Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

[CaptainZombie]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I'm considering getting a creative mp3 or iriver. Don't which one is better.

[pk500]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

The Ipod video is just an enlarged version of the Nano. I believe both are considered Generation 5 Ipods and both have sound improvements over the old Ipod mini.

I'm almost certain that's not true. The Nano uses a different sound chip due to its much smaller size.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

Went to BestBuy but held off on a purchase until I had a little more info. So the iRiver is pretty good? It's the one you can download off of NAPSTER?

I have owned a Creative Zen Xtra 40 GB for more than two years and LOVE it. But spend the extra $25 for Red Chair Software's Notmad Explorer -- available online -- if you get a Creative because it's far better than the sh*tware Creative packages with its players for music transfers and building playlists.

iRivers get very good ratings for features and sound quality.

As for downloading compatibility with pay music services, sorry again, I wouldn't know. I "obtain" my music in other ways.

Take care,
PK

[CaptainZombie]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I did some research last night some of the Creative players have received some bad reviews that the players HDD goes out. I may just stick with the IPOD, but not too sure yet.

[pk500]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I did some research last night some of the Creative players have received some bad reviews that the players HDD goes out. I may just stick with the IPOD, but not too sure yet.

I know a number of people with Creative players, with no hard drive failures. My unit has been flawless for 2 1/2 years.

Some of the early Creative Zen units had faulty earphone jacks, but that was cured in manufacturing nearly two years ago.

Remember: Any hard drive will fail if you treat a hard-drive MP3 player like a Flash-based player. It's not meant for workouts, active sports, etc.

Take care,
PK

[GBrushTWood]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I have a 1 GB Nano. The sound quality is fine. I have no complaints whatsoever with it, and I am somewhat of an audiophile, obsessed with good quality.

One thing worth pointing out: I put 'In My Life' by The Beatles on the Nano today, and with the stock iPod earphones, the quality of the song is awful, due to this buzzing/tinny type of noise coming through one ear. I popped in these Sony earphones that I usually use for my PC into the Nano, and the sound quality was perfect for me. This was the first time I have noticed quality differences between the headphones.

[pk500]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I have a 1 GB Nano. The sound quality is fine. I have no complaints whatsoever with it, and I am somewhat of an audiophile, obsessed with good quality.

One thing worth pointing out: I put 'In My Life' by The Beatles on the Nano today, and with the stock iPod earphones, the quality of the song is awful, due to this buzzing/tinny type of noise coming through one ear. I popped in these Sony earphones that I usually use for my PC into the Nano, and the sound quality was perfect for me. This was the first time I have noticed quality differences between the headphones.

Which only proves that you made a headphone upgrade. Take the same MP3 file, put it on an iPod video or regular Version 4 iPod, and I'll bet it sounds even better due to the superior audio chip in those units.

Take care,
PK

[Brandwin]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

Remember: Any hard drive will fail if you treat a hard-drive MP3 player like a Flash-based player. It's not meant for workouts, active sports, etc.

So is it pointless to get a MP3 player if I manily want to use it while at the gym?

[andayaman]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I'm almost certain that's not true. The Nano uses a different sound chip due to its much smaller size.

Take care,
PK

The Nano may not match the sould of an Ipod video, but the sound and bass response on both units are noticably better than the sound of the older Ipod mini.

[JayBee74]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

So is it pointless to get a MP3 player if I manily want to use it while at the gym?

You took the question right out of my mouth.

[Silverstring]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

I'm almost certain that's not true. The Nano uses a different sound chip due to its much smaller size.

Take care,
PK

If you're comparing the Nano to the recently released "video" iPod, you're right. The Nano uses a Wolfson Micro WM8975G audio chip, whereas the "video" model uses a Wolfson Micro WM8758. You said you compared the nano to a "regular" iPod. Your terminology is actually correct, because, despite what people have picked up and run with, there is no such thing as the "Video iPod" or "iPod Video". It is the "iPod Nano" and the "iPod"(and further the "iPod Shuffle"), the latter of which just happens to have video capability. I only go farther in making that distinction because, if you tested using the previous generation(4th) "regular" iPod, the nano actually uses the SAME audio chip as that 4G iPod.

[Vince]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

So is it pointless to get a MP3 player if I manily want to use it while at the gym?

Well, you can use it to lift weights, but for cardio it might not be preferable, unless you're using an eliptacle or a treadmill where you can play the IPod somewhere safe. Jogging with it would be a bad idea.

I have a nano(4gB) as well as a 128mb flash that i use to jog with.

[Silverstring]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

So is it pointless to get a MP3 player if I manily want to use it while at the gym?

No, you just have to be more selective in which mp3 player you choose. pk500 was referring to HARD DRIVE-based units, such as the iPod, iRiver, and Creative Zen, etc. which have more capacity because they contain miniaturized hard drives with small internal moving parts. The downside of this is that the frequent spinning of the hard drive is put at risk by the vigorous movement of the person running/working out, leading to skips or, at worst, the dislodging of the hard drive spindle or arm.

The remedy to this is to get a FLASH MEMORY based mp3 player, such as the iPod Nano, iRiver T10, or Zen Nano(I can't believe they stole the name...). You get much lesser capacity for not that much in savings, but that is because flash technology is newer, more advanced, and therefore, more expensive. Instead of storing music on an internal hard drive with the associated moving parts, the music is stored on a solid-state internal flash chip. No moving parts means nothing to spin up or down, and therefore, much better reliability and no skipping in a running/working out environment, where the player bounces, shakes, or is otherwise jostled. The lack of a hard drive is also what makes flash players smaller and lighter, which many people who use them for mainly for working out prefer, since they are less cumbersome and weighty.

Hopefully I answered your question/concern.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

Is the video IPOD the best release of the IPOD yet? I'm trying to determine if I should get a video or settle for a IPOD mini. The video is cool, but I may not use it as much.

[Vince]

Re: Cheap IPOD VS More Expensive IPOD

No, you just have to be more selective in which mp3 player you choose. pk500 was referring to HARD DRIVE-based units, such as the iPod, iRiver, and Creative Zen, etc. which have more capacity because they contain miniaturized hard drives with small internal moving parts. The downside of this is that the frequent spinning of the hard drive is put at risk by the vigorous movement of the person running/working out, leading to skips or, at worst, the dislodging of the hard drive spindle or arm.

The remedy to this is to get a FLASH MEMORY based mp3 player, such as the iPod Nano, iRiver T10, or Zen Nano(I can't believe they stole the name...). You get much lesser capacity for not that much in savings, but that is because flash technology is newer, more advanced, and therefore, more expensive. Instead of storing music on an internal hard drive with the associated moving parts, the music is stored on a solid-state internal flash chip. No moving parts means nothing to spin up or down, and therefore, much better reliability and no skipping in a running/working out environment, where the player bounces, shakes, or is otherwise jostled. The lack of a hard drive is also what makes flash players smaller and lighter, which many people who use them for mainly for working out prefer, since they are less cumbersome and weighty.

Hopefully I answered your question/concern.

I enjoy your posts silverstring. Always extrmemely informative and teaches new stuff all the time...I had no clue the nano used flash technology...thank you...