[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

plus the ability to use the ipod as a fast firewire external hard drive is a great, often overlooked, feature.

Do you mean to say that no software is required in order to use this feature ? Or DO you have to install a driver/something similar ?

To the initial poster...I'm not sure of why you're putting yourself through this unnecessary torture...you seem to be sold on iTunes and AAC...If you don't care about battery life, then just get yourself an iPod already ! I own an IHP-120...couldn't be happier. I don't use iTunes, but as you know, it's for PC's now too...AND there is a syncing program called filesync for those interested...as well as another program which is PC based, and from what I understand, iTunes equal. Made by some company by the name of..well, here...

Music manager/ripper/encoder/thingey

So just how many files do you have encoded to AAC ? That's the thing that gets me about all of these players...they sort of make people choose camps without even realizing it. Right now, there are around 2-3 DAP's that play Ogg Vorbis files, and only ONE which plays AAC. Pretty sneaky..especially considering that at this point, most of the people with iPods are also Mac users, and have been using AAC for a while now.

Anyway, go buy an iPod...be different.

 

[ProFingerSk8er]

listen to austonia, he knows what he's talking about

 

[EyEPoD]

When the ipod is connected to my powerbook, it syncs with itunes for music transfer, but you can just drag and drop files onto it for storage purposes.

Im not sure if its the same case with the PC, but i assume once the ipod is formatted, it will function the same way.

 

[White Knight]

I think iPod also acts as a external hard drive with no driver or software but you still need software like iTunes so your tunes would play on your iPod (kinda like Philips HDD100).

 

[TheMuffinMan_01]

the iriver shows up as a HD without installing any drivers. you just drag your folders of music to it and the file structure stays intact. it does act as an external hard drive. aac may be a better format but it isn't apple's own, and it doesn't make up for the sound quality difference. the iriver has a more powerful headphone amp and better quality sound. there, most likely, will be aac support in the future. the thing is cheaper, it has way more features like recording, and optical out, and it comes with an awesome remote! there is absalutely no way you should buy an iPod UNLESS, you really really care about asthetics, you need everything to be really simple for you to understand it, and have cash to blow(but even then its not worth it)


IMO

 

[SpoonMan]

Long live the apple bashers...

First of all, the iHP has a more powerful headphone amp? since when...they're both rated at 30mW per chan, and the majority of head to head reviews, put the iPod's SQ over that of the iRiver...personally I doubt the differences in sonic quality between the two players are glaring enough to really swing your decision one way or another.

Yes the iPod does function as a firewire drive without the need of any drivers (once it's formatted). You need to rely on iTunes to sync up your collection with your iPod, if you already have iTunes installed and your music collection tagged to your satisfaction, this will be a painless process..you just plug the iPod in, run the updater to format it and then choose your sync options in iTunes. From then on all you do is connect the iPod and anything new in your iTunes, will get added to your iPod automatically (provided you choose auto sync)

What I really want to know is when did we start recomending the player we own, rather then what looks to be the best fit for the user in question? The user in question stated he wouldn't need more then 4 hours per charge, so it doesn't matter if the battery lasts for 6 hours or 50 hours. The iRiver does indeed have more inputs / outputs, and it has a better remote, this is all a given. However, from what I've gathered, it also lacks a true shuffle algorithim (tracks are playedback in the same order everytime) takes longer (up to 30secs) to startup when using the tag DB mode (so if you want fast startups you're stuck using file structures). Aside from that, I don't think anything out there right now is as good, as the iTunes/iPod combo...I won't bother to go into reasons, as they'll simply be torn down by team iRiver, but simply put...keeping your mp3's organized on an iPod, with iTunes, could not possibly be anymore effortless, you don't have to do anything, other then make sure your tags are in order.

If you need the extra battery life, Optical input / ouput, or you want the iRiver remote, then by all means, go with an iHP. If not, the things the iPod does, it does better then the iHP, and I would recomend you go in that direction.

 

[Claude]

Quote:

Originally posted by illmatic Any "iRiver vs. iPod" reviews around?

There was one in the german hifi mag Stereoplay. It judged the sound quality of both players the same, but the IHP's output better suited for low-impedance headphones.

I have the IHP120 and have not tried the iPod, but what I like about the IHP is the fact (already mentioned) that it works like an external hard drive and can be connected to any USB PC running W2K/XP (if you have the cable with you) to add, delete or copy files. No need to use a special software or install a driver (only necessary for Windows 98/Me). I also like the solid enclosure and the leather case.

What I don't like about the IHP is the jog dial. It is difficult to use when not looking at the player (I don't use the remote most of the time). I would especially have preferred a seperate volume wheel or buttons.

The other thing that's annoying is the lost space on the display for browsing files. One third is used for stupid graphical gimmicks. When a song is played, the folder name (comprised of the artist name and album title in my case) does not scroll, so I can't see the album title most of the time.

So it's mainly the ergonomics of the IHP that could be better.

 

[myself, aka me]

Quote:

Originally posted by SpoonMan Long live the apple bashers....

Why is everyone who doesn't like an iPod an apple basher? The iPod isn't the best 100% of the time even if it might be in this situation. There are better alternatives, and therefore, some people won't like the iPod, but not necessarily apple bashers. Crazy!

 

[raynman]

Well said myself, aka me.

None of the posters who recommended the iHP ever said anything to the likes of "iPod sucks" to be branded iPod bashers.

People have choices and preferences. You can't make everyone always agree with yours.

 

[SpoonMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by myself, aka me Why is everyone who doesn't like an iPod an apple basher? The iPod isn't the best 100% of the time even if it might be in this situation. There are better alternatives, and therefore, some people won't like the iPod, but not necessarily apple bashers. Crazy!

Very true, I appologize for the apple basher statement...it was very late and I had just finished studying for my 3rd exam in 2 days, so I was in a rather negative state of mind. So I recant my apple bashing statement...though Austonia stating the iRiver has 10000 more features is a large exaggeration, IMHO, the newer iPods do feel more solid then the older ones, and the touch buttons, though they take getting used to, are great once you do. I guess I wish people would point out the iPods flaws as well as it's advantages, rather then just pointing out what they think is wrong with it...it's easy to tear something down.

What I meant to say is, the features the iPod DOES have, are very well implemented, particularly.

Two different methods of shuffling, both of which are as close to being truly random as they can be (I don't understand why so many manufacturer's screw this part up...true random is NOT that hard to implement) For someone like me who does 90% of his listening via playlists, this is a big deal, you'll never hear the same song twice in a playlist..unless that song is actually in the playlist twice.

The on-the-go playlist is also very nice, sometimes I feel like listening to say a list with all my chevelle and all my metallica songs, all I have to do is add these two artists to my OTG and I'm done, this isn't possible on the iHP right now, and advantages like this which the iPod does posess are often overlooked, IMHO they shouldn't be...on the go lists are a very distinct advantage.

The iPod's EQ blows, but the iRiver's been critisized as well due to it's lack of attenuation ability, for me neither really matters, as I prefer neutral sound.

The one annoying thing about the iPod is the battery meter is rather unreliable, but that can be overcome by applying the voltage hack, which changes the battery bar into a numeric voltage value, between 500-0.

In short, if you're going to compare the two units, don't just diss the one you don't use / don't own...to tell this guy not to get an iPod simply based on battery life / features he may not ever use, is not doing him any favors. On the flip side, like I said, if the iRiver's battery life / input / output scheme is important to you, or you need recording, then that'd be the way to go. But if you don't then the iPod may be the best bet....I wonder how many of you actually use your iHP for over 6 hours at a time...? You can charge an iPod to 80% of it's battery life in an hour...I used to work 8 hour days, and I'd just leave it charging over my lunch break...always had more then enough juice for my ~40min commute both ways, and a full day of work.

 

[GSTom1]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweet Spot Anyway, go buy an iPod...be different.

It he wants to be different...then he would get an iRiver iHP NOT the iPod. Almost every yuppy here in New York has an iPod because they buy on looks and the coolness factor.

I think these two threads hammer the point home regarding the iPod's pathetic battery life:

IPOD BELKIN BATTERY PACK***

I just realized something. The iFP-5XX series has a better battery than 3G iPod

Imagine spending $399 for a new iPod and then and having to spend another $60 for a battery pack plus several bucks for batteries.

Good luck choosing!

 

[Sweet Spot]

Um Tom..? I was using my infamous brand of sarcasim on that one bud... !

Hence the wink.

Thought I don't think it's fair to brand those who own them as yuppies. Had the iPod been cheaper, come with a real remote and had bettery battery life, I'd have bought one too. And I'm the furthest thing from a yuppie. I just bet that alot of people could care less about a remote, and just weren't aware of how bad the battery situation was going to be.

 

[DLP]

Quote:

Originally posted by SpoonMan First of all, the iHP has a more powerful headphone amp? since when...they're both rated at 30mW per chan

Actually, something to note is the fact that the iRiver has 20mW per channel at 16 ohms, and the iPod has 30mW per channel at 32 ohms. The difference is trivial really with low impedance, portable cans, such as the PX series, the D66s, the V6/7506, the PortaPro, KSC35, etc.

 

[SpoonMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweet Spot Um Tom..? I was using my infamous brand of sarcasim on that one bud... ! Hence the wink. Thought I don't think it's fair to brand those who own them as yuppies. Had the iPod been cheaper, come with a real remote and had bettery battery life, I'd have bought one too. And I'm the furthest thing from a yuppie. I just bet that alot of people could care less about a remote, and just weren't aware of how bad the battery situation was going to be.

That sums it up pretty good...I don't care for a remote myself, the only thing that I don't like about my iPod is the battery life...and it's more of a ... I don't like it because I know it should be better, then not liking it because I actually need more...it's weird, all in my head

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by chicubs iriver has drop and drag with windows explorer making a hell lot easier than the ipod and itunes....

"Easier" than iTunes? You may personally prefer the file/folder drag approach -- some users do -- but it's certainly not easier. And, in fact, it suffers from significantly limited organizational abilities.


Quote:

honestly I think the ipod is good starter HD player, but doesnt come close in features to the zen, iriver, philips HDD100 or the Karma.

Um, OK. A more accurate statement would be that each player has features others don't. The iPod has a number of features that no other player has.


Quote:

all the ipod really has going for it is the UI and the looks (if you are into white)...the iriver's ui isnt hard but a lot of people arent tech literate so they complain.

OK

You really don't know much about the iPod, in other words.


Quote:

Originally posted by austonia dude. the iPod's battey life is pathetic. and it has like, no options.

The battery life is around 8 hours. IMO, battery life is overrated. Unless you're listening for 8 hours straight, it's not really a big deal. When you come home, you plop it in the dock and it's charged the next morning. NOTE: if you really DO need longer battery life, then it's relevant. My point is that for the vast majority of users, having super-long battery life is really not a big deal. (I used to rant about how great my MD player's 70-hour battery life was... until I realized that I never listened for more than 7 or 8 hours at a time

)

No options? I love how so many people make ridiculous assertions about a "lack of features/options" without ever even asking the guy what he wants/needs

Quote:

The new touch-sensitive buttons are nothing short of horrible. I hope you like using the lock button ALL THE TIME.

This has long been one of my complaints about the new iPods, but as usual you really exaggerate the downside. It's annoying, and hopefully Apple will make them less sensitive in a firmware update, but for the most part they work great.


Quote:

The new ones don't feel as solid as the 2nd gen either

Funny... most people seem to think the new ones feel a lot more solid.



Quote:

Originally posted by ProFingerSk8er listen to austonia, he knows what he's talking about

No more than the rest of us who are educated on this topic. He has his opinions just like everyone else.



Quote:

Originally posted by TheMuffinMan_01 the iriver has a more powerful headphone amp and better quality sound.

Your opinion. Not everyone else's, though.


Quote:

there, most likely, will be aac support in the future.

Someone can just as easily say that the iPod will support WMA and other formats.


Quote:

there is absalutely no way you should buy an iPod UNLESS, you really really care about asthetics, you need everything to be really simple for you to understand it, and have cash to blow(but even then its not worth it)

Again, your (uniniformed, IMO) opinion. A much better UI and better firmware are good reasons. Better form factor and ease of use. Smart Playlists, which no other player has. Better "guts" (the iPod has way more processing power and a much more advanced OS inside). Better possible future expandability. Better add-on potential thanks to the dock connector. Better sound (IMO). FireWire. Better music management (iTunes). More features that most people will actually use. (How often do you really record with a microphone? I use the calendars, contacts, games, notes, and voice recording functionality on a daily basis. I also copy images directly from my digital camera to my iPod whenever I'm taking a lot of pictures.)

I could go on... suffice it to say that people who bash the iPod for "not having any features" should be taken with a big grain of salt.


Quote:

Originally posted by Claude what I like about the IHP is the fact (already mentioned) that it works like an external hard drive and can be connected to any USB PC running W2K/XP (if you have the cable with you) to add, delete or copy files. No need to use a special software or install a driver (only necessary for Windows 98/Me).

The iPod can be used the same way, only it's a true FireWire drive, so the performance is better.


Quote:

Originally posted by raynman None of the posters who recommended the iHP ever said anything to the likes of "iPod sucks" to be branded iPod bashers.

Did you actually read the thread? At least four people made posts to the effect of:

"The iPod has no features and there's no reason anyone with a brain would buy one."

SpoonMan's comment was pretty accurate. Sure, there were a few reasonable posts. But there were also the usual iPod bashers.


There are reasons someone might prefer the iRiver over the iPod. It's just that most people in this thread aren't making a very good case for those reasons.