[VoLTaG3]

Well, I used to own a 8gb iPod Touch 2G and I was running near the capacity since I wanted to increase the bitrate of music because I was slowly becoming an audiophile after buying a pair of Shure SE530's. I was planning on buying a higher capacity media player. Well I lost my precious 8gb iPod Touch 2 days ago and now I have a reason to get a higher capacity media player. Since I used iTunes all my music is already organized in iTunes. I converted my whole music collection of 820 songs to apple lossless because at the time I had my mind set on an iPod Classic 120gb. At 820 songs in Apple lossless it's roughly about 20gb. I will most likely reconvert my music collection to 320kbps MP3 which will bring it from 20gb to 8gb If I am forced to settle for one of 32gb or less players listed.

Personally, I want a media player that can:

1. Sufficiently drive my Shure SE530's
2. Has good Sound Quality

My list of media players I choose from are:

1. iPod Classic 120gb 2G
2. Microsoft Zune 120gb
3. Creative X-Fi 32gb
4. Cowon D2 16gb
5. Cowon S9 32gb

What media player should I buy?? Thanks...

 

[Signal2Noise]

One of the Cowons or a Zune would be my choice. The Cowon would be solely based on other users' comments who have them in these forums since I haven't tried one. I love my Zune and the software is faster and more efficient than iTunes. In fact, it's because of the Zune I ordered up a pair of SE530s for xmas.

 

[Calexico]

Let me just double-check, are you converting MP3s to lossless? Because if you do, it won't help at all. The MP3s already lost all the data and audio information, and making it lossless will not restore any of it.

 

[VoLTaG3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calexico /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let me just double-check, are you converting MP3s to lossless? Because if you do, it won't help at all. The MP3s already lost all the data and audio information, and making it lossless will not restore any of it.

Lol, so thats why I literally hear no differences between a 192kbps .aac, 320kbps MP3, and a 1,543kbps .wav. Wow, so I'm just gonna reconvert all my songs back to 192kbps .aac.

 

[Calexico]

If you reconvert back to 192kbps, it will lose quality as well though, because it will compress the already altered file, so it won't be the same 192kbps as before.

 

[VoLTaG3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calexico /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you reconvert back to 192kbps, it will lose quality as well though, because it will compress the already altered file, so it won't be the same 192kbps as before.

So what if I raise it 256kbps or 320kbps? Also if the musical information is not restored than why does the file become 30-70mb in size when it is converted to lossless from a lossy format?

 

[Calexico]

Because it takes extra care to make sure that that 192kbps is the same as before. Lossless never improves quality, it does not change it. Which means importing from CDs, which are very high quality, lossless is good. But transcoding from downloaded MP3s, which are low quality, makes lossless bad.

Going to 256kbps or 320kbps will still compress the altered file, and it will not be the same as the original.

 

[my.self]

i dont think down converting to 192kbps is better than leaving them at 256/320kbps. the 192 is more compressed so ur just going to make the quality worse than the 256/320.

 

[i_don't_know]

It's like this:

The original, uncompressed audio source (the CD) is a hamburger. Every part of the hamburger is some of the original data. When you rip that CD into 192kbps, you eat the top bun, the pickles, and the lettuce. Converting the 192kbps file into lossless is just putting that hamburger in a giant wooden box. It's bigger now and takes up more space, but inside is the same hamburger. Converting that lossless file into a lossy file will just result in you eating more and more of the hamburger. You are not allowed to throw up the hamburger.

Basically, the only way to get true lossless is to rip the CD straight into lossless.

 

[my.self]

hmmm....i_dont_know apparently knows something..ironic..lol. but yea, he is right. its like crashing a brand new car (lossless) into pieces and chunks (mp3) and ur trying to rebuild the car. even tho u can fix it somewhat, it will never be as good as before.

 

[i_don't_know]

Quote:

Originally Posted by my.self /img/forum/go_quote.gif hmmm....i_dont_know apparently knows something..ironic..lol. but yea, he is right. its like crashing a brand new car (lossless) into pieces and chunks (mp3) and ur trying to rebuild the car. even tho u can fix it somewhat, it will never be as good as before.

Converting to lossless isn't fixing it somewhat, though...

 

[my.self]

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_don't_know /img/forum/go_quote.gif Converting to lossless isn't fixing it somewhat, though...

yea...lol, but point is, it wont be as good as before.

 

[nsc4u]

120g ipod will be a good choice.

 

[Ricardo Dawkins]

My vote goes to the Zune 120 if you are only using those Shure earphones. but, first fix your transcoding issues.

 

[VoLTaG3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins /img/forum/go_quote.gif My vote goes to the Zune 120 if you are only using those Shure earphones. but, first fix your transcoding issues.

I already have my mind set on the iPod classic 120gb. I've became too used to iTunes when I was using my iPod Touch 2G. I tried the Zune software and it sucks compared to iTunes. Also the iPod Classic has a much longer battery life then the Zune. The iPod Classic is more for me. The sound quality of the iPod Classic is great if it will sound just like iPod Touch 2G did.