Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Android based Samsung YEPP Galaxy....wow!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Android based Samsung YEPP Galaxy....wow!

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 

500x_samsung_galaxy_player.jpg

 
I want this player to replace my crappy Zune 80. Come on, Samsung give us a nice feature set and price for this thing. Make it a Galaxy S phone sans the phone...
 
Goodbye, Zune. C YA.
post #2 of 32

I'll probably be the only one to say this...but the metal bezel looks incredibly cheesy for samsung...especially after the iphone 3g/3gs

 

i hope it's a good player tho...i'm in the market for a new one

post #3 of 32

Tech in the unit is a bit old compared to what is expected of the iTouch 4. Software support is an issue, even though it will run Android. This unit would compare very nicely, though, with the iTouch 3.

 

I was really hoping for a solid device since I'm not terribly thrilled about my only option being an iTouch. Looks like Apple still has my money in a month.

post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post

http://gizmodo.com/5614371/samsungs-android+running-answer-to-the--ipod-touch-spotted

 
I want this player to replace my crappy Zune 80. Come on, Samsung give us a nice feature set and price for this thing. Make it a Galaxy S phone sans the phone...
 
Goodbye, Zune. C YA.


Let's see...

Zune 80: great design, 80GB.

Samsung: looks like piece of soap, runs android and has 3MP camera.

If we're talking about audio players, i'd prefer zune, really.

post #5 of 32

You have no idea what it will sound like.  And frankly, nothing is uglier then a zune brick.. but thats just me.

 

Wait and see how it sounds first.  Though samsung doesn't really seem to care too much about audio fidelity based on their history.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by penartur View Post




Let's see...

Zune 80: great design, 80GB.

Samsung: looks like piece of soap, runs android and has 3MP camera.

If we're talking about audio players, i'd prefer zune, really.

post #6 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post

Tech in the unit is a bit old compared to what is expected of the iTouch 4. 

 


Are you kidding, right? old specs compared to a mythical device

4inch Super Amoled display

1GHz Hummingbird

Radio with RDS

DivX and Xvid support

Possible support for Ogg and FLAC

 

it is the Samsung Galaxy S phone w/o the phone and a lower quality camera.

GSMArena tested both phones and here is their rundown:

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9000_galaxy_s_vs_apple_iphone_4-review-500.php

The Galaxy give the iPhone 4 a good run for the money. In my opinion, the Samsung phone beat it with the huge 4in AMOLED display. Retina display dpi advantage is for suckers. Next time increase the pathetic screen size, Apple. ;)

post #7 of 32

A mythical device that has always been built on the hardware of the iPhone which is already out for this generation. Not quite so mythical.

 

Screen size is personal preference. Too large and it will be bulky, too small and it's hard to use. Everyone's version of just right is different. I find the iTouch's screen to be just right, but you obviously disagree. Please respect this instead of declaring something bad because it isn't to your preference.

 

The 4G iTouch is expected to have both front and back cameras and the ability to live video chat. Can the Galaxy (non phone) do this? The only camera listed is worse than the main camera on the iPhone 4G.

 

Also, as mentioned above, Samsung hasn't really been the poster child of audio quality in the past. We'll have to see how it sounds before we can declare it a proper challenger.

 

I'm all for a challenger, especially if it's cheaper and does more, but I'm a bit leery of a (relatively) first attempt at a device like this with the focus being on the sound rather than telephony and gimmicks. How is the browsing experience with the wi-fi on the Galaxy S versus the iPhone (Safari)?

 

Another issue I'm a bit lost on is the whole issue of Android. Having started browsing tech news for bits about the new iPods I've seen all sorts of devices using Android, but with countless versions, some using vendor skins and custom modified versions of Android. Now I see the latest 2.2 is about to come out, but many products won't work with it, and then I see there's an Android 3.0 on the horizon. I'm grateful for updates, but it seems as though Android is updating faster than the industry can keep up. I worry about app compatibility with such a rate of OS development.


Edited by Maxvla - 8/17/10 at 1:55am
post #8 of 32

Reading the review you provided... Did you actually look at the pictures they posted? I have no idea how they rated the Galaxy better than the iPhone when looking at these 2 pictures in particular:

 

gsmarena_005.jpg

 

Do you see that banding on the left (Galaxy), the perfectly smooth grayscale (4G iPhone) and the blocky grayscale on the right (3G iPhone)

 

gsmarena_008.jpg

 

Now.. which screen looks better again?

 

and for the cameras.. remember the music player has a worse camera than the Galaxy S

 

gsmarena_011.jpg

 

Total win for the iPhone camera.


Edited by Maxvla - 8/17/10 at 2:41am
post #9 of 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams View Post

You have no idea what it will sound like.  And frankly, nothing is uglier then a zune brick.. but thats just me.

 

Wait and see how it sounds first.  Though samsung doesn't really seem to care too much about audio fidelity based on their history.
 


 


Yes, i have no idea what it will sound like, but many head-fi users praise zune 80/120, and samsung is... well... not widely-recognized here.

And yes, that's just you. This samsung (and iphone <4) looks just terrible when compared to classic-design bricks. It looks just like some cheap chinese garbage (well, it _is_ a cheap korean garbage).

post #10 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post

and for the cameras.. remember the music player has a worse camera than the Galaxy S

 

Total win for the iPhone camera.


I'm using keitais (namely, SH-01B) so both galaxy and iphone cameras are crap for me 

post #11 of 32

The author of the  review also flatly states:

 

"On one hand you have the iPhone 4 with its iPod pedigree, making a really strong candidate. The iPhone 4 is also the handset with the cleanest audio output we have seen and one of the loudest, too (when using headphones).

The Galaxy S audio quality is great but not iPhone 4-perfect."

post #12 of 32

And iPhone4 < Z80/120 < Z30, am i right?

post #13 of 32

Would it be asking too much for a 128gb model?  Unless they want to be relegated to a really small market, they will need to one-up the ipod in every area.

post #14 of 32
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:
I worry about app compatibility with such a rate of OS development.

Why should I worry? At least the OS is not stagnant or abandoned. What line of thinking is this? Every modern electronic product/software is old the moment it hits retail because there is something new around the corner.

 

 

 

Quote:
I'm all for a challenger, especially if it's cheaper and does more, but I'm a bit leery of a (relatively) first attempt at a device like this with the focus being on the sound rather than telephony and gimmicks. How is the browsing experience with the wi-fi on the Galaxy S versus the iPhone (Safari)

Are you kidding? With Android you have many browser options that put the Safari thing to shame. Check this out.

http://jkontherun.com/2010/08/04/dolphin-browser-hd-on-video/

 

 

 

Quote:
I have no idea how they rated the Galaxy better than the iPhone when looking at these 2 pictures in particular

Maybe because they are considering many things besides banding in a black and white gradient (others photos dont display this banding) and a 180° view of the screen ( who view anything in that angle anyway?). Come on, Galaxy has greater screen size, equal or better color reproduction and black is pure black thanks to the AMOLED screen! (iPhone black looks like tinted gray or brown)!

 

 

 

Quote:
and for the cameras

 

Good. What other PMP has a better camera? And please don't say iPod Touch 4. Thanks. in fact, I don't care one iota about the camera, even my Samsung P&S is better than the iPhone 4.

 

 

 

Quote:
The Galaxy S audio quality is great but not iPhone 4-perfect.

Fine. Anyway, Rockbox is coming to Android and that is enough for me.

http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/AndroidPort

post #15 of 32

The line of thinking is exactly what I wrote. Within a months time there were Android devices debuting with as old as 1.6 and as new as 2.2. The pace is too fast and there seems to be almost no backwards compatibility from what I've read. To make matters worse, some of the relatively new hardware can't even run 2.2. There are only a select list of devices that can, and combined with poor compatibility with old software I wonder if something I buy on an app store will even work with my unit 3 months from now. Say what you will about iOS and probably WindowsPhone7, but at least the operating system is upgraded in steps instead of mass wholesale changes.

 

I've not used Safari, except very briefly, so I can't comment, but all the people I read posts from and talk to in person say the browser in iOS is one of the best, if not the best. I watched your video, and found nothing interesting except the gestures, which is very cool. I've never owned a hand held web surfer before so the experience from any browser will take some getting used to.

 

The gray scale gradient was the example I used because it was the easiest to see. There are ample ways in which the 4G totally obsoletes the screen performance of the Galaxy, but they may not be as apparent as the glaring example I mentioned. I know nobody uses a phone from such an extreme angle, but it was meant to show which screen was actually superior in all respects. Even at extreme angles the blacks in the 4G are the best, and color accuracy is much better also. The pictures they post tell of how great the 4G screen is, then they decide the opposite in the review's text. I don't know what they were thinking. The image quality difference is orders of magnitude greater on the 4G. In the picture I posted, you can see the strawberries towards the upper right on the 4G look like real strawberries. The Galaxy seems to bloom them greatly fuzzing them making them less real. The upper left of the image of the greenery, you can see individual leaves in the clump on the top left side, whereas the Galaxy blurs them together. The image of the sun setting over the water on the lower left looks much more like actual sunlight reflecting off the water because the waves are more crisp and the light is clearer. All of the pictures on the Galaxy seem to have a gray filter on them tinting it towards unnatural. The most telling is the sky in the last picture on the bottom. The Galaxy makes the blue far too dark and the clouds look grainy, while the sky on the iPhone looks like the sky I can see by standing out on a partly cloudy day. The fine mist that is the cloud just disappears into the blue creating a realistic skyscape. Once again you bring up the size of the screen as a positive for the Galaxy, but I again remind you that is completely personal preference, and cannot be associated with any rating for these devices. If we're talking big screen TVs I'm totally with you, but you don't pocket your HDTV, either. Screen size is about balance.

 

Regarding the camera, perhaps you have a good actual camera, but I do not. My Canon P+S is about 8 years old and it's pictures are pretty terrible. It's big and bulky so I never have it with me for moments I'd like to capture. I'm looking forward to having a decent camera with me at all times, and while it isn't a deal breaker, I'd like to have the best camera I can get.

 

Regarding sound quality and rockbox, even rockbox won't fix hardware deficiencies, unless you are getting pure digital out of the unit, and thus carting around a DAC and amp, which I find laughable in the attempt to be 'portable' while towing a brick around everywhere you go. I want a player that sounds good with decent portable phones without any other devices. As for rockbox itself, I don't know too much about it other than it has an EQ and people talk incessantly about it here.

 

I'd love if this unit were as good as you talk about, but it clearly isn't. Perhaps they will learn from their mistakes with this unit to out do the iPod Touch 4G when they come out with the next model.

 

Lets be clear on one point. I'm very much not an Apple fanboy. I'm calling it as I see it, and would totally disown the upcoming 4G iPod Touch if there were truly a device that betters it. I've never owned a Mac. The only iPod I've owned was a first generation 5GB years ago. Since then I've been using a basic Zune, a direct competitor to iPods, simply because it was small and did what I needed, until I wanted significantly more functionality. I first looked at the Zune HD and was impressed enough to buy it on the spot, however whispers of the Zune meeting its end combined with almost zero apps made me wish it weren't so.


Edited by Maxvla - 8/17/10 at 7:50pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Android based Samsung YEPP Galaxy....wow!