Posted by cyberkid
Hi guys, need your help again..
I am currently hesitating whether to buy an Apple iPOD, PenDrive, Thumbdrive, MD or an ordinary mp3 CD player! [choose only one]
I want to use it as my portable MP3 player...U guys think which one is the best choice???
P/s: I will appreciate if u post me a complete review on apple iPOD
Thanks u guys! Have a nice day!
Posted by methylated_spirit
I would tend to go for the mp3/cd player, yeah its a little large but more versatile.
Posted by Jools
I'd definately go for the iPod (in fact, I already did 2 years ago!). Capacity is higher than MP3 CD Player, Pendrive etc. Size is smaller than a pack of cards, and you can store data on it from your computer as well as music...
It may not be the cheapest digital audio player or have the most features, but its definately the most user-friendly, simple to use, desirable and best looking.
Posted by mixin
I'd choose the Ipod or alternative hard drive player
Posted by cyberkid
But there r a couple of iPOD users complained tht the iPOD's sound quality[iTune?] is suck...
How true is this ?
Posted by Jools
Well, you'll always get 'a couple of users' who aren't satisfied - even if its perfect. The iPod has great sound quality, but of course it depends what you put in it.
128kbps AAC are the standard but if that's not good enough for you you can go right up to 320kbps. Or even uncompressed, but obviously the less compressed the music is, the less you'll store.
Personally, I encode my CDs at 128kbps AAC format and I find that absolutely fine for listening to on headphones, in the car or connected to a big hi-fi.
Posted by cyberkid
But the iPOD dont have Fm radio and voice recording....
Check this site out and u will find a lot of mp3 player tht beats Apple iPOD handsdown!!!!
http://www.advancedmp3players.co.uk
Check the "hard-drive mp3 players"!
Posted by Jools
You didn't say you wanted FM radio and voice recording:
| Quote: |
|
I already said that the iPod doesn't have as many features as some other digital music devices, but at playing digital music it is the best.
And anyway, you can easily add voice recording if you want by an add-on, but do you really want voice recording? Will you really use it? If it was a feature you really need you'd've mentioned it in your first post.
You asked for the "best choice" for playing MP3s - that's the iPod. If you want to compare it against other devices with a million extra features you'll never use then go ahead...
| Quote: |
|
Beats them in what way exactly? Most of them look nasty. Terrible user interfaces, nasty 'design', awful screens, far too many buttons. I want an easy to use device that lets me listen to music quickly and easily with no hassle.
Why do you think the iPod has over 50% market share if all these other players beat it handsdown?
[ This Message was edited by: JoolsG3 on 2004-09-09 07:38 ]
Posted by mixin
It's all about personal preferance. I always wanted an ipod, but i think that me wanting one was always based on design. They do look good, but if i'm gonna be honest, i'm starting to get rather sick of it now. You see them everywhere!
I'd choose ther irivier ihp-140 over a 40gb ipod any day. Has all the extra features (radio, voice recording etc) you may not need them, but they are always there just in case
Might not be as pretty, but it's gonna be in your pocket most of the time, and the interface is rather simple to use.
I've done it in other threads and i'll do t in this one.
Ipods are the nokia of the mp3 world. Everyone has them, but it doesn't mean they are the best at what they do
Posted by Superluminova
i total agree with mixin here the ipod is definetly not the best mp3 player on the market but its the best seller because of very clever marketing and design and its those to things that have made me want one, lol
Posted by Jools
Just a reminder here...
More features, more buttons, bigger screen, colour screen, video playback, FM radio etc. doesn't make one player better than another at playing MP3s, which is what the original poster originally wanted.
However, the iPod is consistently rated among the best in sound quality (which to me is very important), and is without doubt the easiest to use (which to me is also very important).
Obviously its down to personal choice in the end though...
I guess if you're used to a Windows PC then any interface is a good one!!
Posted by mixin
I've read many reviews saying that irivers has superior sound when compared to an ipod actually
I only got my iriver on Tuesday so have yet had time to compare it with anyones pod.
Sound quality is all down to what headphones you use aswell
Posted by cyberkid
Mixin, juz ask you for some personal opinion...
Do u think iriver[iHP] or other is better than iPOD?
And guys, if i add 1 more criteria, the price[budget], which model is more valuable in the sense to become the best mp3 player?
Thanks~
Posted by Lynx69
I would get an i-river because the i-pod only has 8 hours battery time but the i-river has something like 32hours?...if the matter of battery tume doesnt affect you then i-pod is the best thing. If you do get an i pod, buy a case for it because they tend to get scratched very easily.
Posted by 50Cent
IMO i would still go for iriver regardless of battery life. purely for the fact that the ipod supports limited types of music files. it does not support .WMA or .ogg which are becoming more popular over mp3 as you can hold the same amount of data in less space. If you download your music off kazaa or whatever this could become a problem in the future as users are opting toward different file types other than .mp3. technically .mp3 would become obselete (will happen but it will take ages yet) so in the long run i would say go for iriver
the longer battery is just a bonus, along with its slick looks
Twista
Posted by Jools
Check the manufacturers web-sites for official specifications before posting false info. iPod has 12 hours battery life not eight. Check the Apple web-site. And the iRiver has 16 hours, not 32!
iPod can be updated to support more file formats by a firmware update as Apple has shown in the past. It's up to Apple if and when they do this though.
The iRiver cannot play AAC files, so if you want to download music from iTunes Music Store (currently the best online music store) or listen to music previously encoded in AAC format by iTunes, you can't.
AAC is already a popular format for digital music. It's an open standard invented by Dolby, and is part of the new HD-DVD format specification. Ogg is a proprietary format.
[ This Message was edited by: JoolsG3 on 2004-09-09 22:03 ]
Posted by mixin
| Quote: |
|
Same with iriver. If they felt the need to support AAC, then they'd release the firmware update
These are the supported formats for the two:
Ipod: AAC, MP3,VBR, WAV, AIFF, Audible
Iriver: MPEG 1 / 2/2.5 Layer 3, Ogg Vorbis, WMA, ASF, WAV
If you are gonna be comparing the ipod to iriver, it'll be best to compare the IHP-140 iriver model with the 40gig ipod, and the IHP-120 with 20gig ipod.
The Ipod is about £40 dearer than the IHP-140 too.
So if you went for the iriver, you'd save £40, get a radio and voice recorder, you'd get used to the interface after a bit (if it really is that hard to use), maybe lose on sound quality (can't be that much difference really) and the device isn't as pretty, (but it'll be in your pocket anyway!)
Anyone else find it hard to type "iriver"?
[ This Message was edited by: MixiN on 2004-09-09 22:11 ]
Posted by mixin
how can you say no to this?
Posted by cyberkid
So, currently, the models tht we take into consideration r juz iPOD and Iriver right? I guess these two brands are more popular and valuable?
Any other brands tht r compatible with those two models?
Eg, iAudio, Xclef...?
Posted by 50Cent
iaudio is a contender i reckon... if you dont mind a small external screen (on remote) the M3L is a good choice, thats the one that has 32 hrs playback
i think