Portable digital music players

Portable digital music players

There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)

Any recommendations? Consumer Report suggests going with flash memory for
physical resilience, lower power usage, and because they typically use standard
batteries rather than poorly performing built-in rechargables. Seamless WMA
support also opens up the broadest options in terms of what music to get, and
where. Other features to pay attention to are intuitive user interface, easy
fit into pocket, and upgradability of firmware/encoding/compression. Wirless
file transfer only for forward-looking technophiles.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Re: Portable digital music players

Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:

> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
> USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
> make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)

Today, I wouldn't buy anything with USB 1.x only. 2.0 is so much
faster. Getting your music on the player will be much less time
consuming. Given the 2.0 has been out for so long, I think you may
be hard pressed to find anything with 1.x?

> Any recommendations? Consumer Report suggests going with flash memory for
> physical resilience, lower power usage, and because they typically use standard
> batteries rather than poorly performing built-in rechargables. Seamless WMA
> support also opens up the broadest options in terms of what music to get, and
> where. Other features to pay attention to are intuitive user interface, easy
> fit into pocket, and upgradability of firmware/encoding/compression. Wirless
> file transfer only for forward-looking technophiles.

The right pick depends on your application. What are you looking to
do with this portable music player, primarily? What's your preferred
on-computer media player if any? What format is most of your library
in?


--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | * w w w .toddh . net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ * w w w .toddh . net /netiquette/ | * myspace . com /bmiawmb

Re: Portable digital music players

bmiawmb@toddh . net (Todd H.) writes:

> Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:
>
> > There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
> > USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
> > make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>
> Today, I wouldn't buy anything with USB 1.x only. 2.0 is so much
> faster. Getting your music on the player will be much less time
> consuming. Given the 2.0 has been out for so long, I think you may
> be hard pressed to find anything with 1.x?

The other aspect I forgot to mention is... are you trying to say that
your computer is so old that its USB ports are incapable of USB 2.0
speeds?

Device wise, anything you buys today should be USB 2.0 capable. If
you have a multi-gigabyte player and your computer is old and only
capable of USB 1.1, though... you might find yourself uploading your
library to the player overnight the first time. If your library is
pretty static, the oldness of your home computer won't annoy you too
much. If you're having to move a lot of music across that interface
frequently though, you'll really want a newer computer with usb 2.0
support.


> > Any recommendations? Consumer Report suggests going with flash memory for
> > physical resilience, lower power usage, and because they typically use standard
> > batteries rather than poorly performing built-in rechargables. Seamless WMA
> > support also opens up the broadest options in terms of what music to get, and
> > where. Other features to pay attention to are intuitive user interface, easy
> > fit into pocket, and upgradability of firmware/encoding/compression. Wirless
> > file transfer only for forward-looking technophiles.
>
> The right pick depends on your application. What are you looking to
> do with this portable music player, primarily? What's your preferred
> on-computer media player if any? What format is most of your library
> in?


--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | * w w w .toddh . net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ * w w w .toddh . net /netiquette/ | * myspace . com /bmiawmb

Re: Portable digital music players

Todd H. wrote:
> bmiawmb@toddh . net (Todd H.) writes:
>
>> Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:
>>
>>> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
>>> USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
>>> make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>> Today, I wouldn't buy anything with USB 1.x only. 2.0 is so much
>> faster. Getting your music on the player will be much less time
>> consuming. Given the 2.0 has been out for so long, I think you may
>> be hard pressed to find anything with 1.x?
>
> The other aspect I forgot to mention is... are you trying to say that
> your computer is so old that its USB ports are incapable of USB 2.0
> speeds?
>
> Device wise, anything you buys today should be USB 2.0 capable. If
> you have a multi-gigabyte player and your computer is old and only
> capable of USB 1.1, though... you might find yourself uploading your
> library to the player overnight the first time. If your library is
> pretty static, the oldness of your home computer won't annoy you too
> much. If you're having to move a lot of music across that interface
> frequently though, you'll really want a newer computer with usb 2.0
> support.

The computer of the future player owner says "USB". Since there's no 2.0, it
must be 1.x. I'm concerned that the options for players that can interface with
1.x may be less than 2.0. Interfacability aside, it maybe as you say -- very
slow. A newer computer may be in the cards for the future, but I wasn't going
to bet on that.

As for moving lots of music across -- my understanding is that these players
stores thousands of songs. With that capacity, it is hard for me to imagine
moving lots of songs over the interface on a regular basis. Then again, Bill
Gates found it hard to believe that anyone would need more than 640KB disk
space. Or was that memory?

>>> Any recommendations? Consumer Report suggests going with flash memory for
>>> physical resilience, lower power usage, and because they typically use standard
>>> batteries rather than poorly performing built-in rechargables. Seamless WMA
>>> support also opens up the broadest options in terms of what music to get, and
>>> where. Other features to pay attention to are intuitive user interface, easy
>>> fit into pocket, and upgradability of firmware/encoding/compression. Wirless
>>> file transfer only for forward-looking technophiles.
>> The right pick depends on your application. What are you looking to
>> do with this portable music player, primarily? What's your preferred
>> on-computer media player if any? What format is most of your library
>> in?
>
>

Re: Portable digital music players

Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:

> The computer of the future player owner says "USB". Since there's no 2.0, it
> must be 1.x.

I'm not sure I'd rely on that to make that assumption.

> As for moving lots of music across -- my understanding is that these players
> stores thousands of songs. With that capacity, it is hard for me to imagine
> moving lots of songs over the interface on a regular basis. Then again, Bill
> Gates found it hard to believe that anyone would need more than 640KB disk
> space. Or was that memory?

That goes back to requirements. If they select a disk based player
that has oodles of memory, yes, after the initial load of the library
onto the player, they won't have much to move back and forth.

If they opt for a smaller capacity solid state memory based device,
though, folks using those only put a subset of their library on the
device at any one time.

The bigger the player, therefore, the less I'd worry about the speed
penalty of USB 1.1 transfer. Just do the initial load while the
person sleeps.

But if you get the make/model of the machine, I'd look on the
manufacturer's site regarding the specs and see if this is all much
ado about nothing. The laptop may already have usb 2.0.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | * w w w .toddh . net /
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ * w w w .toddh . net /netiquette/ | * myspace . com /bmiawmb

Re: Portable digital music players

Todd H. wrote:
> Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:
>
>> The computer of the future player owner says "USB". Since there's no 2.0, it
>> must be 1.x.
>
> I'm not sure I'd rely on that to make that assumption.
>
>> As for moving lots of music across -- my understanding is that these players
>> stores thousands of songs. With that capacity, it is hard for me to imagine
>> moving lots of songs over the interface on a regular basis. Then again, Bill
>> Gates found it hard to believe that anyone would need more than 640KB disk
>> space. Or was that memory?
>
> That goes back to requirements. If they select a disk based player
> that has oodles of memory, yes, after the initial load of the library
> onto the player, they won't have much to move back and forth.
>
> If they opt for a smaller capacity solid state memory based device,
> though, folks using those only put a subset of their library on the
> device at any one time.
>
> The bigger the player, therefore, the less I'd worry about the speed
> penalty of USB 1.1 transfer. Just do the initial load while the
> person sleeps.
>
> But if you get the make/model of the machine, I'd look on the
> manufacturer's site regarding the specs and see if this is all much
> ado about nothing. The laptop may already have usb 2.0.

The person has no collection of music right now, and currently owns no music.
Basically, the requirements are undefined, so pieces of music will likely be
acquired piecemeal. Perhaps a big push at the beginning.

However, I just found out that someone else has announced intentions to get a
digital music player for the person. I thank you for your helpful responses.

About the computer, I recall sitting down with the person and trying to find
specs for the system online (it is so old that they no longer owned the paper
specs). No luck for that particular model (which I don't have at hand). It was
a Seanix machine. But I agree that hunting for th specs is normallybe a good
first step.

Re: Portable digital music players

Todd H. wrote:
> Dubious Dude <Shifty@eyes . com > writes:
>
>> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
>> USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
>> make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>
> Today, I wouldn't buy anything with USB 1.x only. 2.0 is so much
> faster. Getting your music on the player will be much less time
> consuming. Given the 2.0 has been out for so long, I think you may
> be hard pressed to find anything with 1.x?

The person for whom I getting the music player has an older laptop with only
"USB" (no 2.0 at the end, so I am assuming it is USB 1.x).

>> Any recommendations? Consumer Report suggests going with flash memory for
>> physical resilience, lower power usage, and because they typically use standard
>> batteries rather than poorly performing built-in rechargables. Seamless WMA
>> support also opens up the broadest options in terms of what music to get, and
>> where. Other features to pay attention to are intuitive user interface, easy
>> fit into pocket, and upgradability of firmware/encoding/compression. Wirless
>> file transfer only for forward-looking technophiles.
>
> The right pick depends on your application. What are you looking to
> do with this portable music player, primarily? What's your preferred
> on-computer media player if any? What format is most of your library
> in?

I suspect that the person will use the player while walking. Maybe jogging.
Neither that person or I use on-computer media players regularly.

Re: Portable digital music players

Dubious Dude wrote:
> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
> USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
> make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>

No. USB 1.x only is just fine, just slow. It's no problem.

THE biggest problem with non-Apple players is broken
headphone jacks. I had three players fail within hours
to days of buying them because of this.

Doug McDonald

Re: Portable digital music players

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Dubious Dude wrote:
>> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online iPod manuals reveals that
>> USB 2.0 is "recommended". In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only
>> make the experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>>
>
> No. USB 1.x only is just fine, just slow. It's no problem.
>
> THE biggest problem with non-Apple players is broken
> headphone jacks. I had three players fail within hours
> to days of buying them because of this.

Now *that* is disturbing. Which brand names? Did the player itself get busted
at the jack port, or did the jack itself get busted (which is nicer since you
only need to replace the headphones)?

P.S. Found out that someone else intends to get a player for this person, but
I'm still curious as to which manufacturers created the less resilient products
you describe above.

Re: Portable digital music players

"Dubious Dude" <Shifty@eyes . com > wrote in message
news:fjf0s4$5am$1@aioe.org

> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online
> iPod manuals reveals that USB 2.0 is "recommended".

USB is preferred.

> In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only make the
> experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)

I have a Nomad Jukebox which has both USB 1.1 and firewire ports.

The firewire port was about twice as fast, but it was usable either way.

> Consumer Report suggests going with
> flash memory for physical resilience, lower power usage,
> and because they typically use standard batteries rather
> than poorly performing built-in rechargables.

Makes sense, although my Nomad Jukebox 3 broke every rule, and was still
pretty useful and still runs years later.

Re: Portable digital music players

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Dubious Dude" <Shifty@eyes . com > wrote in message
> news:fjf0s4$5am$1@aioe.org
>
>> There's iPod, then the rest. Perusing various online
>> iPod manuals reveals that USB 2.0 is "recommended".
>
> USB is preferred.
>
>> In general, does the availability of USB 1.x only make the
>> experience of owning an MP3 play unworthwhile? (WinXP)
>
> I have a Nomad Jukebox which has both USB 1.1 and firewire ports.
>
> The firewire port was about twice as fast, but it was usable either way.
>
>> Consumer Report suggests going with
>> flash memory for physical resilience, lower power usage,
>> and because they typically use standard batteries rather
>> than poorly performing built-in rechargables.
>
> Makes sense, although my Nomad Jukebox 3 broke every rule, and was still
> pretty useful and still runs years later.

Thanks, Arny.