MP3 players: MP3 or iPod?
MP3 or iPod?
by LV007 - 12/29/05 7:04 PMHi, I am new to this fourm. Looking a device for running. What is better? A MP3 player or a iPOD shuffle? Any suggestions.
Both the same thing
by Glorybox3737 - 12/30/05 10:35 AM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007Contrary to popular belief mp3 players and ipods are both the same thing. There are other companies out there besides apple. Like creative, iriver, sansa... the list goes on. So the question really is what do you need? Do you need a screen, how much music do you want to put on it, do you want a color screen, fm player, line in recording, video player capibilities, do you want it super thin or super tiny? Also flash player, hard drive or micro drive? Finally the big question is how much are you willing to spend? Tell us that and then we can help you. Read some reviews educate yourself a bit. Apple, creative, cowan and sony are some of the major players out there.
I would like to walk with my mp3
by irishred - 12/31/05 11:00 AM In reply to: Both the same thing by Glorybox3737I don't think hard drives mp3 were meant just sit and listen, right? I do like to walk and housework with music, but am afraid of skipping. I am also looking to buy iaudio x5L. what do you all think?
Don't Worry!
by rschoolf - 1/15/06 11:10 AM In reply to: I would like to walk with my mp3 by irishredPlayers like the Apple iPod use drive caches, and actually spin up the hard drive every now and then. You can confidentially place the iPod in your pocket and walk, and do most any task. You have to watch subjecting your iPod to constant vibration, like jogging.
- Robert, author of "Robert's MP3 Loader" software.
For Running...
by rschoolf - 12/30/05 9:09 PM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007Larger capacity iPods and "other players with hard drives in them" are prone to skipping, because of the mechanical hard drive in them. Other, lower capacity players use flash memory (solid state), and do not skip.
I wrote a free program that can load your flash player with random MP3's from your collection, and can manage Podcasts, too. It's kind of neat to see what's on your player each morning.
The program, "Robert's Mp3 Loader", is released no-cost, public domain, and can be downloaded from http://users.adelphia.net/~rschoolf/mp3loader.htm
for RUNNING
by yangman88 - 12/31/05 12:43 PM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007if you're using this player for RUNNING ONLY, then the ipod shuffle would be the best choice overall due to size, weight, and ease of use. However, the lack of a screen and the ability to select ur music may lean in favor of other flash players like the Creative zen nano for the Sandisk sansa m200 series. And, if you can afford it, go with the ipod nano.
It's called shuffle because you can't see your tracks
by timsline - 12/31/05 2:14 PM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007The shuffle is a pretty cool device, but extremely limited without any kind of display screen. I bought my girlfriend an iriver T30 1 gig flash player and that thing is much better in my opinion than the shuffle. Having a screen makes the device so much more customizable, and gives you the EQ settings that will make your music sound even better.
For the price and value and features, I would NOT go with the ipod shuffle.
mp3>ipod
by YG GiRL - 1/6/06 3:28 AM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007mp3 flash players have more features than hard drive players.. personally i think the shuffle is a lame excuse that apple uses in order to make a player without a screen.. which automatically makes it a shuffle.
features
flash player: fmtuner, mic, batterylife.. etc.
shuffle: play music?
sorrry if im coming off as really harsh towards the shuffle.. i guess it depends on your own personal preference and what you really want in an mp3 player
mp3>ipod
by YG GiRL - 1/6/06 3:29 AM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007mp3 flash players have more features than hard drive players.. personally i think the shuffle is a lame excuse that apple uses in order to make a player without a screen.. which automatically makes it a shuffle.
features
flash player: fmtuner, mic, AAA/rechargeable.. etc.
shuffle: play music?
sorrry if im coming off as really harsh towards the shuffle.. i guess it depends on your own personal preference and what you really want in an mp3 player
let me help
by dark_zero64 - 1/16/06 6:32 AM In reply to: MP3 or iPod? by LV007umm did you know the ipod shuffle is a type of mp3 player. yeah but i get the jist of what your saying. i would go with an 512 mp3 player that can play wma. why? wma sounds better at the same format. mp3 at 128 = wma at 64.
No!
by Glorybox3737 - 1/16/06 12:13 PM In reply to: let me help by dark_zero64I'm not saying get the shuffle or anything but plz don't encode your music to wma. It sounds bad! Plus wma has more drain on your battery. Keep you're music to mp3 format. That way if you decide you want a let's say creative mp3 player, then later decide on an ipod or in three years decide on another player you won't have to worry about the music format. MP3 is universal. It's compatible with every player on the market. Except some sony players.
whatver
by dark_zero64 - 1/17/06 10:11 AM In reply to: No! by Glorybox3737wma does sound better even cnet agrees with me. dont believe me check this out!
When it comes to sound quality, WMA, AAC, RAX, and ATRAC3 files are roughly equal when encoded at the same bit rate. MP3 sound quality is roughly half as good as the aforementioned file types, so an MP3 file encoded at 320Kbps would be about equal with a WMA file encoded at 160Kbps.
you can find this at http://www.cnet.com/4520-7899_1-6396943-1.html?tag=txt
yeah so im right so listen to me.
Doesn't matter
by Glorybox3737 - 1/17/06 2:16 PM In reply to: whatver by dark_zero64For one do a blind abx test try to tell the differeance between mp3 at 192 bit rate and the original cd. Most people can't. So you don't need to go all the way to 320kbs. That's over kill in any format. Plus if you stick with mp3 you aren't restricted to windows players. So you still get excellent sound quality and compatibility on all platform. Also mp3 is better for battery life than wma.
"Also, Microsoft's second claim that WMA provides CD quality at 64kbps is entirely wrong. Not only does the 64kbps WMA lack in violin detail, but even at 128kbps (which Microsoft touts as "audiophile") suffers from overbrightness." Taken from http://ekei.com/audio/
"Microsoft launched their new WMA (MS Audio) compression scheme with a lot of hype in may 99. It was promised to sund as good as MP3 in HALF bitrate and also be very good at much lower bitrates still. Well it doesnt seem to do just that, actually it is a bit
lower sound quality than MP3 in SAME bitrate." Taken From http://pessoal.onda.com.br/rjamorim/rrw/km/audiocomp1.html
also check out they guys over at hydrogenaudio. They know thier stuff and even they say go with Mp3. Wma only sounds better at bitrates lower than 128. At higher bit rates that's when mp3 lame takes over. Also 64kbs isn't cd quality. Cnet isn't always right. Cnet is about technology not audio formats.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t31402.html
Pros for MP3
1)not proprietary like wma or aac
2)uses less battery power
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
