Quote:
I wasn't implying that it did....![]()
Nor was I implying that you did

I wasn't implying that it did....![]()
True, but we all know iPod Touch can't really compete with any of the best portable players.
its made of wood for one. Tbh this is impossible to answer until the player is reviewed. If this becomes the best portable player ever then I think the price is justified. But I agree with you that they should make them of larger capacities, there seems to be limitations in max capacity of flash ram, I would guess that 64bg costs a lot more and doesn't justify the asking price, even Apple's top of the line players are limited to 32Gb of storage.
I'm waiting for a company to make a transport-only portable running rockbox and with a big ol' hard drive at a reasonable price, since the headamp and DAC could theoretically be omitted.
*sigh*
I'm waiting for a company to make a transport-only portable running rockbox and with a big ol' hard drive at a reasonable price, since the headamp and DAC could theoretically be omitted.
*sigh*
With big old hard drive it won't be portable.
Why's that? 640GB in a laptop hard drive is too insignificant?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/640gb-mobile-hdd,2451.html
2.5" hdds are not portable in a DAP sense.
Actually spinning platters for storage is just a horrible idea regardless.
You can get 320GB on a 1.8". Makes it moot at that point. I hate spinning platters for moving around anyway. Actually spinning platters for storage is just a horrible idea regardless.
Besides, when SDXC matures we get 2TB on an SD card.
With big old hard drive it won't be portable.
240gb iPod 5.5g anyone? Portable enough for me!