Question about MP3 players

[David]

Originally Posted by Rumour0323

So anyway, any advice would be appreciated before I plop down $300.00 - $400.00 on one of these things.

I recommend the MuVo X-Trainer, made by Creative Labs (which manufactures the SoundBlaster audio cards).

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Wild_Heart03

I have a 5 GB Creative Zen Micro, and I love it. I was going to buy an iPod Mini but I've had so many people tell me about all these problems they've had with their iPods dying and just ceasing to work altogether,

That was a big problem with the batteries in the early models of the iPod. Apple has fixed that problem, though, and the batteries in newer iPods should last a good long while.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by amber

I only have an iShuffle, because I never need more than two hundred songs at one time -

I can actually say that, for me, getting the 60GB model was much more of a necessity than a luxury purchase! My hundreds upon hundreds of CDs were not about to move transcontinentally with me, but now I've got every single one of them right there in my pocket at all times (which still amazes me) - 41 GB worth! Meanwhile, my trusty CDs are safely stored back in the US.

[Lee]

everyone who replied. You all have been most helpful. I'm now kind of thinking maybe a regular photo ipod. I'm not sure whether I should get 30GB or 60GB. I'm not sure which would be better for me. I definitely want to be able to play it in the car, at work & at home. I probably won't get it though until sometime after Christmas, after I get my bonus money from work. Last year I bought myself a digital camera with my bonus money from work, & I am very happy with it, so hopefully I'll be happy with the ipod. I'm sure once I get it, I'll have more questions on it, so I'll be back with more questions.

Lee

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lee

everyone who replied. You all have been most helpful. I'm now kind of thinking maybe a regular photo ipod. I'm not sure whether I should get 30GB or 60GB. I'm not sure which would be better for me. I definitely want to be able to play it in the car, at work & at home.

Well, how much music do you have, how much music do you want to put on an iPod, and what quality do you want the sound to be?

To give you a sense of what it all adds up to, I probably have around 400 CDs. Somewhere in that vicinity. More precisely, I've got 7218 songs in my iTunes library. I rip at 192 kbps (which is much much better than the "standard" 128), and all of my music amounts to 40.99 GB.

Hopefully that gives you a better idea of how much space you'll need/want.

[Rumour0323]

Yes, Thank you everyone. My son is 18 actually and so I wanted to make sure I am going for quality vs what is "Hot" at the moment. He is an athlete and wants it mainly for when he is working out. I am def going to check all of these out. Thanks again.

Suzannne

[David]

Originally Posted by Rumour0323

Yes, Thank you everyone. My son is 18 actually and so I wanted to make sure I am going for quality vs what is "Hot" at the moment. He is an athlete and wants it mainly for when he is working out. I am def going to check all of these out. Thanks again.

For working out & jumping around a lot, you want FLASH memory.

Get the MuVo!!!

[Lee]

I saw an article today in my local paper, but it's in the Washington Post apparently about how the sound quality isn't that good if you download from say iTunes or even copy from a CD because of "lossy compression". So now they have alternatives to this. This site is called www.musicgiants.com. They say for an annual fee of $50 membership fee you can download high-quality tracks for $1.29 instead of $.99 from iTunes. There are other ways to get good quality recordings as well. Some of these are Free Lossless, Apple Lossless & Windows Media Audio Lossless. Just wanted to know if anyone has heard about this & has anyone actually downloaded music using these. If so, do they really have a higher quality sound?

Lee

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lee

I saw an article today in my local paper, but it's in the Washington Post apparently about how the sound quality isn't that good if you download from say iTunes or even copy from a CD because of "lossy compression". So now they have alternatives to this. This site is called www.musicgiants.com. They say for an annual fee of $50 membership fee you can download high-quality tracks for $1.29 instead of $.99 from iTunes. There are other ways to get good quality recordings as well. Some of these are Free Lossless, Apple Lossless & Windows Media Audio Lossless. Just wanted to know if anyone has heard about this & has anyone actually downloaded music using these. If so, do they really have a higher quality sound?

Lee

Sounds like a load of crap to me, at least in part. Ripping songs from a CD involves only the loss of quality that you choose. You can rip at 360, I think, and not lose a thing. But that level of quality only matters if you're a really huge audiophile. If you rip at 192 or 220-something, the sound should be perfect for most people.

Besides, where most people lose sound quality is not in the types of files they have, but the types of speakers they use.

[Lee]

Well, of course I can't tell because I don't have an iPod yet, but they're saying because the song is compressed, it's been reduced to 1/10 of its original size so you can download it faster & fit it in a portable player, it looses something sound wise. I don't know. I was just curious as to if it could really be. Perhaps someone that has downloaded a CD to an iPod could actually notice a difference.

Lee

[Lee]

Gosh, it's good to be back on The Ledge.

Now who's going to run out & get the newest iPod (with video)? I couldn't make up my mind before & now I really don't know.

Lee

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Lee

Well, of course I can't tell because I don't have an iPod yet, but they're saying because the song is compressed, it's been reduced to 1/10 of its original size so you can download it faster & fit it in a portable player, it looses something sound wise. I don't know. I was just curious as to if it could really be. Perhaps someone that has downloaded a CD to an iPod could actually notice a difference.

Lee

Again, I think it really depends on how you rip the song. If you rip at something like 192 kbps, yes, the file is still getting compressed, but whatever sound you're losing really isn't going to be noticeable to most listeners who aren't big time audiophiles.

For me, I think the depth and quality of sound I get out of the CDs I ripped to my iPod is much better than the sound I got when I was just listening to those CDs on my Discman. But again, I think a lot of that also has to do with the quality of the iPod earbuds as opposed to my Discman headphones. As I said above, where most people lose the most sound quality isn't in the compression of their music files, but in the crappiness of their speakers/headphones.

[xxxmx]

i have a Rio ce 2100.

it's tiny, it's pretty. it was $150 for 2.5G. the screen lights up and the search/menu is very simple to use.

i don't need anything bigger, plus all of my mp3 files are compressed so they each use up less than 1MB each. that's 2500 songs. i can deal with that.

if you feel the need to carry your entire music collection with you, don't get this. but the software is easy to use, it takes 2 seconds to load so if you must change your music it's not a hassle. and i hate itunes, so this was an obvious choice.

point is, you can get a non-ipod. especially because of the price.

[xxxmx]

i rip at like, 2kbps and honestly can't hear any difference. i have excellent hearing abilities, so am i the only one that can't tell the difference?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by xxxmx

and i hate itunes, so this was an obvious choice.

point is, you can get a non-ipod. especially because of the price.

What is it that you don't like about iTunes?