[Sweet Spot]

Bangraman, dude you're so out of line man. All you're basically doing is jumping on the "let's put Sweet Spot in his place" bandwagon, without even correcting the so many misconceptions you seem to think I have. It's the second time you've done that, and it feels like a personal attack without provocation. If you'd like to explain things to me, I'm graceful enough to accept facts if I'm wrong, but all you're doing is misquoting me. I was NOT bashing the iPod.

If you paid attention to what I was saying, instead of getting defensive for whatever reasons, you'd see that. I mean, you actually quoted everything I said which was unnecessary...

The first paragraph isn't even a matter of right or wrong.

Secondly, this:
Quote:

Like this one that I'd like to have someone answer for me: When buying music from iMusic in conjunction with iTUnes, are the files all AAC ? Because if they are, I wouldn't want to touch them. Why ? Because iTunes is useless to me, and if I need iTUnes to play AAC (theoretically, cuz I can use QCD player to play AAC files actually) then it's a waste. That's just one perspective. You may ask why I'm associating the two.

Starts off as a question. I explained why iTunes wasn't for me to the hairiest degree.

And the last paragraph is FACT. So what tree are you talking about. Do you just like to argue ? I don't man, so relax.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweet Spot Bangraman, dude you're so out of line man. All you're basically doing is jumping on the "let's put Sweet Spot in his place" bandwagon, without even correcting the so many misconceptions you seem to think I have. It's the second time you've done that, and it feels like a personal attack without provocation. If you'd like to explain things to me, I'm graceful enough to accept facts if I'm wrong, but all you're doing is misquoting me. I was NOT bashing the iPod. If you paid attention to what I was saying, instead of getting defensive for whatever reasons, you'd see that. I mean, you actually quoted everything I said which was unnecessary... The first paragraph isn't even a matter of right or wrong. Secondly, this: Starts off as a question. I explained why iTunes wasn't for me to the hairiest degree. And the last paragraph is FACT. So what tree are you talking about. Do you just like to argue ? I don't man, so relax.

I don't like to argue that much. And I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. Your posts have attracted my attention as biased without any authority (i.e. you haven't owned or tried any of the stuff you're talking about) and misinformed yet with enough lucidity to fool newbies. That is my main issue with what you put down here.

 

[Rumz]

After long debate I went the iHP route. Main things that drew me in:

-Battery life

-LCD Remote (long time MD user spoiled by LCD remotes)

-interface (love not having to fiddle with syncing when I use my iHP with multiple machines that all have different music on them-- in that regard perhaps I'm one of the few who doesn't like to sync. Purely personal preference, I can see how syncing would be very nice for most people) -- I like drag and drop and not needing any special software outside of the OS. Liked that it was a simple plug and play device that wouldn't give me any grief when transporting mp3s from one location to another

-I have to admit that various opinions about sound of each unit swayed me towards the iHP. Don't know if one is actually better than the other, but there are mixed opinions on the iPod's EQ. Ultimately I would probably be happy with the sound of either.

-optical in/out -- again, the MD user in me coming out

I have yet to try OGG. I do wish I had AAC playback but all it really means is that I won't take advantage of iTunes music store. As for why iTunes might only have AAC? A few thoughts come to mind. A) Simplicity (rather than having multiple format choices) B) Perhaps it's easier to implement digital rights management / copy control on these? C) Plus they are supposed to sound better at lower bit rates (128k) than MP3 (I haven't decided for myself). D) Exclusivity / marketing. Other players may support AAC that I'm not aware of, and even more in the future may support it, but for now, when someone sees those iTunes commercials on TV their best bet to take advantage of Apple's music offering is via the iPod-- Apple is who is making the biggest splash in the downloadable music arena, IMO.

iPod does have a lot going for it, too-- already I am coveting some of those iPod accessories

(the memory card reader especially). There are a lot of other pros to the iPod-- but I had to make a choice an ultimately I wanted some of the iHP pros more than the iPod pros.

I almost feel like this is a pepsi vs. coke thread or something, hehe.

 

[utdeep]

Sweet Spot, you need to get an iPod and actually use iTunes before you continue to criticize. They are wonderful together.

That being said, I think the IHP is a far better player. It has a number of features that are great on a music player (which is the main reason why someone would buy it) whereas the iPod seems to wander in non-music directions with it's extras (PDA, photo storage). It is more solid... an iPod needs to be pampered. iRiver also keeps updating the firmware on a more frequent basis. Apple makes some serious updates too, but iRiver continues to support old products long after it replaces them with new ones. Sure there is no wonderful piece of software like iTunes for the IHP, but if Red Chair software or another third party put their minds to it, there will be.

However, there are two other criteria I look at when purchasing something expensive - resale value and popularity. They are both related to each other, and make a huge difference. The iPod is a status symbol and incredibly popular. I have no doubt that when the battery dies out on me, I will be able to replace it easily from some company. I don't feel the same is true for the IHP. I also know the majority of cool cases and accessories would be for the far more popular iPod. And when I decide to upgrade, I can sell the iPod for far more and purchase a better player. The resale value of the iPod is huge. That is why I would pick the iPod.

I sold my iPod a few weeks ago, and I got close to what I paid for it. I kept it in perfect condition, but I enjoyed it for five months. I had no trouble finding a buyer, and I definately could have gotten more for it on eBay.

I'm now waiting for a new player. I'm hoping for something that will have USB 2.0 and be able to interact with removable storage devices such as memory cards or flash players. It would be cool to plug in a muvo and get 128 mb of songs from a huge HD player, or download all my Canon S400 pics on to it. Removable battery would be nice too and at least 20 hours of battery life. Until then I will oggle at the IHP.

 

[clutch]

I think the iHP does look pretty cool, and I like the remote. But for me, the primary motivations were:

1. Capacity
2. Interoperability between Windows and Mac (and there's a Linux fan base as well with apps for it)

I really needed more than 20GB as I want to store a great deal of music AND files at the same time. The remote on the iHP really trick, but at the same time is a wee bit too big for me to wear around at work while the iPod remote is perfect. It's also a nice size for my mountain bike, while toting around the larger remote (which would be something *else* for me to scratch) would be an issue. Then, when I started using iTunes, I was relieved with my choice of player. Another nice feature is the interface of the unit; you really have to hold it and use it a little before ruling it out. I am right-handed, but use it with my left hand all the time because it's so nice to work with and requires little coordination. I like and appreciate the ability to drag and drop files into the iRiver for playback, but the ability to search and import by tags in a management product (iTunes for me) is much more valuable as I have too many files to dig down my directories for (Genre -> Artist -> Album). This is nice when I can only remember some portion of the artist, album, or track name that I want to listen to. You can also export the library or any playlist to XML for use elsewhere if you like. The addition of saving On-The-Go playlists back to iTunes with the firmware update was a nice touch as well (now if they would only do that with the EQ settings from iTunes to the iPod I'd be set).

The iHP does have lots of neat little things that it can do, but I just don't have a pressing desire for most of them.

 

[raynman]

Well having had to opportunity to use both, here are my reasons:

I bought my iHP because I am by no means a music junkie. I have only 5 GB of music on my computer. After using the iPod 2G for 3 months for use in school and on commute, I quickly realized the remote on the iPod was extremely hindering. I usually always kept the iPod in my backpack or in my pockets, and to control the iPod via the remote was a pain in the ass. Then the remote started "bronzing" on me and that just about did it. Therefore, to see the remote on the iHP with full functionality was absolutely crazy and fantastic. I have also been quite fond of ephod and the ease of its use. Musicmatch gives me chills. Again, the iHP gave me another great reason to buy it when I saw it was a true portable HD with drag and drop support. However, probably the two biggest factors for me were batterly life and sound quality or dynamics.

I do actually use my DAP extensively throughout the workweek. It is on the first thing I go out to school. It is on (sometimes

) during those boring lectures I go to. It is on when I travel between classes. It is on when I commute on the bus to work. It is on for the most part at work as well. I roughly estimate that I use it for atleast 8 hours. The 2G iPod actually handled my needs quite well

However, at the time I was considering my purchase, the 3G was already out. (We all know where the battery life went from there) Sadly, enough, if the iPod did have a higher battery capacity for the 3G, I would have bought it way back in June. Such is life I guess (can't always have everything you want). Maybe I could have gotten the external battery pack, but for me, that would have defeated its portability, since I would prefer travelling with minimal baggage, hence the Ety's and a iPod.

I'll make this very clear. It is totally inaccurate to say the iPod sound is junk. Actually, to me, maybe not you, the 2G iPod sounds pleaseant and neutral. I listen to almost all types of genres and the couple of classical cd's I did listen to with my Ety's were of excellent quality. Unfortuantely, switching over to rock and hip hop, the iPod just didn't give me the punch I was hoping for. Then again, you could argue the Ety's don't give that Grado kick at all. However, the Ety's paired with the iHP EQ'd proved otherwise. The dynamics are incredible with this pair IMO, and with hardly no distortion whatsoever, which impressed me even more. The EQ on the iPod is just plain horrid. What made the clincher, was when the EQ was turned to normal or switched to "classical" EQ. Listening to classical music felt so real; pristine clear sound, excellent but not overemphasized bass coupled with unrecessed highs gave me downright chills. The sound on the iHP is topnotch and second to none IMO. I am by no means an audiophile expert, but I do know what I do prefer. You have to make that choice as well.

So where is the iPod now? Thanks to my roomy who is so kind to still let me use it, it is used EXTENSIVELY as *gasp* my little workout buddy. Hell, even I can't deny this, but the chicks do certainly dig the iPods for some reason.

Frankly, we just gotta love this digital age we are living in. We are so lucky to be living in the now. This HD technology is still fairly new as well, and who knows what the companies will do next year. To me, it feels as though I am a kid again, anxiously waiting for what new toy I would like to have

I wish I could have all the DAP I wanted. Maybe if I win the lottery...

 

[pufftissue]

keep in mind that the ihp 120 was recently reported to have a startup time of 10 seconds with 6 gb mp3s.

With I think around 16 gb , the startup time was something like 29 seconds!?

Can anyone confirm? Or deny, hopefully?

I have the karma. I have about 7 gb, and seriously, 4 seconds to startup.

ipod doesn't count b/c it never really shuts totally "off"

 

[SpoonMan]

Quote:

ipod doesn't count b/c it never really shuts totally "off"

False, it does shut off totally after 24hours of not being used...even then it only takes a few seconds to startup, if used within 24hours it starts up instantly. It doesn't count why...because it does it well?

 

[nales]

nales is becoming tirEd of the Apple zeals.

 

[SpoonMan]

How is it I'm a zealot...simply correcting misinformation

 

[hempcamp]

Haven't you learned, SpoonMan... all one has to do is say something like "Boy, that iPod sure is pretty" and you'll be labeled a zealot for life.

God forbid you try to stop the deluge of misinformation.

--Chris

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by pufftissue keep in mind that the ihp 120 was recently reported to have a startup time of 10 seconds with 6 gb mp3s. With I think around 16 gb , the startup time was something like 29 seconds!? Can anyone confirm? Or deny, hopefully?

It would be great if someone could answer these questions by pufftissue.

 

[dsun1k]

Quoted from iRiver Forum :

"16,5 Gb mp3, 192 K-320K, 3142 files in 255 folders, ID3 V1 and 2

Startup without DB scan: 13 s
Startup with DB scan: 23 s"

 

[matics]

Quote:

Originally posted by Music Fanatic It would be great if someone could answer these questions by pufftissue.

From what I have read in the iRiver Forum, yes, there appears to be quite a delay in startup if you turn on the navigate by tags feature. The numbers jive with what was posted on the forum.

Fortunately, there appears to be a couple of programmer/enthusiasts that have reverse engineered the tag database format that iRiver uses to allow Linux users (and Windows users) to create compatible database files without using any iRiver software. A side benefit of their endevors is that they are able to include ogg tags in the database (the current iRiver software doesn't have this facility) and they have been able to optimize the tags so that the database load times are much faster.

Yes, it is an unfortunate fact that the iHP series has a non-optimal tag database facility (the Rio Karma guys seem to have this figured out). But, it looks like we can minimize the load times by optimizing the tags in our MP3 files. I know that most people think that this is totally unrealistic and would avoid this player for this fact alone, but I think that the player has so many positives going for it that I don't mind doing a little work to minimize this one negative.