[Prince]

Erm.. iHP not compatible with MAC? I am using it with OSX with no prob, it detects as external storage.

Btw, does iPod have mass usb support as well, which is you can plug it in to windows/mac and store files in that like external hdd without the need of program(s)?

 

[Prince]

Should put "?" on the topic, since it's misleading, ppl will think it's a review or sort of.

 

[JiPi]

iPod is not supported as a mass USB storage device. You *need* to have some sort of program (be it iTunes, Anapod Explorer, EphPod...) to be able to use it, which makes it less compatible than the iHP-1xx. But IMO, I don't think that's much of a bummer, I don't go around with my iPod adding songs on/from everybody's computer. I change songs at home, end of story.

 

[austonia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiPi iPod is not supported as a mass USB storage device. You *need* to have some sort of program (be it iTunes, Anapod Explorer, EphPod...) to be able to use it, which makes it less compatible than the iHP-1xx. But IMO, I don't think that's much of a bummer, I don't go around with my iPod adding songs on/from everybody's computer. I change songs at home, end of story.

No, that's not right. iPod IS a mass storage device, without need for any special software in windows. You only need software like iTunes to add music to the iPod's database. but otherwise, you can just plug in and use it like any other external drive.

 

[PYROTAK]

lol austonia, the poor dude is just saying that its easier to add music to the h120 (it got renamed btw) since all you gotta do is drag and drop, without any other program.

and in my opinion h120 sound quality > ipod.

and the stuff about gapless and on the fly will hopefully be a moot point once iriver comes out with their new firmware. (and yes they did announce that they plan to have both of those features by the end of june).

and you always can use the remote and then use the line out into an amp so that the remote has no bearing on sound quality, thast what i do anyways.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PYROTAK lol austonia, the poor dude is just saying that its easier to add music to the h120 (it got renamed btw) since all you gotta do is drag and drop, without any other program.

How does not having to use a program make it easier? What's the difference between dragging and dropping to the ipod in iTunes as opposed to the IHP?

If anything, the point could be made that it's easier to MAINTAIN your music collection via iTunes. You only need one program to rip, encode, and organize in a variety of codecs, with a built in music store to boot (if you choose to use it).

You do STILL need a program to rip and encode your files.

There are some things the IHP has over the iPod as far as functions, but ease of transfering files isn't one of them.

And besides, if I read Jipi's post correctly, he alludes to owning an iPod.

Between the two, performancewise both have their advantages and disadvantages, value wise I'd have to say the IHP gives you
"better value for your dollar". But I much prefer the iPod because I "only need a music player", and feel this does that the best of mostly everything out there. Before the lossless codec, I enjoyed the AAC encoding very much, but I haven't heard an OGG file.

 

[S_Dedalus]

I know this probably doesn't matter to many people, but another advantage of the iriver is that it is one of only a couple of players which can be used with linux without some sort of back ported musicmatch clone.

 

[austonia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slimm If anything, the point could be made that it's easier to MAINTAIN your music collection via iTunes. You only need one program to rip, encode, and organize in a variety of codecs, with a built in music store to boot (if you choose to use it). You do STILL need a program to rip and encode your files.

yeah. there's a lot to be said for not having to micro-manage all the directories and remember where every single song is located, on players that use an ID3-tag database, like iPod.

the iHP does in fact need software to make its ID3 tag database work. Before I bought it, I tought it could scan the files on its own hard drive and build the database itself, like the RCA RD2840... but no, it does need the iRiver Manager program for the dB scan. Not that many people use it anyway, considering the 52-character filename limit.

You know, even for people who just want to use the iHP's file/folder navigation, you STILL have to a PC program to make directories, copy them to the player, etc... sure, most people use EXPLORER.EXE, and its built into windows, But you have to use something.

 

[Prince]

Well.. without needing specific program to have it as mass storage is a plus.

Scenario: Your campus' server have a storage for online mp3s (legally purchased), you can listen to it and download it (only to the computer connected to school's network). Now you found you like the songs you listened to and want them to your mp3 player, as most school's comp, you can't install anything there. So with iriver, you can just pop the usb port and drop and drag the mp3.

I am not sure if my scenario make sense

 

[austonia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince Well.. without needing specific program to have it as mass storage is a plus. Scenario: Your campus' server have a storage for online mp3s (legally purchased), you can listen to it and download it (only to the computer connected to school's network). Now you found you like the songs you listened to and want them to your mp3 player, as most school's comp, you can't install anything there. So with iriver, you can just pop the usb port and drop and drag the mp3. I am not sure if my scenario make sense

yes, i know what you mean. but the iPod IS A MASS STORAGE DEVICE. and there is a freeware program called Ephod, which you can use to transfer program to the iPod's database, which doesn't need to be installed on the PC.

You can simply store Ephpod on the iPod's hard drive, plug the iPod into ANY computer, its automatically detected, run Ephod from the Ipod's hard drive, and load music to the iPod. NO SOFTWARE NEEDED ON TARGET PC. I know it works, because that's how I do it when I'm away from home and i don't want to (or can't) install iTunes on a PC.

 

[DigDub]

the ipod has a more neutral sound and the ihp has a more 'fun sound'. both players do well in the type of 'sound image' they try to achieve. its up to individual really. no one sounds better than the other.

if you prefer file tree, then get ihp. if you prefer more organised method of arranging your songs, then get ipod.

as for battery life, ihp is superior. would be useful if you are are away from power source for a long time.

for me, i prefer the ihp over the ipod anyday because my listening habits are more suited towards the ihp.

 

[DigDub]

if you people are so nitty-picky over having to use programs to transfer songs, then the ultimate way is to get an md recorder and do it via the optical in.

 

[DLP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigFil where as the iHP works with windows and not the mac.

Not true. The iHP shows up on the desktop of a fresh installation of OS 9.1. I know it works with OS 9.2.2, and OS X as well. The only thing is you don't have any support for using the ID3 tag sorting option. That means you can only use it as a file tree setup. Otherwise it just shows up on the desktop, you drag and drop your folders over to where you want it, disconnect it, and voila, an iHP filled by a Mac.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

if you prefer file tree, then get ihp. if you prefer more organised method of arranging your songs, then get ipod.

I don't think that file tree structuring compared to DB, is any less organized. In fact, I actually prefer file tree mode because my folders are as organized as they're ever going to get. I know where everything is and can navigate to any song in seconds in file tree mode. It also helps that the cursor loops from A-Z or visa versa.

Now if you perhaps meant a different method in terms of searching for an artis/album/genre etc..then you could apply that to what you said in order for it to be a bit more accurate. And even at that, it still has nothing to do with being easier..it's more a matter of preference. All the times I've used the DB mode, which work fine really, I just hated it. Unless I was fixing to make a playlist out of a particular genre, artist, album etc...I just don't see the point when file tree is EXTREMELY organized. (given that your folders and files aren't a flaming crap pile which you've never taken the time to organize.)

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigDub if you people are so nitty-picky over having to use programs to transfer songs, then the ultimate way is to get an md recorder and do it via the optical in.

Run that one past me again, would you?