PDA

View Full Version : Music Players



ruf
12-01-2005, 09:23 PM
1: Does some mp3 players have better sound?

2: Is there a difference between WMA and MP3s?

3: People who don't like iPods...

4: Music players on your computer...

ruf
12-01-2005, 09:24 PM
Wheelchairman posted...


RUF, I seriously despise those who claim there are differences between the brands. You would never ever know the difference.

I know that some mp3 players have better sound. One they I compared my friends RCA lyra, and my other friends Creative. The lyra had like a background noise, but the creative did not, we though it as maybe the headphones, nope it was the player. (tested with same song/format/size)

I also know that Creative makes very good audio systems and speakers and stuff. And because of this and that^ I know there is difference between mp3 players.

Someone said that wma are better than mp3, that too I tested (by the same size) But I did not notice any difference. But I am not sure.

Someone else said that they don't like Ipod, and they sound like they hate Ipod for some reason, I do not know. I like creative because I think they are better not because I hate Ipods, if you like Ipods cool!

Tell me about your music players on your computer. I like iTunes and WMP 10.

To summarize the questions:

1: Does some mp3 players have better sound?

2: Is there a difference between WMA and MP3s?

3: People who don't like iPods...

4: Music players on your computer...

arak0r
12-01-2005, 10:22 PM
there was already a topic for this crap.

Endymion
12-01-2005, 10:26 PM
1: Does some mp3 players have better sound?

2: Is there a difference between WMA and MP3s?

3: People who don't like iPods...

4: Music players on your computer...

1, i'm not sure, but i do know that the ipod supplies plenty of power to the head phone jack. many cd players i've messed with in the past did not provide much power to the jack and the resulting sound was somewhat weak, so when you cranked it up to the volume you want it had a somewhat poor quality due to more distortion/noise/etc on the line.

2, yes, there is. but ogg is a vastly superior codec to either of them. if you want lossless i'd suggest flac opposed to ape.

3, i like my ipod.

4, the audio players i use most often are rhythmbox, muine, and banchee.

arak0r
12-02-2005, 02:44 AM
endy, have you ever listened to lossless wma? its sick. though the file sizes are a bit bloated. at that point you might as well rip to wav :\

Endymion
12-02-2005, 08:25 AM
flac is lossless and gets around 50% compression rates.

wheelchairman
12-02-2005, 08:29 AM
I have no idea what Endy or Joey are talking about. but...

1. Do mp3 players have better sound? I would say the vast majority sound more or less the same. Of course if you get something extremely discount or extremely expensive you can find variations, but not enough to justify the price difference.

2. WMAs take up less space on a creative player.

3. Everything about an iPod is too expensive. When I bought my creative Zen (with more megabytes than an iPod mini, and it came with recording/radio functions as well. which you pay an assload for with mac) it was cheaper as well. And there are better deals with other brands out there.

4. I use iTunes because my windows media player doesn't work and I don't want to download more junk on my computer.

Yatesy
12-02-2005, 10:43 AM
1: Does some mp3 players have better sound?

2: Is there a difference between WMA and MP3s?

3: People who don't like iPods...

4: Music players on your computer...

1.Maybe, I'm not too sure about that.

2.Yeah, WMA's are generally smaller than MP3's. However I do have some MP3 files which are smaller than they woulkd be in WMA format.

3.They really are just a rip-off. To put it briefly, you're just paying for the brand.

4.Windows Media Player. I've never tried iTunes.

The Talking Pie
12-02-2005, 10:48 AM
1) Generally, no. Headphones will make most of the difference.

2) Yes.

3) Already been said: you're paying for the brand-name.

4) DavePlayer; my own brand.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:07 AM
quite honestly, while the iPod is overpriced, i don't understand how you can say you're only paying for the brand. It seems like the most ridiculous claim to me... because, in addition to the regular mp3 player features, the iPod has a very intuitive interface, it's beautifully designed and super-slim - come on, the other ones look pathetic compared to it - and, at this point, is able to play music videos, movies and slideshows.

maybe it's just me, but i like my devices aesthetically pleasing.

i watched some music videos on my husband's iPod yesterday, it fucking blew my mind. its price aside, that thing is amazingly beautiful.

pffffft.

wheelchairman
12-02-2005, 11:12 AM
Mp3 wise, you are just paying for the brand Sunny. The difference in quality would not cover the price differences.

Picture and video wise, there is probably a noticeable difference, I wouldn't know.

Yatesy
12-02-2005, 11:14 AM
What's the point of watching something on a screen that small though? Yeah, it would be cool to be able to watch things without carrying some bug dvd player. But I doubt you'd be able to see much on a screen that small.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:17 AM
i don't think there's a difference in sound quality at all. not that i've noticed, anyway. But you're still not paying for the brand per se, you're paying so much because the iPod is an outstanding piece of design. i have some brand loyalty, my last two computers were Apples, but i wouldn't buy an Apple product just because of who manufactures it. I'd have to actually believe that it's superior for other reasons. Basically, my point is that the iPod is extraordinarily well designed and beautiful, hence the price.

the video quality had me making the :O face.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:18 AM
What's the point of watching something on a screen that small though? Yeah, it would be cool to be able to watch things without carrying some bug dvd player. But I doubt you'd be able to see much on a screen that small.

go to your nearest Apple store and try watching stuff on that screen. It's too small for a movie, but it's PLENTY big for music videos or.. uhh.. adult entertainment films. >_>

Yatesy
12-02-2005, 11:30 AM
There isn't an apple store near me. lol But I don't really enjoy watching music videos, anyway it sort of promotes illegal downloading, which is really a daft idea for Apple to do. That is if they haven't made a site for legall film/videos downloading.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:35 AM
iTunes sells videos. $1.99 a pop.

Yatesy
12-02-2005, 11:36 AM
Ahh I see. Oh well, I still think it's a dumb idea anyway.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:43 AM
Might be, however, I still don't see why you think the ipod is a "rip-off". if you wanna know what a true rip-off is... well, replacement headphones, $40. Powerbook charger, $80. that's where Apple rapes you in the ass.

wheelchairman
12-02-2005, 11:46 AM
Well what bothered me was, for the same product as a creative zen micro, you paid twice as much. Simply because apple charged for the radio and recording functions. Videos and pictures were never something I really wanted from an mp3 player. So when it comes down to listening to music. You just pay a lot more, for what is essentially the same product with less features.

Surely you can see how that is irksome.

Yatesy
12-02-2005, 11:47 AM
I just think I can get a better mp3 player, with longer battery life and more space for better value for money, plus I don't like the look of iPods for some strange reason.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 11:53 AM
wcm - i do see what you mean. i guess i approach things from a different perspective, because while function matters to me, form does too... and paying more for good design is something i can sympathize with, and would gladly do if i could always afford it. ;p it's the same with clothes or furniture or whatever. maybe i'm weird.

Endymion
12-02-2005, 02:55 PM
i've used a few other brands, the touch-dial on the ipod is still the fastest and most intuitive way to go through a list of bands/songs/albums and adjust volume, etc.

do any other mp3 players come with a capacity of 60 gigs and follow the usb mass storage device standard, so that it can be used as an external hard drive on any system that supports such devices (windows/linux/unix/beos/mac/bsd/etc)? those were some of the bigger reasons i went ipod.

The Talking Pie
12-02-2005, 03:30 PM
I favour solid-state players for that purpose. So the iPod Nano would be a good choice, but I do believe that the iPod brand has choked on its own success. It's too mainstream for geeks like me to use. Nope, I'll settle for installing lots of drivers, having to navigate through many folders and use annoying bespoke software to upload my tracks. Simply because I can. Pfft... user-friendliness.

Hmm... I was serious at the beginning of this post, I swear.

I do like the ease-of-use the iPod brings, but I severely dislike players with hard drives. I want to be able to take my player base-jumping with me, damnit.

Sunny
12-02-2005, 03:32 PM
the iPod nano is entirely flash-based... and the iPod video has flash components.

i<3endy.

nieh
12-02-2005, 04:14 PM
1. Do mp3 players have better sound? I would say the vast majority sound more or less the same. Of course if you get something extremely discount or extremely expensive you can find variations, but not enough to justify the price difference.

I've never listened to that many different mp3 players but I'm assuming the range is a lot like with portable cd players. Brand does matter, even when you're comparing big names with similarly priced items. A lot of them almost completely drop the low-end and give you a bass boost button that is either too strong or too weak to make the song sound decent. A lot of them require you to turn the volume up almost all the way to hear anything, causing distortion in the headphones that wouldn't otherwise be there. A lot of them make it sound muffled, like someone put a giant pillow over the band's amps while they were recording. I'm assuming that when you go with more expensive products, the problems will be less severe, but I'm sure they'll still be present. For instance, "In My Tree" by Pearl Jam sounds like complete shit on my friend's iPod because it makes it almost impossible to hear the drums (which are the most important part of the song). I burned myself an MP3 cd using the exact same mp3 file and played it on my portable mp3/cd player that I got for $25 and it sounds infintely better somehow.

Vera
12-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Fact: iPod headphones = shit.

I use the ones I used for my Walkman for my iPod Mini. Muuuch better.

And in general, I think when you rip a cd, the mp3 file sound crappier than the song does on the cd because mp3 files are small but other formats are friendlier to sound.

0r4ng3
12-02-2005, 04:21 PM
Fact: iPod headphones = shit.
I used to think they sound really good, but I realized they sound horrible. They break easily, too. I just buy $12 Sony headphones, they sound perfect.

Endymion
12-02-2005, 04:29 PM
yes, the headphones included with the ipod are some of the worst i've ever heard. they have no bass. i picked up a pair of something (sony i think) and even at half-volume on the ipod it's loud enough for me and the sound crystal clear.

HeadAroundU
12-02-2005, 09:10 PM
here is my baby <3
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/HeadAroundU/Creative-Muvo2-4-Gb.gif
I <3 him.