[JaZZ]

It's rather clear: THE perfect player isn't on the market yet. For many the iRiver iHP-120 comes closest, others have had hopes in the Rio Karma which maybe are still alive, and others are happy with the cute little iPod despite its meager features and its short battery life.

What features and qualities should your dream player have? (And from what manufacturer do you expect it most?)

To begin with my own wish list:

Most important: excellent sound quality, including decent volume (like at least 12 mW per channel at 40 ohm). And especially: no bass drop-off with low-impedance headphones. That's by no means a matter of course, because most MP3 players suffer from this feature, including Archos, iPod, HanGo, Neo... (in increasing order of distinctiveness).

Indeed, iRiver seems to be the only manufacturer capable of creating a perfectly flat fequency response with its players (also with the iFP-39x series)...

So a frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz ±1 dB is indispensable for me.

I'd like to have a useful equalizer to compensate for the slight balance flaws even of the best portable headphones. Preferably a 3-band parametric type.

Analog line out and digital out -- for top sound at home through a headphone or speaker setup. Because I know how good MP3s from a harddisk can sound through an external DAC and amp...

I don't need a recording function at all -- almost all my MP3s have their origin in one of my CDs and are carefully ripped and encoded, most of them from additionally edited wave files.

FM radio is nice and appreciated, but not the most important thing.

MP3 and Wave should be supported, Ogg Vorbis is nice, also Flac would be fine, but probably would suck the current out of the battery. I have no experience with it though, nor with AAC and WMA.

Of course .mpu playlists should be supported. As well as shuffle play and ID tag display.

20 GB capacity is the absolute minimum, but actually I'd expect at least 40 GB from my dream player.

Long life of the replaceable (!) battery, small size, low weight, good ergonomics, logical, crashless operation and easy volume-control access are further (more or less) important points.

Driverless (storage-device) USB-2 connection to the computer is a must for a modern HD player.

All things considered, the iRiver iHP-120 is the only player which comes passably close to my dream player. Are there any similar players available or planned to be launched (if possible with higher HD capacity)?

 

[JaZZ]

.

 

[chadbang]

That graph just save me $300 and cost Apple the same.

Okay, I want the same qualities as you sound-wise. I'd also like replaceable batteries and the option to remove the HD yourself to upgrade in size. Also, the option to attach an outboard battery back.


But mainly, recording is important to me. In particular, live recording capabilities.

So, I want: (1)Mic sensitivity selection capabilites.
(2) GOOD sound level meters. Not just 6 or seven "blocks" but at least 10 level indicators for both right and left channel.
(3) I want "on the fly" capability to adjust the recording level while recording.

Minidisc pretty much have this ground covered, so why can't portable HD units do the same?

Dammit, this is a wide open field full of hungry customers! We're not asking for a walk on Mars here!

Frankly, I hope the brains at Sony know this and are going to drop the BOMB of all portable HD player on us out of the blue!

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by chadbang That graph just save me $300 and cost Apple the same.

I would think that after being on Head-Fi for so long, you wouldn't make a buying decision based on a graph. Rather, that you'd actually listen to products. I've never heard a "bass drop-off" on any generation of iPod. Then again, I don't listen to iPods using the HD 600

Until they make the "perfect" player for you, the key is not to look for a unit that has mysterious "perfect specs" or the "most" features. It's to buy the product that best suits what you'll actually use it for. There are a lot of good players out there -- try them out until you find the one that you actually like to use on an everyday basis.

Jazz's list would make a nice player. The problem is that most people don't care about those features. And companies produce products for "most people"

Quote:

Originally posted by jaZZ Driverless (storage-device) USB-2 connection to the computer is a must

FireWire any day

Other than the "I don't have a FireWire port" argument (and if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on a player, buy a $25 FW card), there's no logical argument for USB2.0 over FireWire for this use.

 

[PeterR]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF I've never heard a "bass drop-off" on any generation of iPod. Then again, I don't listen to iPods using the HD 600

But then there wouldn't be a rolloff with the HD-600 (well, 3.5 octaves lower)

 

[JaZZ]

MacDEF...

...the cause for the bass drop-off is well known: the undersized (electrically and spatially) buffer capacitors in the output stage. I have no idea how iRiver manage to get such a flat response... it looks like they renounce the capacitors at all.

However, with my Archos Studio 20 which has a similar, only slightly milder drop-off, it is clearly audible in comparison to my iFP-395 and my home amps -- with cans such as Grados, PX 100/200, ER-4X and even with the 60-ohm Portapro. They all lack a bit in the lowest bass registers. And I remember well how several people complained about lacking bass with the iPod; in every case it turned out that they used low-impedance cans. Also Don Wilson once stated that the ER-4P be no ideal match with the iPod for this reason. It can't be denied that it lacks (low) bass combined with typical portable headphones, that's what the measurements say (BTW all iPod FR curves I've seen look like this). And -3 dB at 50 Hz (with 25-ohm load) really is a lot IMO. But to its defense: there are worse cases around, such as the HanGo Jukebox and the Neo -- which I had for a very short time; I was happy just to take a loss of ~$50 while returning it.

I've never heard the iPod so far, but I have no trouble to believe that it sounds good despite this little flaw -- which nevertheless is inacceptable to me, at least when it comes to the perfect player which at least should work well with dedicated portable headphones.

As to Firewire: I don't know its adantages over USB 2. But yes, I don't have a firewire interface on my computer, not even USB 2 at the moment, but I think I could live with USB 2, even for my dream player. And that's what most of them have and will have anyway I guess, like other sort of devices too.

 

[e-r0ck]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF FireWire any day Other than the "I don't have a FireWire port" argument (and if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on a player, buy a $25 FW card), there's no logical argument for USB2.0 over FireWire for this use.

Almost everyone has something that works with USB. Few ahve Firewire. If i'm somewhere I want to plug the player into, I have a much better chance of it being USB 1.1/2.0 than it being Firewire. Thats my reason. The fact that firewire is faster really makes no difference to me because its not THAT great of a difference and I'm really only going to be doing one mass transfer and will only experience the long wait once.

 

[chadbang]

I hear you, McDef. And, nope, I haven't got the chance to try out my Senn 600s with an iPod. But I will certainly let you know when I do!

(Like anybody is gonna care about some twit raving about hearing his first iPod at this point.


But taking your advice, the iRiver seems like the best choice for me now. I'll be able to use it because (a) I don't have a PC and (b) I'm still running system 9 -- which I'm not sure iPods support anymore? Could be wrong, though. Maybe older software?

But the reason that I currently think the iRiver the best choice is it's built in MP3 encoder which would let me hook up my cd player and encode cds without even using a computer. I think that's a really sweet feature!


Oh yeah, and the amp is is beefier with more headroom. Doubt anyone here would dispute the validity of that!

 

[ProFingerSk8er]

Quote:

FireWire any day Other than the "I don't have a FireWire port" argument (and if you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on a player, buy a $25 FW card), there's no logical argument for USB2.0 over FireWire for this use.

i believe firewire dosnt support upload/download at the same time like USB, so can you play music on your computer from ipod and transfer files at the same time?

 

[Fish Tank X]

Firewire is more advantageous, but the thing is that it is more expensive, and not free. Fireiwire is a proprietary standard. Thus, royalties have to be paid. USB2.0 is a free standard. *This* is why the inherently superior firewire has gotten such low adoption.

For the average joe, USB backwards compatibility is also a nice touch.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

i believe firewire dosnt support upload/download at the same time like USB, so can you play music on your computer from ipod and transfer files at the same time?

This seems like a fairly useless, theoretical argument. First of all, what player, USB orFirewire-based, and associated transfer software actually supports such a feature? Secondly, if any actually ever did, why would you logically do this with your portable player if you were sitting next to your desktop PC doing the transfer? Thirdly, what kind of performance do you think you'd get from a single, mini hard drive attempting to support OS multitasking or multithreading?

BTW, regarding the original post graphs, didn't I read that the European iPods were hamstrung as far as output compared to their North American counterparts?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by ProFingerSk8er i believe firewire dosnt support upload/download at the same time like USB, so can you play music on your computer from ipod and transfer files at the same time?

? FireWire is far better at simultaneous up/down transfers. USB is the connection that has trouble with it.



Quote:

Originally posted by Fish Tank X Firewire is more advantageous, but the thing is that it is more expensive, and not free. Fireiwire is a proprietary standard. Thus, royalties have to be paid. USB2.0 is a free standard. *This* is why the inherently superior firewire has gotten such low adoption.

FireWire isn't "proprietary" any more than CDs are "proprietary." FireWire is IEEE1394.The technology itself is licensed, but so is USB. The difference is that Intel doesn't charge for USB licenses, but the 1394 Trade Association does -- less than $.25 per machine. Not exactly a deal-breaker.

The reason FireWire isn't as widely used has nothing to do with it's cost. It's because Intel pushes USB and the fact that there are far more Intel chipsets out there than Apple motherboards. However, FireWire is growing extremely fast, and even many Wintel PCs have FireWire now. In some countries, such as Japan, pretty much every computer and consumer electronic device over $100 includes FireWire

 

[D-EJ915]

I bought a iEEE1394B card so I could use my digital camcorder with my PC, and never got around to getting a USB2.0 one, but compusa has one for $20 bucks this week, I'm getting it

, you should to.

 

[Fish Tank X]

Yes, the .25$ royalty I was talking about was one factor in it. Before USB was integrated onto motherboard chipsets, USB was cheaper to integrate than firewire. now that has changed, but in a more extreme manner.

It can be a deal breaker when you're dealing with 5$ profits on motherboards.

USB2.0 is tightly integrated with motherboard chipsets, and thus when you create a motherboard, the chipset automatically supports firewire and thus, is 'Free'. Besides the traces running around the motehrboard, no actual chip is needed.

For firewire, 90% of the motherboards that do a firewire implementation have a seperate chip that does firewire duties, and thus adds maybe 4-6$ to the cost of the motherboard. When you're only making 5-10$ per motherboard, this can make or break profit margins. The majority of North Americans do not use firewire, so for the north american market making a motherboard that supports firewire eats profit margins. And with the motherboard industry today, that is not acceptable. The motherboard industry is *very* low profit.

 

[Gojira]

I only need 3 things in my HDD player:
1) sound quality
2) sound quality
3) sound quality.

If any new HDD player could give me even one of these things, I would buy it immediately even at the current (somewhat) ridiculous prices. All I ask for is the sound quality of an M-Audio Revolution paired with a hard drive. Is that really so much to ask? M-Audio, are you listening?