and vorbis. but ah well, karma's still doing fine.
Check out the Chroma!
I hope the battery life figure isn't right, though, 12hrs is kind of low these days.

Once this and the next wave of Portable MediaCenters come out, I'm going to have a tough time deciding on my next mp3 player.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: werk
Originally posted by: ElFenix
ew you like WMA? hand in your lifer card!
I have never had anyone give a good, logical reason why they dislike wma except "ew it's Microsoft, it has to be bad!"
Hey, now I remember that huge WMA thread in OT from a couple years back! :D Yeah, not a single person has ever justified why MP3 > WMA. Having used WMA for a long time with my Nomad II, I can at least say that on your typical portable headphones, 128 kbps WMA is equivalent to 192 kbps MP3 music (cue dramatic music).
Originally posted by: dwell
Were you in on the Nomad II hot deal from emusic? I still have mine, still makes a good digital recorder.

Who cares about space? Blah. I had a 4GB mini with 1.5GB free. That's with two albums encoded in Apple lossless format. I have no desire to lug my entire 30GB collection around on the off chance I feel like listening to the 1998 Felicity soundtrack one morning on the subway.
I got my Nomad II off of the Canadian home shopping channel. :eek: It was actually a pretty hot deal though. And yeah, it still makes for an excellent digital recorder!

The space thing is no big deal to me too. I don't even have 1 GB of music on my PC. I figure that some people might really make use of that extra gig of difference between the various iPod Mini models and the Carbon.
Originally posted by: HN
One thing:

for the 4GB, you give the price point of $199 (which is for the new model), but in the battery life section, you say it only has 8-10 (which is the old model). the ~18 hr. battery life applies to both the new 4GB as well as the 6GB.
Fixed, thanks!
 

AbAbber2k

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
6,474
1
0
I'd go with the Carbon. I HATE iTunes. ephPod is ok, but I still would rather have a drag&drop system. On that note, the Zen Micro is nice too. The dell mini isn't bad either.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: werk
Check out the Chroma!
I hope the battery life figure isn't right, though, 12hrs is kind of low these days.

Once this and the next wave of Portable MediaCenters come out, I'm going to have a tough time deciding on my next mp3 player.
"And of course, if they allowed two Rio Chromas to trade files back and forth via Wi-Fi, I would actually cry a little."
HOLY FSCK. :Q Now that would be revolutionary!
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: werk
Originally posted by: ElFenix
ew you like WMA? hand in your lifer card!
I have never had anyone give a good, logical reason why they dislike wma except "ew it's Microsoft, it has to be bad!"
Hey, now I remember that huge WMA thread in OT from a couple years back! :D Yeah, not a single person has ever justified why MP3 > WMA. Having used WMA for a long time with my Nomad II, I can at least say that on your typical portable headphones, 128 kbps WMA is equivalent to 192 kbps MP3 music (cue dramatic music).
Just to add a bit to my fairly regular rants against anti wma folks:

IMO, using WMA is no different than using AAC. There's a lossless format for both, both can be DRM'd up the wazoo, both sound fine, the processing power required to decode them is fairly equivalent (affects battery life), both are pushed by companies that like to set their own standards. WMA has the advantage of being able to be played back on lots of different devices. AAC has the advantage of the better legal music store.
/regular anti-wma rant
 

arod

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2000
4,236
0
76
I got a karma as well.... have to say its a great player and even better than ipod IMO.

And yes the chroma looks interesting.... The karma is networkable so its not completly imlausable that the new one could be wireless sharable.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
I hate the ipods because you can't just drag and drop files onto them. The Rio Carbon you can so therefore winnAR.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: werk
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: werk
Originally posted by: ElFenix
ew you like WMA? hand in your lifer card!
I have never had anyone give a good, logical reason why they dislike wma except "ew it's Microsoft, it has to be bad!"
Hey, now I remember that huge WMA thread in OT from a couple years back! :D Yeah, not a single person has ever justified why MP3 > WMA. Having used WMA for a long time with my Nomad II, I can at least say that on your typical portable headphones, 128 kbps WMA is equivalent to 192 kbps MP3 music (cue dramatic music).
Just to add a bit to my fairly regular rants against anti wma folks:

IMO, using WMA is no different than using AAC. There's a lossless format for both, both can be DRM'd up the wazoo, both sound fine, the processing power required to decode them is fairly equivalent (affects battery life), both are pushed by companies that like to set their own standards. WMA has the advantage of being able to be played back on lots of different devices. AAC has the advantage of the better legal music store.
/regular anti-wma rant

are both based on mpeg standard?