Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Next Gen MP3 HD Players (Read 29023 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #25
I think that there is a very strong bias against WMA on HA, if the ogg crew were developing it then it would not get the hostility as I often see against it (people always chipping in comparing WMA samples that they might have heard using WMAv2 from many years ago....). Oh and for the reference I have implemented just about every codec there is, so I am not a WMA gospel preacher, I just like to see a level playing field.

I also think the ABX rule is selectively appiled, from the last 2 weeks I could pull up probbably 30 'personal opinions' on a codecs performance - none of those had warnings plastered on them. I also think abxing on a personal basis is not very useful, if I was against mp4 (people are for/against everything in life - cars, music, etc) then I am sure I could identify it and that would mark it where ever I wanted it to be. I would take anyones abx results with a pinch of salt, only mass scale blind tests give the results.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #26
Back to the topic 
If I would buy a mp3 hd player, it would definitly be one which worked kinda like a hd. You know, like the iRiver. Just select the mp3s and send them to the player, sorted by folders.
I personally don't use ID3 and organiza my albums in folders like Artist Name - Release Date - Album Name.
For what I've read the iPod would not be a viable solution for me, because it appears to rely solely in id3 information.
If this is true, Apple should really upgrade their software to allow sorting by folders.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #27
Quote
  This would be a much more compelling feature on the Neuros and Archos if they were not both restricted to 160 kbps MP3.

Did you mean a max of 160?  I know there is a bit rate setting on the Neuros, so that isn't the only allowed rate.

A supposedly upcoming feature on Neuros is flac recording, so you can go for the full quality enchilada.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #28
Quote
I think that there is a very strong bias against WMA on HA, if the ogg crew were developing it then it would not get the hostility as I often see against it (people always chipping in comparing WMA samples that they might have heard using WMAv2 from many years ago....). Oh and for the reference I have implemented just about every codec there is, so I am not a WMA gospel preacher, I just like to see a level playing field.

I also think the ABX rule is selectively appiled, from the last 2 weeks I could pull up probbably 30 'personal opinions' on a codecs performance - none of those had warnings plastered on them. I also think abxing on a personal basis is not very useful, if I was against mp4 (people are for/against everything in life - cars, music, etc) then I am sure I could identify it and that would mark it where ever I wanted it to be. I would take anyones abx results with a pinch of salt, only mass scale blind tests give the results.

Heh... give me a break...

If there is a "bias" against WMA, it's because WMA is not as good as the other alternatives for whatever given aspect is being measured.  I for one have no bias against WMA simply because it is WMA, so you can quit on the whole conspiracy thing...

And as for selective application of rule #8, this is not the case.  If there were 30 other "personal opinions" (in the same vein as those in this thread... what you may decide are "personal opinions", I may disagree with) that were not subject to this, it's only because I am not able to sit in front of my computer all day and read every one of the hundreds of daily posts and remind everyone that they shouldn't break the rules.

In any system where many people break the rules, only certain people will be caught.  Instead of complaining about the unfairness of themselves being caught and others not having been caught, they should instead realize that if they hadn't been breaking the rule in the first place that there never would have been an issue.  They knew what they were doing was wrong (against the rules), and did it anyway (or they should at least if they are a member here.. it is there responsibility to know the rules, not my responsibility to make sure they know them), so they should accept the consequences of their actions.

And finally, a personal bias is different than an attempted emperical claim.

"I like WMA better than MP3" is a statement of personal bias, which is fine and does not break rule #8.

Quote
WMA has a richer, warmer sound than MP3

Quote
WMA chokes on some of the high notes

Quote
WMA has rich, full bass.


... are not claims of personal bias.  They are claims of the way things are (absolutely), and they are unsupported, or even unlikely in the context of this board.  This is where the problem lies.

Quote
I would take anyones abx results with a pinch of salt, only mass scale blind tests give the results.


This really isn't the point of the rule.  It doesn't exist so much to confirm with absolute certainty whether something is, or isn't, (that's just icing on the cake if it can do that or even help to do that) but rather to just show that there is an attempt to validate the claims at all.  This is important to at least attempt to move away from a truly and completely subjective discussion towards something that can be useful to a 3rd party.

Without at least some sort of accountability for claims, there is nothing to stop people from saying something completely ridiculous and then claiming that they are right, and cannot be wrong, because "for them, it is so."  Requiring some sort of measurement which can be usefully interpreted by a 3rd party not only cuts down on this situation, but it also helps to weed out claims from people that are mistaken about their own perceptions.  This is useful because it prevents everyone else from wasting their time on a non-issue to begin with.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #29
Quote
Did you mean a max of 160? I know there is a bit rate setting on the Neuros, so that isn't the only allowed rate.


Yes indeed, 160kbps is the max. This is why the recording feature is a lot less compelling than it could be (on the Archos and Neuros).
The IRiver once again however, can record at up to double that rate, which is one decent justification for the difference in price/GB.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #30
Quote
If there is a "bias" against WMA, it's because WMA is not as good as the other alternatives for whatever given aspect is being measured. I for one have no bias against WMA simply because it is WMA, so you can quit on the whole conspiracy thing...


Well for a start there is no WMA section on HA, even though there has been much discussions on WMA since the recent WMA Pro testing highlighted it as a contender. Instead it is in with 'Discussion about other audio codecs like AC3, ADPCM, Atrac, Dolby Pro logic/II, DTS, MP1, MP2, Real Audio, VQF, Wavpack lossy, WMA etc'.

As a whole Microsoft can suck, but there are many, many people who use WMA regardless of what you think of the company.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #31
Concerning the first post in this thread:  ezra2323, you mentioned not listing support of lossless codecs by these devices, but my opinion differs.  In the case of the Rio Karma, for instance, if it had only a 10GB HDD, then I'd agree that practically no one would likely use FLAC on it.  But with up to a 40GB drive, then the ability to hold some 120 albums in FLAC is something to consider, and would probably be a buying decision for many people (as it will be for me).

Concerning the issue of rules/claims:  I am a newbie.  I will be for quite a while, as the world of digital audio encoding is much more involved than I ever imagined before I came here.  However, I have to agree with the rules employed by HA, and with the need for their enforcement.  To maintain standards, it takes rules which have to be defined and enforced.  Rules enforcement is, in a sense, "gatekeeping", but AFAIK there is no other/better way of maintaining standards.

The way I keep myself "in line" is to consider someone using their internet search engine to look up something digital-audio-related, and they happen across one or more HA pages.  What they read here reflects on the perceived quality of information disseminated by HA, and therefore on HA's reputation overall.  If someone out there says "I know it's true...I found it on HA", shouldn't it be important that the information they refer to be correct and confirmable?  Personally, I try to make it a point not to post anything that would be a misrepresentation to anyone outside of HA who might find it.  I fear that more than a warning, personally.  I'm not saying this to "kiss up" to anybody, but only because I clearly see the need to maintain the quality of information that ends up with the "HA label" on it (which includes every thread in HydrogenAudio.org).

Mistakes will be made sometimes, things will slip through the cracks.  But the effort the admins and mods make to enforce the rules directly affect the quality of information that makes it out into the world from HA.  It's a circle:  Standards --> Rules --> Quality of Information --> Standards.


Edit:  I'm not intending to argue with anyone's position on anything specific that was stated/claimed in this thread...just voicing my opinion on the importance of standards, that's all.

[span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%']Edit:  typos, etc.[/span]

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #32
Quote
Quote
If there is a "bias" against WMA, it's because WMA is not as good as the other alternatives for whatever given aspect is being measured. I for one have no bias against WMA simply because it is WMA, so you can quit on the whole conspiracy thing...


Well for a start there is no WMA section on HA, even though there has been much discussions on WMA since the recent WMA Pro testing highlighted it as a contender. Instead it is in with 'Discussion about other audio codecs like AC3, ADPCM, Atrac, Dolby Pro logic/II, DTS, MP1, MP2, Real Audio, VQF, Wavpack lossy, WMA etc'.

As a whole Microsoft can suck, but there are many, many people who use WMA regardless of what you think of the company.

This has been covered before, but I guess you've forgotten most of the points that have been raised, similarly to how you seem to have forgotten to acknowledge the points I made in my previous response regarding issues of selective use of rule #8, personal bias, etc.

The primary reason why there is no WMA section because there has never been a significant amount of WMA discussion on this board.  Even a recent (and relatively small in the grand scheme of things) increase in discussion because of WMA Pro test results does not justify the creation of a couple entirely new forums.

Aside from a lack of volume in discussion, the following points make WMA rather unsuitable for a lot of purposes which are at the core of this community:

1.  The WMA developers do not participate in the discussion.
2.  WMA does not work well with a significant portion of the audio utilities which are discussed or developed on these boards.  By design, WMA is a rather closed and restricted format, and so what can be done with the format in terms of community participation is extremely limited.
3.  The sources are closed so there is no chance of participation in development.  (And before someone says something about MPC being "closed", this is not true.  The MPC sources have been available for quite some time, and furthermore, Frank has traditionally been willing to listen to and work with the community to further development).
4.  WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue.  Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this.
5.  WMA is not a "best of breed" codec (in terms of quality it has come in close to last on many occassions in many tests) like at least most of the others that have their own top level categories.  This might be changing now with WMA Pro, but it has not been the case traditionally.  While there are other issues to consider besides quality, HA has always favored high quality/performance before other considerations.
6.  Because of the closed and restricted nature of WMA and it's development, and the fact that it is not standardized, there is no way to really track it's development over time, except by focusing on each major release.  This further hampers the type of discussion that traditionally takes place on HA.

I think these points should really be enough to show why there are no WMA forums here.  The fact that many people use WMA is not important enough to justify the existence of forums specifically for it, at least not within a community like HA.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #33
FYI: WMA thread here (with test). Everyone interested is invited to continue WMA (quality) disussion there to keep this thread on topic.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #34
Feature comparison charts can be difficult, and I don't have any real insight --- only cautions as to their "importance." The price/GB is an important consideration but like a CPU's MHz rating doesn't begin to hint at what the user experience will be like.

At least one post indicated a unit was returned because it felt flimsy for example. Somebody else might be compelled towards a particular unit and then discover the display isn't clear or is overly busy.

OK, so I was interested to see supported codecs listed, sure.

I'm glad the iPod has more real HD-based competition now. Whether it's market dominance (Apple? Sales leader? Yes, I like the sound of that.) is really due to a better design or merely being out of the gate earlier will only become clearer over time I suppose.

Random opinion points and other feel-good fuzzies:

I like the iPod's clean design, acceptance of ACC and FireWire. None of those three will matter to many people (such as price/GB, having a radio, recorder, long battery life etc.) and that's why choices exist. Everybody wins.

Concerning the WMA sub-thread here: I concur wholeheartedly with the founder's conclusions as to why there's no WMA forum, but the reasons given need to concern anyone who "buys into" a proprietary and closed format. Just because 95% of users or whatever can use a particualr software isn't reason enough to champion it, especially in an enthusiast's or developer's arena such as HA. OK, maybe developers would have cause --- if only it weren't closed and propritary...

The fact that WMA enjoys an amount of popularity and support by portable players is a reflection of Windows' market share, nothing more. Corporate businees deals can get a product to market widely, but that doesn't mean it could stand on its own otherwise. So why do many people use "inferior" software? Pretend I didn't ask that.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #35
Quote
1. The WMA developers do not participate in the discussion.


It would seem limiting to have a discussion forum about audio compression, where the only categories are where the developers of said codecs visit. Is HA solely a development board, or is it an advisory board about compression? (which codecs do what, settings, etc).


Quote
3. The sources are closed so there is no chance of participation in


The sources for the decoding engine were posted to the internet, it could be classed as semi-open source


Quote
4. WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this.


What about Apples mp4? that is DRM which as far as I know no one has cracked.

Quote
5. WMA is not a "best of breed" codec (in terms of quality it has come in close to last on many occassions in many tests) like at least most of the others that have their own top level categories. This might be changing now with WMA Pro, but it has not been the case traditionally. While there are other issues to consider besides quality, HA has always favored high quality/performance before other considerations.

6. Because of the closed and restricted nature of WMA and it's development, and the fact that it is not standardized, there is no way to really track it's development over time, except by focusing on each major release. This further hampers the type of discussion that traditionally takes place on HA.


It shouldn't have to be only the best of breed codecs, if it is competitive then it should be discussed. There is plenty of Miss-information flowing around WMA (such as WMA Lossless is not lossless...), it would be a good service of HA to inform.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #36
Imo there's not enough demand in order to justify a WMA specific forum. Further more we are not specificly keen to start bringing masses of WMA users to this board. The discussion here is going too non-technical newbie oriented already even without a massive new WMA crowd here...
Juha Laaksonheimo

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #37
Sorry about continuing OT WMA talk here, but I just have to say this:

Things like this are my reason for hostility against WMA.
Quote
I have a housemate who is a partial paraplegic, and consequently, he has difficulty shuffling around with CDs. He has copied 2400 cd tracks to his hard drive to alleviate this. Problem is... he was running out of HDD space, so he got a new one and copied the tracks to the new drive. Now none of them will play due to not having licenses on the new drive. Yes, he deleted the old files. I tried unfuck, but it only works to unlock currently licensed tracks. Is there any thing, short of re-copying the tracks, he can do?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #38
Quote
Quote
What about Apples mp4? that is DRM which as far as I know no one has cracked.

I believe you're referring to songs purchased via the iTunes Music Store, which do indeed arrive as DRM-enabled AAC files. Surely the only way Apple could have appeased the labels while still allowing unfettered burning and some other features (and limitations too).

But for example if you import a normal CD song you own and have iTunes save it as AAC, it isn't DRM-hobbled and as far as I know not some sort of "Apple file", just an AAC file.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #39
Quote
But for example if you import a normal CD song you own and have iTunes save it as AAC, it isn't DRM-hobbled and as far as I know not some sort of "Apple file", just an AAC file.


I'm not sure I understand all the hostility about WMA and DRM. Sure, if you buy WMA tracks online, they will have some sort of DRM, just like iTunes music store. But if you rip your own WMA files, all you have to do is uncheck the "copy protect music" option, and your files will have no DRM whatsoever.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #40
Quote
But for example if you import a normal CD song you own and have iTunes save it as AAC, it isn't DRM-hobbled and as far as I know not some sort of "Apple file", just an AAC file.

(Assuming I'm right:) Themacguy, I think you're missing the point. Both Dibrom and Spoon mean to say that DRM restrictions *can* be embedded into WMA and MP4 files (respectively).

Just as you can have iTunes create a DRM-free AAC file, the same way you can have WMP create a DRM-free WMA file (you're clearly given this option, and it's quite easy to choose it). So they didn't mean to say that you'll always have DRM'd WMA & MP4 files, they just said that "we have problem here because both of these filetypes have 'slots' for DRM restrictions".

Of course, I can be totally wrong about this, and I'm neither Dibrom's nor Spoon's lawyer to truly know what they were thinking - that's just my interpretation.

[Edit: I see part of my response has already been given by jahty; sorry, I composed my reply while being offline.]

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #41
Hey guys, topic is "Next Gen MP3 Players"

What happened to rule  # 6 (are the rules themselves selective ?)

Over 50% off topic replies with no warnings or even a mention.

Could have been an interesting topic for some, but Dibrom gives a guy a warning and some can't resist but jump on the WMA bandwagon. (knives out)

Knock a guy for breaking a rule whilst themselves breaking another.   
About time this thread was locked.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #42
lets get back on topic please...

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #43
I must say, it is one thing to dismiss my comments - I have contributed comparatively little to the audio codec community other than my devotion to digital audio and my cash to several software players and hardware portable players. But to dismiss Spoon - who has contributed dBPoweramp to the community among other items is too much!

He brings up VERY valid points in this thread that are quickly dismissed

Quote
1. The WMA developers do not participate in the discussion.


Well, this is true. And I must say, Microsoft is VERY non-responsive to my questions about WMA. Point conceded.

Quote
2. WMA does not work well with a significant portion of the audio utilities which are discussed or developed on these boards. By design, WMA is a rather closed and restricted format, and so what can be done with the format in terms of community participation is extremely limited.


Errr, I know of several applications that support it - dBPoweramp, Winamp, MMJB, WMP, etc. It also has by far the 2nd most support for portable use. MP3Pro is closed and restricted. It shares a forum with MP3. The latest, leading edge, compliations of AAC are closed (Nero and Quicktime). The AAC forum is one of the most popular here.


Quote
3. The sources are closed so there is no chance of participation in development. (And before someone says something about MPC being "closed", this is not true. The MPC sources have been available for quite some time, and furthermore, Frank has traditionally been willing to listen to and work with the community to further development)


Again, see MP3Pro and AAC.

Quote
4. WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this.


So is Apple's installation of AAC. WMA does not automatically = DRM. Only commecrially downloaded files. Just like Apple's AAC from iTunes.

Quote
5. WMA is not a "best of breed" codec (in terms of quality it has come in close to last on many occassions in many tests) like at least most of the others that have their own top level categories. This might be changing now with WMA Pro, but it has not been the case traditionally. While there are other issues to consider besides quality, HA has always favored high quality/performance before other considerations.


I have seen very limited tests of WMA9. Most of the comparisons, to my knowledge, were done with WMA8 or before. Is MP3 rated on old xing or blade tests? And - as acknowledged - WMA9 Pro (even better than WMA9) scored quite well at 128 kbps. I am NOT claiming it to be best of breed. I'm simply stating that its quickly dismissed with very limited testing.

Quote
6. Because of the closed and restricted nature of WMA and it's development, and the fact that it is not standardized, there is no way to really track it's development over time, except by focusing on each major release. This further hampers the type of discussion that traditionally takes place on HA.


Again, true - but see MP3Pro and AAC which get much discussion - and most of the AAC discussion is around Nero or QT versions - not the 'open' Psytel version as it scored inferior to the other 2 versions.

Just my thoughts - I hate to see Spoon dismissed so quickly when HIS posts (if not mine) should be seriously considered.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #44
Well, anyway... I am psyched about the Rio Karma. For about the same price as an IPod  you get Vorbis and FLAC support (a big plus for me, and probably very beneficial for the formats). Also, the Karma is of approx. the same volume as the IPod, with a screen that looks like real competition. To top it off, it is rated with 7 more hours of battery life than the IPod, and it comes with a docking station that has RCA jacks and an Ethernet port... it even comes with Sennheiser MX300 Earbuds. I've also heard that it has excellent firmware, and I remember reading somewhere that Red Chair software, (maker of Notmad Explorer) is releasing a version of their music software for Rio players (to be called 'Riorad Explorer'). I figure at least I will have other options if the included software sucks.

The only question I have now is whether or not the sound quality will be good enough for my ears. I am looking forward to reading some reviews for this product, so if anybody sees any, could they post them here? Thanks..

thesparq

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #45
Quote
Well, anyway... I am psyched about the Rio Karma. For about the same price as an IPod  you get Vorbis and FLAC support (a big plus for me, and probably very beneficial for the formats). Also, the Karma is of approx. the same volume as the IPod, with a screen that looks like real competition. To top it off, it is rated with 7 more hours of battery life than the IPod, and it comes with a docking station that has RCA jacks and an Ethernet port... it even comes with Sennheiser MX300 Earbuds. I've also heard that it has excellent firmware, and I remember reading somewhere that Red Chair software, (maker of Notmad Explorer) is releasing a version of their music software for Rio players (to be called 'Riorad Explorer'). I figure at least I will have other options if the included software sucks.

The only question I have now is whether or not the sound quality will be good enough for my ears. I am looking forward to reading some reviews for this product, so if anybody sees any, could they post them here? Thanks..

thesparq

The Karma uses the same headphone amp as the iPod, so you are covered in the sound dept. as well.  Yeah, I can't wait for mine either.
WARNING:  Changing of advanced parameters might degrade sound quality.  Modify them only if you are expirienced in audio compression!

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #46
Make that 3 of us in line for the Karma!!!

I have owned 5 Rio products - and while they all had various issues, sound quality was not one of them. To this day, I still own and sometimes use my Rio PMP 300, which introduced me to the world of MP3 in 1998.

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #47
All i can say is just that :

WMA beats Lame,Blade,and OGG

Iam also a WMA9 Pro Fan and Sorry this test Show Everybody that WMA is not so BAD like everybody say.

So Back to the Thread

I Hope i find a Player that Support WMA9 Pro.
Maybe you answer me here or in the Topic i open for a few Minutes :

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/showtopic/12981

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #48
Quote
WMA beats Lame,Blade,and OGG
  ZZZzzzzzzz


Anyway, I am on the verge of buying the iRiver iHP-100, iRiver Korea advertised a 15gb version but it's a special edition and only available to Korea  .
So it looks like the 10gb as I doubt the 20gb version will be released this year.

I have been looking into this Rio Karma after you guys mentioned it and it does look quite good, does anybody know when it's going to be available to buy or try out. ?

Next Gen MP3 HD Players

Reply #49
Quote
All i can say is just that :

WMA beats Lame,Blade,and OGG

Iam also a WMA9 Pro Fan and Sorry this test Show Everybody that WMA is not so BAD like everybody say.

The difference between the two formats in this test is statistically insignificant, and as a non-proprietry format, I'd have to say Ogg is my choice here.