iriver to ipod?
Dec 31, 2004 at 4:57 PM Post #17 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by briggzy
think about the optical!!


Yes, the optical is a true line out, no influence from volume or EQ and has low jitter. Its sounds great connected to a good DAC
600smile.gif
but this set is no really portable anymore
rolleyes.gif
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 6:23 PM Post #18 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigFil
There are alot of misunderstandings about what the ipod can and can't do as far as us as a HDD. The HDD function of the iPod acts just like any other external hard drive you would use. You can move and transfer any files including music files on and off of the drive. What you can't do is move a music file to the drive by way of Windows Explorer or Mac Finder and have it play those files right then and there. To actually be able to play the files on the iPod they have to be added to iTunes and transferred to the iPod. I believe this has to do with the way the iPod uses a database to navigate music on the iPod. Do other DB based DAP's act similarly?


That would be an advantage of the Iriver. You can use windows explorer, or the software that comes with it, and still you can listen to the music you download.
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 6:48 PM Post #19 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanity8me
..snip ... ipod over the H140? ...sniip


We have the mini-ipod and H140 in our family. Here are some annoyances:

-Proprietary IPOD file system is a pain, requiring you to use special software
-IPOD does not play open source OGG files
-IPOD volume is too easily changed by accident - mere touch of the clickwheel
-iPOD battery life is a bit short
-iRiver takes long time to boot
-iRiver menus take a long time to learn

NET: ipod sucks. Give me the iRiver- i'm willing to learn the additional menu complexity and wait the extra minute for bootup for its benefits.
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 10:26 PM Post #20 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver
That would be an advantage of the Iriver. You can use windows explorer, or the software that comes with it, and still you can listen to the music you download.


I'll take the advantage of being able to find, sync, and play my music faster and with more options with the iPod and the DB method. For when I need to (ahem) go over to a friends house and steal music with windows explorer I can honestly wait until I get home to listen to it. No sweat of my balls. To each his own though and if you prefer filetree type players then more power to you. Cheers and happy new year.
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 10:45 PM Post #21 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie87
The 4th gen is still at a loss in the bass department


Sadly, I must agree. In direct comparison to the Karma, it is lacking. I will say that the iTunes software is more user friendly but I'm quickly getting the hang of Rio's software. As for the features, I like everything about the Karma over the iPod with two exceptions....1-The Karma has no true line out except through the dock and 2-the controls on the iPod are much easier to use. With a Sik Din, you get the line out and from all reports, a much better sound from amping but with the EQ of the Karma, I'm beginning to think I won't miss amping. As for the controls, I got the hang of those real quick and only occasionally do I find myself trying to scroll like an iPod. All things considered, I don't think you can make a bad choice with either. Both are fine players in their own rights.
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 11:03 PM Post #22 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by geardoc
-Proprietary IPOD file system is a pain, requiring you to use special software
-IPOD does not play open source OGG files
-IPOD volume is too easily changed by accident - mere touch of the clickwheel
-iPOD battery life is a bit short
-iRiver takes long time to boot
-iRiver menus take a long time to learn



A couple others that could always be added (should it matter to someone):
-iRiver does not play open standard AAC files (Ogg or AAC each have their advantages)
-iRiver does not support lossless compression (though does, as most, uncompressed)
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 11:09 PM Post #23 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx
A couple others that could always be added (should it matter to someone):
-iRiver does not play open standard AAC files (Ogg or AAC each have their advantages)
-iRiver does not support lossless compression (though does, as most, uncompressed)



And one more should be added:
-iPod does not play WMA files directly (WMA files must be transcoded to another format before iTunes or the iPod will recognize them)
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 11:33 PM Post #24 of 44
True, but should probably also mention:
-iRiver no support for AIFF (so better title those WAVs properly cause no tags)
-iRiver no .aa playback (40 Gb of music is fine, but audiobooks are sometimes better for those long drives).

Okay, I'm reaching.
wink.gif
 
Dec 31, 2004 at 11:57 PM Post #25 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx
True, but should probably also mention:
-iRiver no support for AIFF (so better title those WAVs properly cause no tags)
-iRiver no .aa playback (40 Gb of music is fine, but audiobooks are sometimes better for those long drives).

Okay, I'm reaching.
wink.gif



And then again for those long drives, ipod has no radio. An advantage of the Iriver.
 
Jan 1, 2005 at 3:10 AM Post #26 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Iriver
And then again for those long drives, ipod has no radio. An advantage of the Iriver.


That advantage is sometimes a disadvantage, as well. The radio's performance is no better than mediocre (reception-wise) - much worse than that of a permanently-installed car radio, and worse than that of even a cheap portable boombox.
 
Jan 1, 2005 at 3:14 AM Post #27 of 44
I must live in a great area for radio reception, becuase on any cd, mp3 player i have ever owned, they sounded perfectly clear
 
Jan 1, 2005 at 3:16 AM Post #28 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie87
I must live in a great area for radio reception, becuase on any cd, mp3 player i have ever owned, they sounded perfectly clear


Fair enough, because in my area, radio reception sucks even though it's only 11 miles away from Downtown Chicago.
 
Jan 1, 2005 at 4:06 AM Post #29 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver
Fair enough, because in my area, radio reception sucks even though it's only 11 miles away from Downtown Chicago.


Hm thats really weird, then on second thought i could be deaf
 
Jan 1, 2005 at 4:13 AM Post #30 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie87
Hm thats really weird, then on second thought i could be deaf


It's not all that weird. Every time I turn my body I hear loud static tuning noises with every single walkabout radio which uses the headphone cord as its antenna.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top