The best mp3 player

[uofmtiger]

And because most of us (certainly an audiophile) will know what the source music sounds like based on hearing analog versions of it, he'll be able to tell the difference.

This is not a thread comparing analog to digital. That is a completely different subject. We can change the thread to that subject, but I don't see the point because mp3 players cannot play analog.

So if something goes wrong in compressing a music file, and there is no EC to make up the problem, what do we get? No file because it's thrown out? Or a bad sounding file?

You have a choice to except no file if you are really worried that it will not be an exact copy. The reason they add error correction is to "fix" errors that are pulled over from the CD. FLAC is considered the best at mathmatically fixing these problems. Most would not consider the error correction to be bad sounding. However, someone like yourself could choose not to copy the file. The file will have a problem in any format you try to copy. The problem is not FLAC, it is the CD itself. Buy a new CD if you really want to fix the error (even if you cannot hear it).

Trust me, people can hear the difference. Double blind, blind, pirate-eye blind - it don't matter. I can hear the difference very easily. Very good analog gear will easily reveal the errors of digital in a regular CD - imagine what they reveal in compressed MP3's.

Once again, I was not referring to analog. I was only referring to your comment about compressed vs non-compressed files. Analog versus digital does not belong in an mp3 player thread. The last time I checked, Creative could not play analog, either.

 

[JimmyNeutron]

Uofmtiger, how the hell do you post with quotes like that? I can't figure it out, mine come out as one big quote?!?

Anyway, I hear your points, but there are some things that just are not true.

1: The reason they add error correction is to "fix" errors that are pulled over from the CD. FLAC is considered the best at mathmatically fixing these problems.

Wrong. Error Correction is added to fix the problems upon playback due to many factors, including but not limited to, bad recording, bad transfers, lousy compression designs, compression, dirty discs, vibrations, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda.

2:There is no difference between what you hear on CD and a compressed lossless file (FLAC, Apple Lossless, etc..).... Unless you apply normalization, at which point the compressed lossless file sounds better because it has lowered the amplitude of the clipping that is rampant on most of today's CDs.

If the CD signal has clipping, lowering the signal lowers not just the music, but the clipped signal too. The clipped signal is in the music (due to bad recording, etc). You can't selectively take out the bits for clipping and somehow make the FLAC version magically sound better than the CD version. Whatever is on the CD, bad recordings, coughs, paper shifting, clipping, etc. cannot be taken away - certainly not with FLAC.

3:Once again, I was not referring to analog. I was only referring to your comment about compressed vs non-compressed files. Analog versus digital does not belong in an mp3 player thread. The last time I checked, Creative could not play analog, either.

Well, I thought the main goal of ANY playback unit was to get you closer to that elusive dream of "analog sound" as oppossed to "digital sound". So yeah, if we want our playback to sound at their best, then comparissons to the best format that is out there (analog) should be stated in this thread.

4:This is not a thread comparing analog to digital. That is a completely different subject. We can change the thread to that subject, but I don't see the point because mp3 players cannot play analog.

Actually it's a very relevant subjest as all digital media strive to reproduce the analog sound. You should expect no less from your portable player.


Look, the point of this thread is about sound quality on the portable units, and quite frankly, any audiophile can hear the difference - FLAC or Apple lossless, or whatever. But hey, if you're into a portable device then sound quality really doesn't make much of a difference on the subway, or out in the garden, or commuting to work. Or does it? Only the individual that wants a high quality portable can answer that.

 

[styler]

music reproduction

i thought it wasnt to sound like analogue, but to sound like the actual music played by the musician(s). whether the act of recording captures this is the single most important factor. clearly actually getting a good recording is easier said then done. many modern LPs have an element of digital conversion. the best mp3 player is like any best of lists. some shun the iPod due to its popularity or perceived deficiencies. no player is perfect. i think the iPod wins due to aftermarket support and seemless integration with computer etc. i assure you setting up a wireless network on my G5 mac, iTunes, and airports is far easier than on a PC. i use lossless encoding and it sounds great. whatever the medium, whatever the product, ultimately its a personal choice. for everyone that loves their digital playback device, great, because its all about convenience and music. i love mine because i have 40gb of my favorite music that i can take anywhere at any time. i have no subscriptions to pay. no hassle over what format i use. i burn my own cds to lossless and go from there. i can transfer songs with aftermarket software between any iPod and mine. when the next gen or iPods arrive, i will buy another. lastly, as for Apple support, i dropped my iPod about 20 ft onto the ground. it died, i contacted apple. the next day a box arrived, i mailed my iPod back, once it registered in the DHL system, they sent another. i had a new iPod in 96 hour turnaround. try and get that at BestBuy.

 

[JimmyNeutron]

try and get that at BestBuy.

You won't!!

You're absolutely correct. There is nothing wrong with Apple, or any MP3 format. Heck, I'm a big supporter myself. I don't know when this thread took a turn.

Uofmtiger, I hope you didn't take our debate too seriously. It was, after all, just a debate.

 

[uofmtiger]

If the CD signal has clipping, lowering the signal lowers not just the music, but the clipped signal too.

This is what I said. I would explain clipping and the reason the file sounds better after the amplitude is decreased, but I see you have already put words in my mouth that I did not say. I said "compressed lossless file sounds better because it has lowered the amplitude of the clipping that is rampant on most of today's CDs." I did not say that clipping can be "fixed" with normalizaton.

Well, I thought the main goal of ANY playback unit was to get you closer to that elusive dream of "analog sound" as oppossed to "digital sound".

When converting to a compressed format from CD, the idea is to get as close to the CD's sound. Which is what I thought we were discussing. If you are converting from an analog source, that would create it's own set of circumstances. I have never done that and do not intend to do that, so I will let someone else comment on that process. However, if you burn from analog to wav..the lossless compressed format will sound exactly like the wav file.

Wrong. Error Correction is added to fix the problems upon playback due to many factors, including but not limited to, bad recording, bad transfers, lousy compression designs, compression, dirty discs, vibrations, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Most of these problems are from the source (the CD) and that is the main issue. The issues that can be resolved by replacing the actual CD (dirty disc, scratched disc, etc..) would require a different source for converting if you were not happy with the sound of the lossless format. However, FLAC does a great job of fixing these errors...At least for most people that are interested in archiving to a lossless format for play back of lossless files on an "mp3 player".

 

[uofmtiger]

Uofmtiger, I hope you didn't take our debate too seriously. It was, after all, just a debate

No problem. I do not even think we were debating the same issue. I was discussing lossless vs compressed lossless vs CD sound quality. I never intended to discuss analog and that is apparently your point in the discussion. I only want my archived files to sound as good as the CD (if not a bit better with ReplayGain). I do not think that I can record a CD to my computer and come away with a file that sound like analog.

I could add some surface noise to get closer to the sound, though. Kidding, just kidding...

 

[JimmyNeutron]

:butt1:

 

[nevermind]

nice arse.

 

[mg196]

I'm not trying to start a war here, but let's not forget that the Ipod itself is a knockoff - it was not the first hard-drive portable media player.

Ummm...who cares if it is a knockoff? Should I not get it becuase it uses technology found elsewhere? Your comment is perplexing and confuses me and seems to have nothing to do with rating performance. :scratch2:

OK, after having my iPod mini for about 6 months, I must say it is the best and certainly most user-friendly that I have tried. It only needs one hand to operate, which is essential when driving, and stores more than enough music for an 8 hour drive.

Unfortunately, it does not have enough BATTERY POWER for an 8 hour drive. It runs out after almost exactly 6 hours. Perhaps a car-adapter is in order.

For $20 I purchased a case for it, which protects the face/screen. Well worth the money, but hopefully Apple will develop sturdier, more scratch-proof screens in the future.

That is my 4 kopeks. There may be other, less expensive players out there, but there is a reason why "iPod" is now part of the international music lexicon.

 

[styler]

iPod

seems the iPod was chosen by 6moons for a review with an Avantgarde set up. graned this isnt anything I, or most of us can afford, but give pretty good info on the iPod and the future of HD playback.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/hipod/hipod.html
pretty good read.
tyler

 

[WingNut]

Hey guys, after reading all these threads, I for one who have been a true audiophile for over 30yrs -I do not like the ipod even after visiting showrooms of circuit city likes and listening to quite a few models, I have never like that digital compression of any kind. At least the way I look at this digital format. Any kind of digital compression regardless of the bit rate stinks! :thumbsdn: Digital compression has this digital signature I have never liked, I'll vote on the old sony walkman cassette portables over ipods any day of the week. With ipods it's not so much about the quality of audio but how much you can sqeeze into a little device. Most of your average ipod user really don't care about the quality but quantity of how much can one squeeze. I even remember those Sony mini cd format recorders, remember, nah, they too never sounded good to my ears. :thumbsdn:

 

[styler]

use flac or lossless

Hey guys, after reading all these threads, I for one who have been a true audiophile for over 30yrs -I do not like the ipod even after visiting showrooms of circuit city likes and listening to quite a few models, I have never like that digital compression of any kind. At least the way I look at this digital format. Any kind of digital compression regardless of the bit rate stinks! :thumbsdn: Digital compression has this digital signature I have never liked, I'll vote on the old sony walkman cassette portables over ipods any day of the week. With ipods it's not so much about the quality of audio but how much you can sqeeze into a little device. Most of your average ipod user really don't care about the quality but quantity of how much can one squeeze. I even remember those Sony mini cd format recorders, remember, nah, they too never sounded good to my ears. :thumbsdn:

you dont have to use a compressed format. you can burn a cd straight onto an iPod without any compression. next best is lossless encoding (Apple) or FLAC, both will use the entire digital recording. try it again but havew the sales person use a different format. neither FLAC or Aplle Lossless is "mp3."

 

[WingNut]

Yes, I have had the salesperson do just that and sorry to say I still didn't like what I heard. The Aplle Lossless has this hollow harsh effect.

you dont have to use a compressed format. you can burn a cd straight onto an iPod without any compression. next best is lossless encoding (Apple) or FLAC, both will use the entire digital recording. try it again but havew the sales person use a different format. neither FLAC or Aplle Lossless is "mp3."

 

[uofmtiger]

Now that everyone knows I love my iPod, I am curious if anyone has used either of these units:

Creative Zen Micro or iRiver H10

They are compatible with "Rhapsody to go" and my iPod isn't, so now I am looking into buying one or the other. I can get them for roughly the same price.

As far as user reviews on Amazon or other places are concerned, I am less likely to trust consumer reviews for products by Apple or Microsoft. There is a lot of contempt for these companies, so people that do not own these products are more likely to give their two cents. I am more interested in magazine reviews for the products made by these corporations. While magazines do get advertising from Apple, they also have even more advertising for Sony, Samsung, Hitachi, and other companies that promote everything from HDTVs to flash players. For most magazines, it would make more sense (from an advertising revenue point of view) to say Sony or Samsung have the best product.

 

[Jack Keck]

The tech writer in my local paper, The Redford Observer, wrote that he fovors the H 10 over the Ipod because it can use a subscription service that only costs $6.99/month. Regrettqbly, he did not say anything about the other aspects of the machine.

 

[uofmtiger]

Redford Observer, wrote that he fovors the H 10 over the Ipod because it can use a subscription service that only costs $6.99/month

The writer may be referring to Yahoo's new music service. I thought about switching from Rhapsody to Yahoo, but my Linkplayer Networked DVD player works with Rhapsody and (as of now) does not work with Yahoo.

I would agree that if someone wants to be able to use a monthly subscription service to load up an mp3 player, then the iPod is not the way to go. The H10 supports the Microsoft Playforsure designation so it works with Rhapsody, Napster and probably Yahoo. The Zen Micro has the same capability.

I just checked and Yahoo does work with the Zen Micro and the H10.

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/music/unlimited/unlimited-43.html

 

[uofmtiger]

Creative Zen Micro

Just a follow up related to the Creative Zen Micro. I finally bought one to use with Rhapsody and have a few comments.

The positives:
1. I can take Rhapsody music with me anywhere I go. This gives me over a million albums to choose from.
2. The sound quality is very good.
3. The thing has an FM tuner in it and it can record FM radio
4. Has a built in microphone
5. Has a EQ that can be adjusted for sound.

The negatives:
1. The touch pad is overly sensitive and if it is bumped it could select a function you do not want.
2. The ergonomics are horrible. There is a reason why people love the IPod touch pad. It is very easy to use and it is not nearly as sensitive.
3. Takes a while to start a song after it is chosen.

Since I only bought this for Rhapsody, I thought I would comment on the process. First I had to download a new firmware update for the player and for Rhapsody. Next, I found out it would cost me $5 more a month on top of the $10 I am already paying. I was a little surprised since Yahoo offers their entire service for less. Anyway, I started loading "My Library" and Rhapsody seemed to freeze up. However, I cleared that process and then started loading one album at a time, and it took a while, but I got the entire library copied over. I can now hear any song off of millions of albums while away from my computer. I am very happy with this ability, but I may try Yahoo for the difference in price. :thmbsp: