Need help selecting portable mp3 player

[Master]

Well stated. I understand your point, and acknowledge that I have different needs.

And theyre on their way, I think they own like 90% of the market.

Approx 95% in fact.

Also, it isn't the compression in size that matters as much as the bit-rate change. I don't know a single person that can tell the difference between 192 bitrate MP3 and CD even on the best system, and neither do you. Though I agree, on a really good system, 128 bit-rate versus CD is noticable, but still very minor.

I added this above.

[Josh]

Also, it isn't the compression in size that matters as much as the bit-rate change. I don't know a single person that can tell the difference between 192 bitrate MP3 and CD even on the best system, and neither do you. Though I agree, on a really good system, 128 bit-rate versus CD is noticable, but still very minor.

Both Chibi Nappa and I were able to tell the difference between WAV audio and a 320 KBPS mp3 the last time this was brought up. I did this on crappy Laptop speakers.

Don't assume.

[Nomi]

You guys are really uptight defending your subscription shit. Most of us don't like it, move on.

I've had an iPod since they came out way back in the day before there were PC versions and no touch-wheel or anything. Loved them since. I'm on my third, but not because of iPods failing me. The first one, yeah, that thing was used and abused for three years and finally had to be set down. I upgraded from my third-gen 15GB to a 40GB because I needed more space. Never had problems. Apple's really good on their iPod warranties, too, for the record. They'll almost always send you a new one (no charge) instead of actually trying to fix one. Yay.

iPod mini's are very awesome, too, if you don't need much capacity. Got one for my stepsister and she's nuts for it, and got Tain a silver one for graduation last month. They're incredibly slick, and tiny which is great for portability (not that the standard ones are too big or anything). I'd go for a regular 20GB one, but if your music collection isn't very big, mini's the way to go.

And I agree with the headphone replacement. Those earbuds are trash.

[Diff-chan]

Though I agree, on a really good system, 128 bit-rate versus CD is noticable, but still very minor.

My ear isnt as tuned as Chibi's or Josh's (who are both serious musicians), but Im sorry, the difference between 128kbps and CD is huge. I can tell the difference on my decidedly average speaker system on my computer, same with 160kbps. Of course, if youve spent the last 6 years listening to 128kbps files instead of CDs you maybe cant hear the differences. If you dont play an instrument maybe you cant hear the differences. But the differences are there.

Also, it isn't the compression in size that matters as much as the bit-rate change.

The higher the bit rate the larger the file. Though, like I said, a 128k WMA isnt the same as a 128k MP3.

[Rich]

My ear isnt as tuned as Chibi's or Josh's (who are both serious musicians), but Im sorry, the difference between 128kbps and CD is huge. I can tell the difference on my decidedly average speaker system on my computer, same with 160kbps. Of course, if youve spent the last 6 years listening to 128kbps files instead of CDs you maybe cant hear the differences. If you dont play an instrument maybe you cant hear the differences. But the differences are there.

Hell, I admit to having no musical ear at all; but at oink everything is 192+ and I usually download 256+ and today a 128 song popped onto winamp and I was like
"wtf? That quality blows"---even with Guild Wars music dimmed in the background.

[Glass Joe]

Thanks for all the help guys.

[Josh]

Seriously. 128 kbps mp3s = getting your ear fucked by a robot.

Perhaps Master's 11 year old ears haven't developed enough to hear things of this nature.

[Gohron]

I still prefer buying my CD's and playing them the old fashioned way.

[Josh]

Noob.

[Mykozo]

Please, for the love of god, take an MP3 of a song that you have on CD and play them through the same system. Even 192's. Pay careful attention to the hi-hats and cymbals from the drum kit. You will most def notice a very wishy-washy quality to them, hard to notice versus 192's but still there. Also notice the low mids. Guitars on bands like Weezer or most metal music, where the low mids (150-500Hz) are most of the "meat" of the guitars, sound very muddy. I have many friends who have claimed the MP3 "miracle" (uh, dude...I can't tell) and had them A-B, and there is a noticable difference, even to the untrained ear.

I still prefer buying my CD's and playing them the old fashioned way.

If I had the funds, I would live it like this too. I would much rather pick up a CD and play it, perhaps while I check out the cover and insert, than just look at some text on an iPod and play the song. Mind you, I am not knocking iPods, they fucking rock and are handy as hell, but just like an audiophile would rather hold, smell, and hear his vinyl, I would much rather do the same with a CD, finances permitting.

Seriously. 128 kbps mp3s = getting your ear fucked by a robot.

Perhaps Master's 11 year old ears haven't developed enough to hear things of this nature.

Actually, the younger you are, the more apt your ears are (mind you I didn't say taste or knowledge) to hear the differences in hi-fidelity audio. Ears are actually at their best at birth and degrade over time.