Larger memory MP3's [other than Apple]

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Zylka


You're MARRIED? What the **** is going on here

There was a topped thread some months ago.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

As far as I am concerned the main reason not to buy Apple is that Apple tries to tell you what to play, how to play it, and what to play it on. They seriously attempt to restrict how users use their music which is something the other mp3 makers do not attempt to do.

I don't know what planet you are on. The iPod will play pretty much anything other than Microsoft's proprietary format. You don't even have to use iTunes to operate the iPod if you choose not to (Imran doesn't, and he has an iPod).

The only popular thing that iPods can play that other players can't is Apple's DRMed stuff from the iTunes store. If you buy non-DRMed stuff from anywhere else, you can play it on an iPod as long as it isn't in Microsoft's proprietary format.

The only restrictions on music that the iPod supports are those for DRMed music from the iTunes store. Even then it is pretty light. The rest of your music, whether acquired legally or not, has no restrictions.

Your paranoid fantasies of musical totalitarianism have no basis in reality.

That sound quality is slightly less, that battery life is slightly less, that the screen is some what smaller, that the Ipod supports fewer formats, and that the Ipod costs more are just kickers.

The sound quality on the new iPods is excellent. People criticized the iPod mini for being light in the bass, but that player was discontinued ages ago. The new iPods are the equal or better than anything Creative has to offer in that department.

In any case, you aren't an audiophile, so why would you care anyway. Most people's idea of good sound is not fidelity to the original recording, so the point is moot. I listen to a lot more high end audio than you do, and I'm much pickier than most people, and it sounds great to me -- as good as you can expect from a portable.. especially if you change the headphones.

iPods are generally smaller and sleeker than the competition. The iPod nano is about 1/3 the size of the player Creative was offering when it was launched. Size matters. I don't want to carry around some huge brick. And you'll get about 14 hours music playing time out of the new iPods, which is good considering their size.

Add to that the fact that Apple seems to be the only company that can actually design a decent player interface, and who actually make their products look sleek and cool, and it's worth the extra few bucks.

The competition look like dinosaurs next to Apple's latest stuff.

The important part is that the others don't attempt to control which type of music I play or how/where I transfer that music.

Unless you are talking about DRMed music from the iTunes store, then you are simply wrong. All the other stores that use DRM restrict you in ways that are the same or much worse than Apple does.

And shopping at the iTunes store is completely optional in any case.

[Dinner]

Aggie, as usual you are simply wrong. WMA (lossless or otherwise) is the single most commonly used audio format and the Ipod just doesn't play it. Second of all the DRMed stuff from the Itunes store is THE primary source for many people who use the Ipod so a very large percentage of the music played on Ipods are going to be DRMed; initially Apple even made it so you could ONLY download music from their store which exposes exactly what Apple's outlook is on this industry. I don't want to support that.

Moving along...

Your paranoid fantasies of musical totalitarianism have no basis in reality.

Most people's idea of good sound is not fidelity to the original recording, so the point is moot. I listen to a lot more high end audio than you do, and I'm much pickier than most people, and it sounds great to me

In any case, you aren't an audiophile, so why would you care anyway.

First of all you are a dumbass for assuming I'm not an audiophile and that you are more of an audiophile then me. I will compare my home stereo system to yours any day and we will see who has spent the big bucks to get the best sound system. We can also compare CD collections and record (yes, I have a decent sized record collection because I wanted to hear the much clearer analog only signal) and I'm willing to bet my collection is more extensive then yours. I spend a lot of time listening to music, spend a lot of money buying music, and still more money buying equipment so I think I qualify as an audiophile.

Lastly, every experts idea of audio fedelity most certainly IS the accurate reproduction of the original source. I don't know how you can claim to be an audiophile and say that most people don't consider it good to faithfully reproduce the original source. I can only believe that you are saying most people don't care enough about their music to care about the sound quality (which is correct to a certain degree) but that does not deal with my original point of the creative having better sound quality then the Ipod as judged by every magazine comparision I've ever seen between the two. Just accept it; the Creative has better sound quality then the Ipod.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I get a new mp3 player (unlikely since I hardly use my current one), I'm thinking the Creative Vision M would be it, so I think that is what you should get, Zylka.

[Dinner]

Compare the screen size and image quality on the Vision M vs the comparable Ipod. The creative is clearly (pardon the pun) better.

[img]
http://img.engadget.com/common/image...14091441898981[/img]

[Dinner]

OK, I couldn't hotlink it so here is the same picture on file.

[Tattila the Hun]

Nifty... But how's the sound?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Nifty... But how's the sound?

As always it plays more formats then the Ipod, costs less then the Ipod, and has higher fedelity then the Ipod. It also has longer battery life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Nifty... But how's the sound?

It has a 97 dB signal to noise ratio, which apparently is pretty damned good.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Aggie, as usual you are simply wrong. WMA (lossless or otherwise) is the single most commonly used audio format and the Ipod just doesn't play it. Second of all the DRMed stuff from the Itunes store is THE primary source for many people who use the Ipod so a very large percentage of the music played on Ipods are going to be DRMed; initially Apple even made it so you could ONLY download music from their store which exposes exactly what Apple's outlook is on this industry. I don't want to support that.

mp3....

And no it is not. Stealing music off the internet is the primary source for iPod music.

How daft can you be?


[quoteFirst of all you are a dumbass for assuming I'm not an audiophile and that you are more of an audiophile then me. I will compare my home stereo system to yours any day and we will see who has spent the big bucks to get the best sound system.[/quote]



You have no taste. If you think that there's anything audiophile about the rock and roll you like, please think again.

Unless you listen to serious music, you can't really be an audiophile. After all, most pop music is mixed to sound good on boomboxes.

We can also compare CD collections and record (yes, I have a decent sized record collection because I wanted to hear the much clearer analog only signal) and I'm willing to bet my collection is more extensive then yours. I spend a lot of time listening to music, spend a lot of money buying music, and still more money buying equipment so I think I qualify as an audiophile.

Only in your own mind. I own thousands of CDs. Most of them are classical, but then again, I tend to spend my money on serious music. I do enjoy rock music, but mostly as a diversion.

Lastly, every experts idea of audio fedelity most certainly IS the accurate reproduction of the original source. I don't know how you can claim to be an audiophile and say that most people don't consider it good to faithfully reproduce the original source. I can only believe that you are saying most people don't care enough about their music to care about the sound quality (which is correct to a certain degree) but that does not deal with my original point of the creative having better sound quality then the Ipod as judged by every magazine comparision I've ever seen between the two. Just accept it; the Creative has better sound quality then the Ipod.

This shows that you don't understand most people's attitude towards audio fidelity.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It has a 97 dB signal to noise ratio, which apparently is pretty damned good.

And which is basically worthless in determining heard audio fidelity.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I have a new iPod 30gb video and I love it.

My girlfriend has a 6gb Creative Zen Micro from about 1.5 years ago and I am very impressed with that as well. It does everything my ipod can do except video, obviously, or display color.

The downside of Creative units is the bundled software. It blows, it doesn't even come close to iTunes in terms of interface and use-ability. There are 3rd party alternatives though, like Mediamonkey, which is basically an open source itunes ripp-off which supports non iPod players (and it works very well too). Another downside to non-iPod players is the lack of native Podcasting support, although there are ways around this.

So I'd say both the Creative and Apple players are very good, it just depends on what you want and how much you are willing to spend. Personally, I prefer the iPod just because Apple has made it and iTunes work seamlessly together right out of the box. But the Zen is very nice as well.

And as far as this audiophile debate, I don't think either one of you qualify as one. Audiophilia has nothing to do with what type of music you listen to or how many CDs you have. True audiophiles are sound engineers and certain types musicians, not just people who really, really like music. People who have a real intuitive sense for music. Get over yourselves.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon

And which is basically worthless in determining heard audio fidelity.

You just keep coming up with excuses but the inescapable fact is that the Creative has superior sound quality comapred to the Ipod. Just accept it.

BTW I listen to a lot more then just rock and roll and if you took part in the many music threads I have started then you'd know that. I seriously have to wonder how you can suddenly pop out of the wood work and announce yourself a serious audiophile when you've consistantly failed to show any interest in music (except as related to your Apple fetish), can't seriously talk about standards, and fail so miserably to accept easily measurable and completely reproducable industry accepted tests of sound quality. The only conclusion is you don't know what you're talking about.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
And as far as this audiophile debate, I don't think either one of you qualify as one. Audiophilia has nothing to do with what type of music you listen to or how many CDs you have. True audiophiles are sound engineers and certain types musicians, not just people who really, really like music. People who have a real intuitive sense for music. Get over yourselves.

But he has thousands of CDs, most of them classical music! You can't get better credentials than that, even on the black market!





Damn it Asher, where the hell are you? My popcorn is getting stale.

[Nostromo]

Maybe the Creative players sound better than the iPods. But this has been blowned out of proportion. The difference is so subtle that you need high-fi equipment to hear the difference. My iPod Mini sounds very good with my Sennheisers.

Audiophiles and music lovers aren't necessarily the same. Hell, I bet some audiophiles don't really listen to the music, they listen to the gear instead.

Here are some definitions:

1. Audiophile

Someone who usually looks at young audio equipment. And rapes it through various input and often output sockets.

2. Audiophile
One who listens to the stereo rather than the music.