[widds2v]

What mp3 player has the most size & offers a lossless codec? Only one that comes to my mind is the iPod 60gb photo with apple lossless. Only other lossless player I know of is the karma with 20gb so definatly not enough. I could get a 60gb photo off the apple site for ~$380, so figuring in price it might be the best bet... but I would really prefer something that can play flac or wavpack.

 

[blessingx]

Nope that's it. If you can find the 40GB iAudio you can have FLAC, but still behind the Photo in size. You can go the modified route and get a NJB3 or the like and replace the HD with something bigger and maybe push things a bit (though you'll be using uncompressed so calculate file sizes accordingly), but for lossless right now the iPod holds the title.

Only other thing I'll say, is if your set on lossless because of audio quality, I'd test a bit to see if your DAP of choice (and its DAC) is really up to showing off a significant difference between 320 kbps LAME/Vorbis/AAC and FLAC/ALAC (and resulting disadvantages of space and battery hit). Or you could be like me (considering) and not want to have two copies of everything and so use lossless portably, because that's what you want at home. I've used both ALAC and 256 AAC on a 4G iPod (and A900, Etys & HD650 with SR71/SM), and although never really ABXed the difference, I never really felt/heard anything missing in the latter lossy when switching. Course everyones ears are different and you may already have done similar tests since you have a 20 GB model.

 

[zikarus]

Afaik no lossless codec but .wav support and 100 GB:

http://www.archos.com/products/prw_500697.html?lang=en

 

[mushu]

You could always do the "40gig dremel mod" for the karma (see here), but without anything like that, probably the 60gig photo as you said.

Come on, the AV4100 is only for millionaires, and is as big as a brick

 

[ILikeMusic]

I have to concur with what blessingx said. If the reason you are going with lossless is due only to concerns about audio quality then you may be wasting some effort... you just aren't likely going to be able to detect any difference between lossless and high-bitrate compressed. Many will claim otherwise but do an honest blind test for yourself and see whether you can really detect any difference. If you have already done this and feel that you can tell, or if you want to maintain the same format across multiple platforms then you might want to go with lossless, otherwise you are limiting your selection of players for no real advantage.

 

[Sottilde]

The Neuros II has an up to 80 GB capacity, recording capabilities, wav support (FLAC coming... eventually), open source firmware, built in FM transmitter, and some other stuff. I have one myself, it's very nice. Has some really good power behind it too... okay battery life but a great internal amplifier.

 

[pauls]

100 GB with wav files approx = 60 GB iPod with ALAC. (Not exact I know)

The other thing to consider is that wav file don't have any tags. ie It would be terrible navigating through 100 GB of wav files.

This is my dilemna when I upgrade the HDD on my 20 GB JB3. I was thinking of wav files, but I think I'll stick with high bitrate mp3s 'cause I couldn't live without easy navigation.

pauls

 

[AdamWill]

Neuros is definitely worth considering - the flac code is being written right now, and you could buy an empty one (they have this order option) and install a 100GB hard disk in it (it's really not hard, I switched the hard disk on my Neuros, you just open it up, tip the insides out, disconnect the ribbon cable from the old drive and plug it into the new drive, then close everything up again. Because it's so big there's lots of space to work in and it's a very simple setup.) That will be the absolute winner for capacity when the flac code is done, probably three months' time or something. The Neuros III will be an interesting option too, if they decide to stick with 2.5" disks in the end (they're currently debating whether to go with 1.8" or 2.5").

 

[jpr703]

320K AAC files are half the size of Apple Lossless and the difference is very, very subtle--even on good equipment.