ok...i got my oppinion from AAC from the apple music store....maybe the bit rate is too low.
Yes, this is one of my pet peeves of iTMS: I'd be much happier if it's 160kbps AAC, not 128kbps. For now, I'm only using it for singles, I'm still buying CDs otherwise and ripping them; those go into 160kbps AAC, which is overall very good. A few pieces show weird encoding side-effects, but not enough for me to care.
Quote:
i didnt like Atrac because Sony had this crazy check in/out system for their players. :x
Good point! That's a lot more precise than your first argument.
Quote:
The rio carma supports FLAC...so once a model that has audio input (on the fly encoding like iriver) i will definatly purchase one
Be careful. FLAC will lead to low battery lifetimes, because the devices won't be able to cache anywhere near as much information, so the hard drive will be accessed a lot more. All of these devices, including the iPod, accomplish their rated battery life by keeping the hard drive off as much as possible.
Quote:
um.... wma... im just suspicious of the Empire!
I'd agree for online-purchased music, since you're tied into the DRM policies, which vary by vendor. However, for non-purchased music you can turn off the copyright bits, and I don't see that as a problem, unless you want 3rd-party OS support.
Why not Ogg Vorbis, though?
Quote:
Pretty much i want for people to understand that lossless codecs are out there and that we are loosing precious music to poor encodings.
True, but decently-done lossy encodings can be very good, and you couldn't tell the difference in double-blind listening tests. Visit Hydrogen Audio for lots of technical discussion on this topic... but from what I've heard, even most people with very good ears can't tell the difference between 256kbps+ MP3 and CD-quality PCM audio.
Quote:
A family friend is crazy about old school hifi music. Reel-to-Reel...lp...all the good stuff...its amazing (i hate this guy...he has more toys than anyone i know)
That's great, but two points: it depends on your target application... if you're obsessed with audio quality, make sure to get top-of-the-line speakers, sound card, etc., because all that matters; and it's possible to be overobsessed, which is yslee's point, I believe.
Quote:
janak....please.....dont hurt me like this :lol:
Nah... I'm not trying to. Don't take it as criticism of you.
1) You are right, on regular PC speaker it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between 256 bit encoding and a CD
2) Ogg Vobris is great when encoded well. Im just waiting for that *perfect* device
3) As hardware goes....having a better sound car and speakers is important. Thats why when I want to listen to good music....i use my dj headphones.
Sorry for not making it clear in my first post
Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks
Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks
You're going to have to wait a while for that. :| Apple will likely never support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC, and I believe they've patented their iPod's UI.
However, the Karma does seem appealing to me. I've never held one, but if I do, I'll post back. The iRiver iHP-140's remote is fantastic, but I wasn't blown away by the unit's UI -- in fact, I personally found it confusing.
Im going to buy a device when they combine ipod looks...iriver bat. life and on the fly encoding with audio-in....rio carma formats (flac).....and not make it 500 bucks
While you are at it, wouldn't you also like something that makes your morning coffee, solves crime and expands into a supersonic jet? :lol: I agree with Janak that you will be waiting for a long time for this to happen. There has been discussion on PPCT for some time now about the perfect PocketPC, and one of the problems that some people have pointed out is that there will never really be a perfect pocketPC since our definition for the perfect device will constantly be changing. More and more new features are introduced by different companies all the time and it is hard to keep combining them all into one device. (Ok, the rant stop here... ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janak Parekh
The iRiver iHP-140's remote is fantastic, but I wasn't blown away by the unit's UI -- in fact, I personally found it confusing.
Umm, that is because you played with the UI for all of about 3 minutes :|. I really feel that it is quite a nice UI, in fact very much like the iPod's UI (which of course I have only played for about 3 minutes or less). I agree that it is perhaps not AS intuitive as the iPod's at first glance, but withing the first 20 minutes of use, I was quite comfortable with it.
And yes, the remote is very nice. My only gripe with the remote - no retractable cord. I am sure the cord will come in very hand while jogging or something, but for daily use, it is annoying.
Umm, that is because you played with the UI for all of about 3 minutes :|. I really feel that it is quite a nice UI, in fact very much like the iPod's UI (which of course I have only played for about 3 minutes or less).
I've gotta disagree there. I have 261 artists on my iPod. Scrolling through them without a scroll wheel of some kind, i.e., with a unit whose button you have to hold down, is going to never be as convenient. Plus, I found the "hold down button for several seconds" interface mechanism to pop up the settings to be frustrating. The iPod does that for a few things: backlight and playlists-on-the-go are the two most notable ones -- and I hate it there too. Fortunately 99% of everyday functionality is useable without that UI kludge.
I'm not saying it's unusable. In fact, it's quite useable, even based on my limited experience. But it's not an iPod.
Quote:
And yes, the remote is very nice. My only gripe with the remote - no retractable cord. I am sure the cord will come in very hand while jogging or something, but for daily use, it is annoying.
No remotes I know of have a retractable cord. That would indeed be very nice.
Right -- if you listen to the high-frequency sounds closely, most lossy codecs trip up there first as you lower the bitrate. Cymbals, top-hats, etc. It "grates" on my ears. That's the biggest reason I can't go below 128kbps. They turn into generic "tinkly-thingies" which give me the shudders (at least, with MP3 and WMA).
Agreed 100% - cymbals get TRASHED by the psychoacoustical models used in MP3, WMA, and most codecs. I've tried to like 64 kbps WMA, really I have, but they just really suck - for my ears at least, and the music that I like. 128 kbps WMA sounds pretty good, but I try to encode everything up near 160 kbps or 192 kbps.
Does anyone really notice any difference between WMA and MP3 - lets keep it as similar as possible - 128kps...
Yes, absolutely - WMA is usually equivalent in audio quality to MP3 at one "notch" higher. ie: a 128 kbps WMA is roughly as good as a 160 kbps MP3, and a 64 kbps WMA is as good as a 96 kbps or even 128 kbps MP3. Of course, this varies based on the music you're listening to, the headphones/speakers you've using, your sound card...etc. There are a LOT of variables that come into play when it comes to comparing audio codeccs, which is why I get irked when people claim that one format is the end-all and be-all for EVERYONE, rather than just their needs.
Linear Mode
