30 replies to this topic

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Me and Wizard were having a discussion in IRC about iPods and other MP3 players and I thought it might be interesting to see other peoples views on the subject.

So here's my view on iPods... I have never personally owned an iPod, but I have seen and used friends in the past. I have nothing against them per se, they seem to be easy to use, easy to sync your music and the sound quality seems to be pretty decent. The problem I have with iPods are 1. They are over-priced (I hope no-one would disagree with that), 2. They are over-hyped , popular because they are popular and are quite often considered to be a completely different entity to other MP3 players, sometimes people don't even realise that iPods are a brand and not a device.

So my question to you is, are iPods better than other MP3 players or are they simply more popular/well known?

[Wizard]

Think you already know my views on this It's not that I think iPods are better per se than any other mp3 player out there, it's that iPods are like Ronseal, they do what they say on the tin. I've used a few different mp3 players since they've been around and I've never liked them as aren't as simple to use as the iPod.

I know that you've argued why does simple equal better, but my argument is that I want to listen to music on them and for doing that their interface is about as simple as any I've ever come across. Simplicity is also one of the reasons they are so popular as well, ignoring the stupid adverts and faux sense of style. Something that is simple will appeal across a much broader range of people, especially the older generations who aren't as "with it" as someone who is aware of other options.

I'll admit that there is a certain amount of cool and hype to them, but you wouldn't sell that many based on advertising alone.

[Chyros]

I owned both non-iPod MP3 players and iPods and I acn safely say that though iPods cost somewhat ridiculously much and are dependant on the extremely horrible program iTunes, they are worth it IMO. Outstanding quality, quite good durability, excellent storage capability, battery life & easy to use (I can operate mine without even looking at it atm).

[TheDR]

I don't think they are better in any way apart from being advertised well.
I also dislike gimmicks in my electronic products and iPods are full of them, i want to just listen to some music without all the rubbish they slap on like "cover-flow" and stuff.

In my eyes the majority are just paying for the name.

[Sgt. Nuker]

I have never owned an iPod either, though it would seem that iPods are the only MP3 player to have in some social circles, and you'd "better" not call it anything other than an iPod. There are so many options for the iPod as well, which is probably why some people will chose the iPod (besides its ease of use). Take your simple iPod and plug it into the so-called "iPod Home" and turn it into a stereo. Need to protect it? There are dozens of companies that sell soft, silicon cases and others that offer hard cases. Each of these styles comes in an array of textures and finishes, not to mention designs. There are iPods ranging from 1GB all the way up to 120GB, so whether you're just starting your music collection, or need extra space because you've clogged your computer's HD with songs, Apple's iPod has you covered (okay admittedly, that last bit sounds like a commercial even if I don't want it to).

If you look in several of today's automobiles, they now come with iPod/MP3 connectivity. My guess is that they say both so that people who don't have an iPod, will know they can still hook up their MP3 device to the car, and those refusing to call their iPod an "MP3", will be aware of the same thing.

I don't feel that there is really anything "wrong" with the iPod per se, nor are they really any better. It really depends on the person, what they're willing to spend, and what the person requires for a particular MP3 player. I do agree that they are overpriced, but you do get what you pay for and iPods sell like hot cakes.

[Pav:3d]

Your mobile phone usually doubles up as a good MP3 player, plus they usually come with headphones. My phone doesnt hold a lot, but I never usually have the need to play 10,000 fucking songs in one train/bus ride.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

My iPod Touch 2nd gen have excellent DAC and a good enough amp for IEM (No annoying hisses), app support is VERY handy. Apps like Unit convertions, currency exchange and push email support. If you are in a city full of Wi-Fi hotspots, I don't see much of a point to get a netbook just to surf on WiFi hotspots. But I agree they are expensive but worth it with its good enough after sales support and its Apps store. But players like the Nano, Video can do much better, I would prefer other brand for better price - performance ratio. The new Shuffle is BS, for me who had never used stock headphone for years, a player that only with with the supplied headphone is a useless junk.

EDIT: Oh, I do like AAC 320kbps.

Edited by ΓΛPΤΘΓ, 21 August 2009 - 16:04.

[Chyros]

I didn't even know about iPod apps, I use mine just for music. All I've noticed is that they are far more user-friendly and produce considerably better sound quality than any MP3 player I ever used, along with some other advantages. I'd say that's a pretty good reason to own one. And I never noticed anything about social pressure & iPods myself so I'm not sure where you all are getting that from .

[Dauth]

Never had a mp3 player, went from CD to nowt to phone.

I have a 2gb memory card in my phone, never got it anywhere near full and it means I only need one device in my pocket.

Ipod v mp3

Ipods are easy to use, ask my sister and mother, that being said my dad has a generic (samsung IIRC) player which has served him well. The fact that we have a variation of players means that relying just on itunes cannot happen. My dad uses the windows explorer (since its easy) and my mum hasn't changed her music in months because she doesn't understand itunes.

Apple has a roughly 15% price hike for hardware and they're making hay because of the long standing backlash against MS, despite the fact that their software is probably the most bloated item on my PC.

For the record, I got itunes in uni and never wanted to set everything up again.

[Admiral Wesley]

I have an iPod nano, And it's perfect for everything except Apps, and I don't really think I need many, to tell you the truth.

[Ion Cannon!]

Wizard, on 21 Aug 2009, 15:29, said:

Think you already know my views on this It's not that I think iPods are better per se than any other mp3 player out there, it's that iPods are like Ronseal, they do what they say on the tin. I've used a few different mp3 players since they've been around and I've never liked them as aren't as simple to use as the iPod.

I know that you've argued why does simple equal better, but my argument is that I want to listen to music on them and for doing that their interface is about as simple as any I've ever come across. Simplicity is also one of the reasons they are so popular as well, ignoring the stupid adverts and faux sense of style. Something that is simple will appeal across a much broader range of people, especially the older generations who aren't as "with it" as someone who is aware of other options.

I'll admit that there is a certain amount of cool and hype to them, but you wouldn't sell that many based on advertising alone.

I'm going to have to +1 here. You summed it up perfectly.

Also i've never had a problem with itunes as a program ever, works like clock work.

[Amdrial]

From the little experience I gathered by borrowing someone's iPod touch, I can safely say it's got that luxurious feel to it in comparison to other non-brand media players. But if you're just looking at the details, then I'd say they're all the same if you'd look at the functionality of these devices. The only thing differing much to me being the quality, amount of space and the looks, which by the way do not matter to me at all.

I've been using my 256 MB MP3 player for years now, and it has not failed me once, even though the glass on the display has cracked. That's the advantage of old hardware. It's very, very durable.
The iPod Touch someone lent me, was infact in a bad shape, and he had only used it for half a year. The display was all scratched over, the attachment between the display and the silver piece of plastic covering it at the back was starting to peel off and it just didn't look like it would function any longer.

That was my experience with iPods. As you see, I have almost no experience, but I saw other people use it, and they say it's the best thing next to sliced bread. I'm keeping my opinion reserved until I have one myself (Which will not be in a long time).

[Ion Cannon!]

Amdrial, on 22 Aug 2009, 0:42, said:

From the little experience I gathered by borrowing someone's iPod touch, I can safely say it's got that luxurious feel to it in comparison to other non-brand media players. But if you're just looking at the details, then I'd say they're all the same if you'd look at the functionality of these devices. The only thing differing much to me being the quality, amount of space and the looks, which by the way do not matter to me at all.

I've been using my 256 MB MP3 player for years now, and it has not failed me once, even though the glass on the display has cracked. That's the advantage of old hardware. It's very, very durable.
The iPod Touch someone lent me, was infact in a bad shape, and he had only used it for half a year. The display was all scratched over, the attachment between the display and the silver piece of plastic covering it at the back was starting to peel off and it just didn't look like it would function any longer.

That was my experience with iPods. As you see, I have almost no experience, but I saw other people use it, and they say it's the best thing next to sliced bread. I'm keeping my opinion reserved until I have one myself (Which will not be in a long time).

256mb? How do you manage Rotate your music every week? On topic i've had my ipod for 18 months, and i've dropped it several times. It still looks and works like new

[Libains]

iPods all the way - I've had three so far and have only 1 complaint: They always seem to get stolen. First one was a first gen iPod shuffle, it worked great, nice sound quality, and it was great. Then some bastard stole it while I was in hospital being treated for a concussion. So I got a 4th Gen iPod photo - one of the nice ones with a colour screen, but no vids. It was awesome, after a while I broke into the firmware and started changing stuff, BG image, etc. Wonderful stuff, absolutely no issues with it. 30GB was more than enough, and I would happily still have it. However, it got nicked, ironically while I was in hospital again after having broken my wrist. So I'm now on my 3rd iPod, 6th gen 120Gb Classic, which annoyingly still doesn't hold all of my media, but is still very capable. The functionality is good, the status that it provides is a nice little addition, and the iTunes Store is a great, massive extension from it.

I will say, however, that it is made better by using a Mac as there is more functionality within the system, and it all just seems to be smoother, and iTunes is ofc the basic media player that does everything on the Mac anyways so no switching between it and another media player.

Compared to other media players, I just get annoyed at their complicated, messy feel, irrational designs and genuinely poor build quality. Like Ion I've dropped these iPods several times each and no visible damage yet.

Base fact: They do what they say on the tin and they do it nice and simply.

[HotSoup]

Ipod aren't all that great as far as quality as a PMP(Portable Media Player, as MP3 player is rather misleading these days) goes. Their sound quality and video quality are far under par, and they have terrible codec support, and horrible battery life, which is kind of sad considering they are the most expensive PMP's. You pay for trendy and design, not for function, but that is how it with Apple products, you don't buy them to do things effectively, that would be silly. They are over-hyped, overpriced, and under-functional for even a basic PMP, let alone a $400 one. As for alternitives...

The Sandisk Sansa Clip, which you can get for $17 for 4gb, outdoes the iPod in sound quality. The Fuze is great too, be it a bit more expensive.

Zune's have better audio quality, even.

As for the best quality, Cowon generally makes great sounding PMP's with great battery life. Their current flagship, the Cowon S9, runs in at about $200 for 32GB, as opposed to $400 from the Ipod Touch at 32GB. It has superior battery life, by far superior sound, and superior video. It also has plenty of tactile controls if your into that kind of thing, along with its touch screen. A screen with is scratch proof, I might add.

AJ, Itunes sucks, everyone knows it sucks. The only reason people use another media player on windows is because it sucks so badly. Also, status? From a PMP? You silly mac-fags and your cracy ideas. And iPods explode. Explode. For not reason at all. Thats great build quality right there, really.

Edited by HotSoup, 22 August 2009 - 21:06.

[Libains]

HotSoup, on 22 Aug 2009, 22:03, said:

Ipod aren't all that great as far as quality as a PMP(Portable Media Player, as MP3 player is rather misleading these days) goes. Their sound quality and video quality are far under par, and they have terrible codec support, and horrible battery life, which is kind of sad considering they are the most expensive PMP's. You pay for trendy and design, not for function, but that is how it with Apple products, you don't buy them to do things effectively, that would be silly. They are over-hyped, overpriced, and under-functional for even a basic PMP, let alone a $400 one. As for alternitives...

The Sandisk Sansa Clip, which you can get for $17 for 4gb, outdoes the iPod in sound quality. The Fuze is great too, be it a bit more expensive.

Zune's have better audio quality, even.

As for the best quality, Cowon generally makes great sounding PMP's with great battery life. Their current flagship, the Cowon S9, runs in at about $200 for 32GB, as opposed to $400 from the Ipod Touch at 32GB. It has superior battery life, by far superior sound, and superior video. It also has plenty of tactile controls if your into that kind of thing, along with its touch screen. A screen with is scratch proof, I might add.

AJ, Itunes sucks, everyone knows it sucks. The only reason people use another media player on windows is because it sucks so badly. Also, status? From a PMP? You silly mac-fags and your cracy ideas. And iPods explode. Explode. For not reason at all. Thats great build quality right there, really.

Firstly, call me a fag again at your peril. I like my Mac, but by calling everyone a Windows-fag I am insulting them - I have no qualms in the flaws of what I use, and the same can be said for every Windows user that uses a bloated, useless OS in the form of Vista. However, I didn't insult them and thus there is no reason for you to insult me.

Secondly, find me where I said that iTunes was a good bit of software? I said that there was functionality, and that within a Mac system iTunes is irreplaceable. I like it for it's ease of use, the fact that it eats system resources doesn't phase me as my Mac can handle that issue easily. On a Windows machine, I still like iTunes because of the fact that it does remind me of a Mac OS, and I get seriously annoyed at Windows Media Player for being total shite, and annoyed at Winamp for being a total higgeldy-piggedly mess - one of the main reasons that I do not like for the most part using third party applications - the customization for most things annoys the feck out of me.

Thirdly, the iPod. Sound quality in an AAC 320kbps track is comparable to any other format and is what I use for the most part - no point in having anything less - the iPod decodes this format into an extremely decent sound quality. The sound quality through the provided headphones is acceptable, but no PMP comes with a superb set of headphones. Terrible codec support is a useless argument as the iPod supports most of the major codecs, and the few it doesn't it can usually convert over - I don't know of many PMPs that bother with stuff like FLAC anymore - they're all about MP3s and the occasional WMA or AAC support dependent on the manufacturer. Battery life on my iPod is roughly 24hrs playing music through headphones - frankly if you need to use all of that up without having time to charge in between you're mad. And effectiveness? iPods still have the simplest, most flawless design within their software on an average user-end approach. They may not be easy to hack to bits, but 99% of the public couldn't give a toss about that.

Finally. It wasn't an iPod that exploded, it was a Mac. Interesting how the media picks up on the one or two cases of Apple flaws, but avoids the hundreds of other PCs, Media Players and the like that explode on Windows systems. Proportionally, Apple products have a far better safety record behind them than Windows machines.

Oh, and I'd rather not pick up a Cowon product, only to then be sideswiped by a subscription fee for their provided software if you actually want to be able to use the damned thing properly.

[HotSoup]

AJ, on 22 Aug 2009, 16:23, said:

Firstly, call me a fag again at your peril. I like my Mac, but by calling everyone a Windows-fag I am insulting them - I have no qualms in the flaws of what I use, and the same can be said for every Windows user that uses a bloated, useless OS in the form of Vista. However, I didn't insult them and thus there is no reason for you to insult me.

Secondly, find me where I said that iTunes was a good bit of software? I said that there was functionality, and that within a Mac system iTunes is irreplaceable. I like it for it's ease of use, the fact that it eats system resources doesn't phase me as my Mac can handle that issue easily. On a Windows machine, I still like iTunes because of the fact that it does remind me of a Mac OS, and I get seriously annoyed at Windows Media Player for being total shite, and annoyed at Winamp for being a total higgeldy-piggedly mess - one of the main reasons that I do not like for the most part using third party applications - the customization for most things annoys the feck out of me.

Thirdly, the iPod. Sound quality in an AAC 320kbps track is comparable to any other format and is what I use for the most part - no point in having anything less - the iPod decodes this format into an extremely decent sound quality. The sound quality through the provided headphones is acceptable, but no PMP comes with a superb set of headphones. Terrible codec support is a useless argument as the iPod supports most of the major codecs, and the few it doesn't it can usually convert over - I don't know of many PMPs that bother with stuff like FLAC anymore - they're all about MP3s and the occasional WMA or AAC support dependent on the manufacturer. Battery life on my iPod is roughly 24hrs playing music through headphones - frankly if you need to use all of that up without having time to charge in between you're mad. And effectiveness? iPods still have the simplest, most flawless design within their software on an average user-end approach. They may not be easy to hack to bits, but 99% of the public couldn't give a toss about that.

Finally. It wasn't an iPod that exploded, it was a Mac. Interesting how the media picks up on the one or two cases of Apple flaws, but avoids the hundreds of other PCs, Media Players and the like that explode on Windows systems. Proportionally, Apple products have a far better safety record behind them than Windows machines.

Oh, and I'd rather not pick up a Cowon product, only to then be sideswiped by a subscription fee for their provided software if you actually want to be able to use the damned thing properly.

I don't mean any malice in the calling you of mac-fag, it is just what I refer to Apple users as. I mean nothign more offensive by it than you buy Apple products, take that as you will. Sorry if you thought I was calling you a fag, I really am. I also didn't insult OSX, I just said Apple products were overpriced. Which no one denies. But now that were on the subject, OSX.5 has more bloat than vista, and .6 has more bloat than Win7. And have less hardware to back it up for the price. Ouch.

No. Ipod's exploded. See Here, Here, and Here. Theres just one instance. There have been about 15 reports of exploding iPods alone, not counting those PowerBombs Apple call's laptops. The fact Apple tried to stop the owners from talking to get a warrenty just speaks of the horridness of the company. Also makes you think how many went unreported.

Who uses Window's Media Player? JetAudio or WinAmp are amazinly products, and do what they do a lot better than iTunes, on any system. Also, the free version of Cowon's JetAudio is on par with any other media center. The only thing they take away is their audio-enhancement software. That and Cowon products are more happy using Window's Explorer and drag and drop, which is a lot easier than being bound by some silly software like iTunes.

There is difference in audio quality between players. Listen to a PSP or DS, then a iPod or Cowon and you'll see. The products make a big difference, not just the codec's.

Sorry, I like my FLAC. Insult it if you will. Though VBR/320kbps MP3 files are fine too.

Edited by HotSoup, 22 August 2009 - 23:41.

[Ion Cannon!]

HotSoup, on 23 Aug 2009, 0:36, said:

AJ, on 22 Aug 2009, 16:23, said:

Firstly, call me a fag again at your peril. I like my Mac, but by calling everyone a Windows-fag I am insulting them - I have no qualms in the flaws of what I use, and the same can be said for every Windows user that uses a bloated, useless OS in the form of Vista. However, I didn't insult them and thus there is no reason for you to insult me.

Secondly, find me where I said that iTunes was a good bit of software? I said that there was functionality, and that within a Mac system iTunes is irreplaceable. I like it for it's ease of use, the fact that it eats system resources doesn't phase me as my Mac can handle that issue easily. On a Windows machine, I still like iTunes because of the fact that it does remind me of a Mac OS, and I get seriously annoyed at Windows Media Player for being total shite, and annoyed at Winamp for being a total higgeldy-piggedly mess - one of the main reasons that I do not like for the most part using third party applications - the customization for most things annoys the feck out of me.

Thirdly, the iPod. Sound quality in an AAC 320kbps track is comparable to any other format and is what I use for the most part - no point in having anything less - the iPod decodes this format into an extremely decent sound quality. The sound quality through the provided headphones is acceptable, but no PMP comes with a superb set of headphones. Terrible codec support is a useless argument as the iPod supports most of the major codecs, and the few it doesn't it can usually convert over - I don't know of many PMPs that bother with stuff like FLAC anymore - they're all about MP3s and the occasional WMA or AAC support dependent on the manufacturer. Battery life on my iPod is roughly 24hrs playing music through headphones - frankly if you need to use all of that up without having time to charge in between you're mad. And effectiveness? iPods still have the simplest, most flawless design within their software on an average user-end approach. They may not be easy to hack to bits, but 99% of the public couldn't give a toss about that.

Finally. It wasn't an iPod that exploded, it was a Mac. Interesting how the media picks up on the one or two cases of Apple flaws, but avoids the hundreds of other PCs, Media Players and the like that explode on Windows systems. Proportionally, Apple products have a far better safety record behind them than Windows machines.

Oh, and I'd rather not pick up a Cowon product, only to then be sideswiped by a subscription fee for their provided software if you actually want to be able to use the damned thing properly.

I don't mean any malice in the calling you of mac-fag, it is just what I refer to Apple users as. I mean nothign more offensive by it than you buy Apple products, take that as you will. Sorry if you thought I was calling you a fag, I really am. I also didn't insult OSX, I just said Apple products were overpriced. Which no one denies. But now that were on the subject, OSX.5 has more bloat than vista, and .6 has more bloat than Win7. And have less hardware to back it up for the price. Ouch.

No. Ipod's exploded. See Here, Here, and Here. Theres just one instance. There have been about 15 reports of exploding iPods alone, not counting those PowerBombs Apple call's laptops. The fact Apple tried to stop the owners from talking to get a warrenty just speaks of the horridness of the company. Also makes you think how many went unreported.

Who uses Window's Media Player? JetAudio or WinAmp are amazinly products, and do what they do a lot better than iTunes, on any system. Also, the free version of Cowon's JetAudio is on par with any other media center. The only thing they take away is their audio-enhancement software. That and Cowon products are more happy using Window's Explorer and drag and drop, which is a lot easier than being bound by some silly software like iTunes.

There is difference in audio quality between players. Listen to a PSP or DS, then a iPod or Cowon and you'll see. The products make a big difference, not just the codec's.

Sorry, I like my FLAC. Insult it if you will. Though VBR/320kbps MP3 files are fine too.

Winamp is superior to iTunes how? I've used both and prefer iTunes. People keep saying how awful iTunes software is but never explain what makes it terrible. I've never had a problem with it ever and the sound quality is good enough

[Ghostrider]

Ion Cannon!, on 22 Aug 2009, 20:19, said:

Winamp is superior to iTunes how? I've used both and prefer iTunes. People keep saying how awful iTunes software is but never explain what makes it terrible. I've never had a problem with it ever and the sound quality is good enough

Ditto. iTunes is very simple to use, especially when you're like me and just use it for searching through 6,000+ songs. In addition, it's nice to have the iTunes store available right there, as I don't mind actually paying for my music (usually).

As for the iPod: I have a first gen video iPod, and it's perfect. Never had a problem with it, sound is more than enough for me (I use it with the stock headphones/in my car), and it's about as easy to navigate as anything. It's a few years old now, and I get around 6-8 hours of music out of it.

[HotSoup]

iTune's main issue is its a very annoying piece of software. Once you install it, Apple updater will annoy you constantly, it comes stocked with bonjour and Quicktime, which I don't want or need, as well as many other people.. It also runs 4 processes all the time, which is also annoying and slightly resource hogging, if you need your ram. Its codec support is highly lacking, only supporting AAC/WMA/WAV/MP3 and Apple's codecs. There is no excuse for a media player to support so few codec's, its not limited by preformance of software limitations like a PMP. However, unless you have a Media player with sound/bass enhancements like JetAudio and like(though they generally cost monies), itunes will sound exactly the same as WinAmp or VLC and like.

The thing is, 6-8 battery life hours is really, really bad. With my Cowon S9 I get 12-14 hours of video on one charge, or 35-40 hours of audio. This is with the S9's battery sucking sound/bass enhancements enabled as well, 55 hours can be achieved with better power settings.

[Ghostrider]

Apple updater comes up every Wednesday asking me to update, and you can turn off the auto-update feature. That's hardly all the time, Soup. Quicktime is fine for me, although I rarely use it, and I don't know what Bonjour is (maybe the latest editions of iTunes come with Bonjour, but I don't have it).
I don't really know what a codec is, but it doesn't seem to affect the sound quality out of my speakers, so it doesn't really matter to me. As for the iPod, 6-8 hours is fine, especially given to how much I've used it (back when I purchased it it had about 15 hours run time).

I guess what I'm saying is in response to this:

HotSoup, on 22 Aug 2009, 17:03, said:

Ipod aren't all that great as far as quality as a PMP(Portable Media Player, as MP3 player is rather misleading these days) goes. Their sound quality and video quality are far under par, and they have terrible codec support, and horrible battery life, which is kind of sad considering they are the most expensive PMP's.

AJ, Itunes sucks, everyone knows it sucks. The only reason people use another media player on windows is because it sucks so badly.

Ipods aren't bad. Yes they are overhyped, and I think this is a reason why there are some people convinced they are Satan's work, but I've been extremely pleased with mine for the 4 years I've had it. Experience says: Two thumbs up.

As for iTunes, it doesn't suck. It's certainly not the best media program out there, but it's easy to use, and it gets the job done.

Edited by Ghostrider, 23 August 2009 - 03:04.

[RaiDK]

iTunes is handy when it comes to functionality, I'd agree there. I've tried using alternatives with half a bajillion plugins to match that functionality but they all come up short.

It's definatley not the best one out there, but all the functionality is there and I'm yet to see a program outmatch it there.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

HotSoup, on 23 Aug 2009, 3:35, said:

iTune's main issue is its a very annoying piece of software. Once you install it, Apple updater will annoy you constantly, it comes stocked with bonjour and Quicktime, which I don't want or need, as well as many other people.. It also runs 4 processes all the time, which is also annoying and slightly resource hogging, if you need your ram. Its codec support is highly lacking, only supporting AAC/WMA/WAV/MP3 and Apple's codecs. There is no excuse for a media player to support so few codec's, its not limited by preformance of software limitations like a PMP. However, unless you have a Media player with sound/bass enhancements like JetAudio and like(though they generally cost monies), itunes will sound exactly the same as WinAmp or VLC and like.

The thing is, 6-8 battery life hours is really, really bad. With my Cowon S9 I get 12-14 hours of video on one charge, or 35-40 hours of audio. This is with the S9's battery sucking sound/bass enhancements enabled as well, 55 hours can be achieved with better power settings.

I like my Apple Lossless, I like my aac 320kbps, although LAME 320 are ok too. I like the DAC on my iPod Touch 2nd gen, I LOVE the internal amp which drive my IEMs with no hiss like most others have done before. Oh, I love playing music for days without charging, once I had over 36hrs play time on my iPod Touch 2nd gen, and there is still 20% battery left.

Oh, I do hate all the audio 'enhacement' software bumdle with all the players, I don't freaking want megabass or anything...

Edited by ΓΛPΤΘΓ, 23 August 2009 - 09:52.

[Chyros]

Ion Cannon!, on 23 Aug 2009, 2:19, said:

Winamp is superior to iTunes how? I've used both and prefer iTunes. People keep saying how awful iTunes software is but never explain what makes it terrible. I've never had a problem with it ever and the sound quality is good enough

Okay then, here we go. iTunes consumes an insane amount of memory for a sound player and will not only slow my computer down noticeably but also used to freeze it for a few seconds while initialising. It takes a very long time to start up in the first place compared to other media players. In contrast, Winamp fires up very quickly and hardly consumes any memory at all since it's a very light player, consuming about one fifth the memory of iTunes. In fact, iTunes even consumes that much memory while idle. Furthermore iTunes can play a completely unacceptibly small amount of formats, even being unable to play OGG Vorbis files which just about every serious player and their dog can handle, let alone other common files such as FLAC, MOD, S3M, IT and any other tracker music, while Winamp is known for being able to play practically every sound format known to man including game-encrypted music files such as UMX. iTunes has IMO a very bad user-interface which is very unintuitive (I still have absolutely no idea where my mother's list of music on her iPod in her newer version of iTunes is), and has misses critical features compared to Winamp, such as key binding, global hotkeys, and the ability to rip or even convert music all by itself. In fact, if it would've been so that I couldn't change iTunes to not be the standard player anymore if I had an iPod, I wouldn't touch my iPod with a ten foot pole.

Edited by Chyros, 23 August 2009 - 10:49.

[RaiDK]

Winamp is just as bad these days, tbh. Last time I tried to install Winamp on the Win7 RC it wouldn't even run, it'd just spew errors everywhere.

Winamp's library functions are lacking compared to iTunes as well, it also can't organise your library or add album art to mp3 tags. iPod integration was just ok, nothing amazing.