Hi Everyone,
I've been very busy as of late due to the world situation. I try to
check the list as much as possible but unfortunately, I don't have much
time these days.
There are so many unread messages. I hope that I haven't left anyone's
questions left unanswered. If so, sorry. Will try to get to them
eventually.
It's wonderful to belong to an active list where folks enjoy talking
about their favorite Green Machines, and on occasion, going off topic
like I am about to do. :-o
After reading so many messages posted to the list concerning the iPod, I
decided to add mine.
It's long...you've been warned! :-)
My comments are broken down into these subtopics:
- Is MP3 sound quality comparable to CD's?
- Is the iPod an expensive MP3 player?
- What other MP3 player options are there?
- Should the iPod be windows compatible?
***** Is MP3 sound quality comparable to CD's?
Interesting question. This question IMHO has allot to do with personal
preference, more so than the hardware involved.
I used to think I was somewhat of an audiophile and have owned some very
interesting equipment. Even did some DJ'ing at some private parties with
pro model Carver equipment (TC 450w/ch, LTST 600w/ch, STST 750w/ch) as
well. Now that system, could rock the house.
Then a few years ago, I found an audiophile shop in Akihabara by
accident. Totally awesome equipment. If someone is really interested in
getting a true audiophile stereo system, I've found the shop. However,
be prepared to pay dearly for it. If you don't mind paying $12,000
(that's USD) for the set of cables that go between your preamp and amp,
then Email me off list for more details.
I have a close to 600 CD's. When I have time, I've been encoding the
songs that I like from those CD's into MP3s. I tried all kinds of
conversion variations. Decided to go with 256K, 44,100 sampling and true
stereo. It seem like that combo, for my ears anyhow, gave the best
reproduction across the board.
Of course the original CD that contains the song that the MP3 is
converted from, and the type of music, makes a difference as well.
Unless, the CD is DDD, the sound is less than perfect to begin with.
Granted ADD can be pretty good. I've heard some DDD CD's that sound
terrible. And even some AAD's that sounded very good. It all depends on
the artist and recording equipment used throughout the recording, mixing
and mastering processes.
Currently my MP3's are stored on my iMac (100GB HD) which is used as my
server at home. I usually play MP3's via Ethernet on my TAM. Sounds
pretty good to me. Then again, maybe my hearing is shot from being
around turbine engine and other loud sounds all these years! ;-)
What I do know, is what most manufactures claim as CD sound quality is
not. There is no way a 64MB MP3 player can hold 2 hours of music at CD
quality sound.
Also, even the best MP3's sound terrible on cheap headphones/earphones,
or stereo system.
For discussion sake, let's say that 128K produces near CD quality sound
and 256K produces CD quality sound. Okay? That roughly equates to 1MB
and 2MB per minute.
***** Is the iPod an expensive MP3 player?
That's a valid question for sure.
I think in large part it depends on how you plan to use your MP3 player.
Consider someone who travels a lot, does not carry a laptop computer and
uses a Palm OS or Newton device, wants to travel light and desires to
take along their music with them when they travel. For comparison sake,
let's say that this traveler considers 10 hours of music as a minimum, as
the reasonable amount of music to carry when they travel on a typical
business or vacation trip.
The Creative Lab Nomad II MG player will be used for this comparison. It
comes with 64MB of memory and can be purchased for around $180. It uses
Smart Media memory.
If we encode our MP3's at 128K, I would need 600MB of storage to hold 10
hours of music. Using 128MB SM, it would take 5 of them. Current price
is of a 128MB SM is around $65.
Total cost of this solution would be $505 (180 plus 5 x 65).
What if we wanted to encode our music at 256K. That would require 10
128MB SM cards.
Total cost of this solution would be $830 (180 plus 10 x 65).
How much music can we store on the iPod at 128K?
A little over 83 hours.
And at 256K? Almost 42 hours.
Let's see, how much is the iPod, $399?
Hmmm...a cheaper solution in this case! =BFnes pas?
Now I know that some of you are saying, yeah, but there are MP3 CD
Players out there and the Jukebox 6000 MP3 Player. True.
Before we discuss other solutions, let's look at a different scenario.
For fun, let's look at the commuting man in Japan located in the area
around Tokyo. The average door to door time of travel is about 20
minutes minimum to a long 3 hours for some -- one way.
Average seems to be about 90 minutes. Many listen to music from some
sort of device such as MD Players, and now MP3 players. The devices need
to be small because most wear suits and they need to fit in a pocket.
Additionally, unless you commute during off hours, you will find yourself
standing up for most of the ride.
Let's say that the average commuter does not want to hear the same songs
going and returning from work. On average that would take 3 hours of
music per day. At 128K, you would need 180MB. At 256K you would need
360MB of storage.
In this case, let's look at the RIO 800 that comes with 384MB of memory.
Retail cost is around $600, but you can get it for around $450.
Using the Nomad II, discussed before, would require 3 128MB SM cards.
The solution of this cost would be $375 (180 plus 3 x 65).
Either of these solutions while good, would be somewhat limiting in
actual use. Of course, if your mood changes during the day, you are
pretty much limited to listen to what you decided to load the night
before.
Of course, with either of these solutions, you would need to change the
songs every night if you wanted to hear something different each day.
When you consider that many Japanese get home late at night and have to
depart early for work the next morning, this is not a viable option for
most.
On a side note, that is one reason that wireless solutions are so popular
over here is that they can do something while commuting on the train.
The iPod solution would be slightly more ($25) than the Nomad II solution
and slightly less ($75) than the RIO 800 solution. There would be many
other benefits of using an iPod as well. One of which would be that you
can carry, and sync, a much larger library of music and playlists via FW.
Of course a long lasting battery and a simple and easy to use menu
system doesn't hurt!
How about for those who want to listen to music while doing a physical
activity?
The Nomad, RIO and iPod would make a wonderful solution. With the iPod
you would have a much larger selection of music, and not need a second
device.
***** What other MP3 player options are there?
Sure there are other solutions.
One of which is the dual CD/MP3 players. Depending on your needs, one of
these could provide a good solution. In the traveling example above,
you would need would need 1 CD at 128K. At 256K, you would need two 2
CD's so you would have to carry an extra CD.
If you were a business man traveling on the train, this solution wouldn't
work if you wanted it to fit in your suit pocket. You could carry it in
a briefcase. Although, I wouldn't want to hang onto my brief case for 90
minutes each way.
Now that I think about it, that would give a person a method to exercise
on the train, sort of! ;-)
Another possibility is the Jukebox 6000 MP3 Player. It is a huge device
as MP3 players go (4.5 by 3.2 by 1.3 inches). Cubic volume is 18.72
cubic inches. Weight is 12 oz. Storage capacity is 6GB.
So how does it compare to the iPod?
Cubic volume is almost double (18.72 vice 9.52 cubic inches).
Weight is almost double (12 vice 6.5 oz).
Battery life is shorter (8 vice 11 hours).
Storage is bigger (6 vice 5 GB).
Cost is much cheaper ($249 vice $400).
Connection speed is much slower (USB vice FW).
Integration is ? (?? vice iTunes).
I guess it would boil down to what you are going to use it for. I cannot
imagine carrying the Jukebox in a suit pocket -- it wouldn't fit and it's
way too heavy. However, it would work great in a car, or when traveling.
Even as the sound source when flying your own plane.
...and there is a 20GB version as well, which is nice.
Size to me is an overriding factor. I go for the smaller sized device
unless there is a compelling reason not to. It fits my mobile lifestyle.
In the case of the Newt, a 2000/2100 is well worth the extra size IMHO
after using various Pocket PC and Palm OS devices.
Integration and ease of use is a close second. So many MP3 devices out
there are a pain to use. They make it sound like they work very easily.
But in actual use, they come up lacking.
Cost, while very important, is a distant third when it comes to a device
that you use almost everyday. The other two factors are much more
important to me.
There is another wonderful device that you can get vice an MP3 player.
Quality of the music is better than DAT in long play mode, but not quite
up to DAT in normal mode. One AA battery lasts between 5-6 hours. It's
small (4.50 by 0.94 by 2.25 inches). Cubic volume is 9.52 cubic inches.
Weight with tape and battery is 5.2 oz.
What I am referring to, is the Sony NT tape player. The tape is the size
of a postage stamp. You get one hour per side.
In fact I am listening to a NT tape right now that I recorded in January
1993. Still sounds pretty good. To record, I used a portable CD player
connected to the NT player via line out/line in connection. Pushed play
on the CD and record on the NT player. Nothing fancy. Worked well.
I was looking for a replacement, as one day I figure that it will die on
me -- after all, I've had it for almost 9 years. So I listened to the
new NT player. Wow! The sound quality is awesome compared to mine.
After looking at at the huge MP3 selection available over here, many of
which you will probably not see in the states, I had decided on going
with a new NT player when the time came.
Then came the iPod. :-)
Other solutions that will not go into detail, but will mention:
- Sony Vaio C1 Picturebook computer. You can get it with a 15GB HD. Of
course you would replace that with the IBM 48GB HD. That would
definitely hold a lot of MP3 music! Scratch carrying it when you are
doing some physical activity. Also, it is not something that you can
just pop in your pocket.
- Pocket PC devices that play MP3 songs. You still have memory and size
issues with these. And I can't imagine wanted to take one out with me
when I was doing some physical exercise.
- Palm OS devices. Same as Pocket PC devices.
Of course as time goes on, these devices will improve.
***** Should the iPod be windows compatible?
This question tickles me.
If I am a Mac user, should I really even care? Probably not. Sure it
would help Apple's bottom line. But as a Mac user, I am very happy to
have the capabilities that the iPod provides.
If I was a Windows only user, I would be frustrated that I can't use a
solution as eloquent as the iPod. And naturally would complain about it.
BTW, there are numerous MP3 players that only work with Windows systems.
Do Windows users complain that they are not Mac compatible? Most
probably don't even care or give it a second thought.
So what's the big deal?
Will the iPod by itself convert users to the Mac. Probably not.
However, if all of the other nice features of a Mac are causing a person
to consider switching, then the addition of a good MP3 player can't hurt!
Bottom line, sure it would be nice if the iPod was cross platform.
However, it doesn't need to be.
On a side note, did I want to see a new Newton device? And was I
disappointed that it wasn't? If you are reading this board, I would
think that you already know the answers to these two questions.
Well, that's my 3 cents worth. Probably more than you wanted to hear...
Either way, I am looking forward to getting an iPod in the future when I
retire my Sony NT player.
...and of course, continuing to use my Green Machine! :-)
Sushi
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:02:52 EST