[Gergor]

I just bought an iriver flash player. I checked out iriver web site and found out that I can update firmware to UMS. However, it appears that once it's changed to UMS there's no going back to music manager. I'd like to ask all you iriver user, do you prefer UMS or music manager?

I did a search on head-fi, apparently most people seem to like UMS, however, I do find one post saying that UMS is slower than music manager....

 

[White Knight]

Once you install the UMS firmware, you can still switch to Non-UMS firmware. If prefer the UMS version.

 

[matheis]

the ums firmware would kick total ass if it didn't have the current limitation of 96kbps for recorded files to limit distortion. hopefully the next firmware update for ums will allow 320kbps recording with no hassles!!!

 

[Gergor]

Quote:

Originally posted by matheis the ums firmware would kick total ass if it didn't have the current limitation of 96kbps for recorded files to limit distortion. hopefully the next firmware update for ums will allow 320kbps recording with no hassles!!!

So the non-ums doesn't have this limitation? I don't understand, why would recording quality has to do with UMS or not, I thought UMS is just a user interface?

 

[jpburton5150]

i used the UMS for abit but it gave me corrupted files and other problems so i switched back to IMM firmware, anyway i have an iHP-120 which has UMS built in so i use that now for that sorta stuff...

 

[Kirosia]

Considering that the flash player doesn't hold many songs, I consider the music manager a better interface. I'd think the UMS would be better for HD players because of their large capacity. Or it just may be a preference. If one was *truly* better than the other, they wouldn't have two. I have a 190T and think the manager is just fine. Just make sure you have the latest firmware and manager installed though for optimum performance and ease. Remember, this is just an opinion. Try them both if you can and see what you like.

 

[austonia]

why would anyone bother using the music manager? I used to have the iFP-390 and the UMS firmware was a no-brainer. Drag and drop files. simple.

I do not remember any limititations with recording using the UMS firmware.

 

[poorimpulsectrl]

Transfer rates are apparently slower with the UMS firmware than the standard firmware.

 

[Gergor]

IMM is winning...

My player arrived last night. I used IMM for 10 minutes, and then tried the UMS firmware. Can't really tell which one is better. I think I'll stick with UMS for now.

Are there any features which is in IMM which is not available in UMS? For example, can I build a play list in IMM? apparently the iriver player does not recongize my .m3u files.

 

[matheis]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia I do not remember any limititations with recording using the UMS firmware. [/B]

austonia: there were reports of distortion in recordings when using the ums firmware that weren't occuring with the imm firmware, so the latest ums firmware has restrictions limiting recording to 96kbps to try to limit the distortion problem. the current imm firmware doesn't have such limitations. so, i just loaded up the two computer i use frequently with the imm firmware and use it. it's really not that big of a deal, and i really want to have unrestricted recording capabilities and 96kbps and/or distortion just don't cut it.
later
nikolaus

 

[Dweebgal]

i've only just noticed that restriction, but to be fair i dont do a whole lot of line-in recordings anyway.

however, i'm sure iriver will fix it with another frimware upgrade, they're quite good about that sort of thing.


anyways:

over here i use the UMS version.

although it is slightly slower (about 18 mins to fill 256mb) than the IMM at transfers, it's never crashed and corrupted the music on my player, which IMM did a number of times, often meaning a pc reboot and having to start all over again.

so at the end of the day the UMS version is probably faster for that reason.

i say for ease of use, and for not having to have yet another program loaded onto my already crowded HDD, UMS is the way to go.

 

[matheis]

dweebgal
i'll be oh so happy to use the ums version once the recording glitches are fixed!!! i like to use the line-in recording featuree right now to convert sp md recordings to mp3. other than for that feature, i would prefer the ums version.

i've never had the imm crash, though. that's not so good! the transfer rate for imm must be ALOT better than the transfer rate for the ums version, though, because there's no way my transfers have been taking close to 18min!?!?! as far as hd space, that could be a concern. not one i have so far, but i huess if you've got an older pc and don't want to replace the hd...

later
nikolaus

 

[jpburton5150]

I used UMS for a while until I started getting corrupted files when i transferred them and strange undeletable files with random huge names....

 

[Dweebgal]

Quote:

Originally posted by matheis dweebgal i'll be oh so happy to use the ums version once the recording glitches are fixed!!! i like to use the line-in recording featuree right now to convert sp md recordings to mp3. other than for that feature, i would prefer the ums version. i've never had the imm crash, though. that's not so good! the transfer rate for imm must be ALOT better than the transfer rate for the ums version, though, because there's no way my transfers have been taking close to 18min!?!?! as far as hd space, that could be a concern. not one i have so far, but i huess if you've got an older pc and don't want to replace the hd... later nikolaus

well, i'm getting a new pc for xmas, so, that might sort it out.

it could take less time than 18 mins, becuase i dont sit there and watch it, i go and do other stuff, come back half an hour later and then it's done.

18 minutes is just the first time windows gives me....and we all know windows lies