I have been working to prepare a comparison of the next generation of hard drive MP3 players available to help our readers make informed choices. I welcome any reviews with products in this thread. Things are getting exciting as there is much to choose from now!

Name - W(in)- H(in) - L(in) - Wt(oz) - HD GB - Price -Codecs - Price/GB
Nomad Zen NX - 3 - 4.5 - 0.86 - 7.9 - 30 - $300 - MP3, WMA - $10
Nomad Zen - 3 - 4.4 - 0.97 - 9.5 - 20 - $300 - MP3, WMA - $15
Iriver IHP 100 - 2.3 - 4.1 - 0.75 - 5.6 - 10 - $400 - MP3, WMA - $40
Rio Karma - 2.7 - 3 - 0.9 - 5.5 - 20 - $400 - MP3, WMA, OGG - $20
RCA Lyra RD2840 - ? - ? - ? - 9.6 - 40 - $300 - MP3, MP3Pro, WMA - $7.50
Philips HDD 100 - ? - ? - 0.78 - 5.8 - 15 - $? - MP3, WMA - $?
Ipod 2 - 2.4 - 4 - 0.72 - 7.2 - 20 - $500 - MP3, AAC - $25
Ipod 3 - 2.4 - 4.1 - 0.62 - 6.2 - 30 - $500 - MP3, AAC - $16.70
Nueros - 3.1 - 5.3 - 1.3 - 9.4 - 20 - $400 - MP3 - $20
Archos Jukebox MM - 4.3 - 3.1 - 1.1 - 10.2 - 20 - MP3, AVI, DivX - $360 - $18

Links to the players:
Nomad Zen NX http://www.nomadworld.com/products/jukebox_zen_nx/
IRiver - IHP 100 http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-100.asp
Philips HDD 100 - http://www.audio.philips.com/PI/hdd.asp
Rio Karma http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/shop/_tem...odel=220&cat=56
Ipod http://www.apple.com/ipod/
Nueros http://www.neurosaudio.com/store/product.a...cookie%5Ftest=1
Archos - www.archos.com

Note: I did not list WAV and lossless codecs as options. Almost all HD players can handle WAVs. That is not a buying consideration however.

I do not understand IRiver. A great company that seems to be way off base with their pricing for the product on this one. This from the company that broke the $200 barrier on 256mb flash based players? What gives? It appears to be a great player, but not that great.

Shouldn't you also add the Archos range of HDD based players? These play video files as well as mp3 files, so they may not be a fair comparison with these other players. However they do play mp3 as well as (or better) than anything else on the market.

http://www.archos.com/

.dd.

Somehow all HD players end up getting compared to Ipod, so let's go there.
Virtually the same size (.1 wider, .05 thicker), it is lighter than Ipod., in fact the lightest one on the list.

It runs twice as long on a charge (than Ipod), has record wtih digital I/O, and FM.

I don't know whether this player requires that particular mangement software to be
installed on the host computer, but many do and NOT having that requirement is a big
feature to lots of consumers.

If it has lots of features you don't want, then it is overpriced.. but there are choices, all at
about the same price:

If you don't care about size, but want all features, get Neuros.
If you don't care about FM and record, get Karma.
If you don't care about Ogg or 20gb, get Iriver.

Too many question marks in your chart to see where Philips fits in.

Toshiba Gigabeat G20 (should be available in Europe next autumn):
- 76,5x12,7x89,5mm
- 138 g
- 20 Go
- 50000 Yens (~380 € ???)
- WAV, MP3 and WMA

Thanks for the info on Toshiba and Nueros - if you have links I will add them.

Do people want Archos included as well? If yes, I will add it.

Regarding the iRiver player - don't get me wrong, it looks to be the best player of the bunch (not having tested the all important sound quality) when price is not considered - but is it worth $40/GB vs. and iPod at $16.70/GB or Nomad at $10/GB? That would imply its WAY better. As you can see, its virtually the same size as the others with similar features. What justifies it being 3 to 4 times as expensive per GB???

Does anyone have any reviews of these products?

For Neuros the web site is www.neurosaudio.com
and there are some links to reviews on the site.

It would be nice if the Iriver had more space, but you aren't buying a hard drive, you are buying a player and paying for features, just one of which is the disk drive. So, labling it with a linear price/GB rating is innapropriate.

You could buy a car that comes with a HD drive in the GPS navigation system and say that
the car costs too much because it comes out to $3,000 per gigabyte.

For what it's worth, HD players that can record to mp3 generally cost about $100 more than
an equivalent player without record capability. I believe just the patent fee for mp3 record (not counting any extra hardware) is over $7.00 to the manufacturer (so add markup for the importer and retailer).

FWIW, 4 or more manufacturers have concluded that $400 is about as high as they can go on suggested price, and they have made different priority decisions about to pack in to their box until they reach that ceiling.

If the features are dramatically different - then YES, I agree. That is my question. Based on everything I have gathered, little seperates iRiver from the iPod or the Zen NX. Why then is it so much mor eexpensive per GB? If its the recorder, then that makes sense. Then one must ask, is an extra $100 for a recorder worth it? For me - absolutely not. However, its each person's own decision.

I added 2 players to the comparison

Or you could take a shift of view... why does the Ipod cost over $60 per hour of battery life compared to only $25/hour for the Iriver?

THe Zen has almost as much battery life, but is bigger and heavier.

I don't know if you can load the Iriver without their software on the host PC but that's the direction they recently went with their flash player, and that is important for a lot of users,
either because they do not own the host computer (and aren't allowed to install software on it) or the host isn't running WIndows.. or down the road the latest windows won't run the company's host software.

Well, not much action here. the good news, i found a site dedicated JUST to this topic!!! http://www.dapreview.com/ Its got reviews and comparisons and photos and more.

I bouth the Nomad Zen NX 30GB. It sounded great! Felt cheap. I took it back. I've been debating b/t the original Zen, the 'new' iPod, and the Rio Karma. I think I am going to go with the Rio. It has the size advantage of the iPod, but not the AAC tagging issues. It also supports WMA and OGG, both which I am partial to for portable use. I especially find that WMA has a richer, warmer sound than MP3 (yes, even LAME APS MP3s), although WMA chokes on some of the high notes, (the sssss's slur and guitar solos can be watery). WMA has rich, full bass.

Anyway, my sports portable is a Rio, which keeps me to one system for transporting portable audio, as I am sure Sveta will support the new Karma.

This is complete nonsense.

Not only that, but you've now joined the happy ranks of users breaking rule #8 of this forum. I'm really continually surprised at how much this continues to happen despite the constant discussion about the matter.

Consider this a warning.

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



According to the iRiver FAQ, the IHP-100 apparently can record between 40-320 kbps. 320kbps mp3 recording is going to be quite usable for making live recordings. Add to this the battery life (claimed 16 hours) and size&weight of the player, and the price seems much more reasonable.

This is about the only review I have seen of the iRiver so far, if it is of any use to you

http://gear.ign.com/articles/435/435472p1.html

Cheers,

P.S. I'll be buying one, iRiver stuff is expensive but I think it's a case of "once bitten, forever smitten"

It is good stuff, they have quite a loyal following



Rule 8 below



Dibrom, give me a break. No where did I state one codec being better than another. I simply stated that I find WMA to have a richer warmer sound to MY ears. This is my conclusion after making music CDs from origin WMA and MP3 files. (If you must know, LAME APS vs. WMA9 VBR 128. The CDs in question are - Coldplay - A Rush Of Blood To the Head, Oasis - Heathen Chemistry, Stereophonics - You Gotta Go There To Come Back) On MY stereo and to MY ears, the WMA files have a fuller sound, yet less precise high notes. The MP3 files are more crisp, but do not have a rich sound. How the heck do I technically qualify how music sounds to my ears????? That's just how it sounds to me. I NEVER claimed WMA outperforms MP3. I rely on the tests performed by audiophiles in this forum. They say MP3 LAME APS far outperforms WMA and OGG at similar bit rates. I believe them. I do not dispute these facts.

I was simply making a point on the logic on why I was going to buy a Rio player vs. an iPod. For you to suggest I was making a claim that one codec is better than another is a stretch. YOU NEED TO RELAX.

And by the way, - If you still (for whatever reason) think I have made a claim about audio quality, I have now supported my statement. Therefore, I am no longer in violation of the rule.

Oh my, possibly another victim of 'WMA plays louder' bug...

I don't really think he is to blame when it's Microsoft doing the dirty work on their wmas to make them sound that way. Also, he was just stating his opinions (although I don't know if ABX would help here). Maybe there should have been a disclaimer or two about the statement being only an opinion.
Maybe the thing about louder wmas should be made into a standalone sticky...

No, no and no!

I back you up Dibrom.

This is pure and utter bias, and that simply won't be tolerated here. Now eza, that you managed to write it in a worse way that people normally do doesn't make it any better. Using such diffuse words misplaced in a sentence describing the CODEC is far from what we accept. Those kind of statements are not welcome here.
Describing the WMA CODEC as having "warmer" and "richer" - then comparing this against others is triggers TO#8.

What's going to be is simply this, don't take this too harshly. Simply understand that here you can't type out like that, especially not when wandering against the opinion and conclusion of the vast majority of the HA communities beliefs. If you'd ABX various samples and point out where WMA might grant your statement we have a quite different scenario. Understand that the fora needs moderation and needs to have a good clear standingpoint. If you stick around and try not to get too upset about this I'm sure that you will most probably feel the same way about these things after some given time.
Also keep in ming that you as a person are not the one being questioned. This is a matter of principle and staying to facts and scientific grounds.


cheers,
David

If Erza cannot express an opinion, and it didn't seem to be inflammatory to me but then again I don't come on here often, then everyone is pretty restricted in what they say aren't they?

Anyhow, I own the gen 3 iPod and I do like it. However as everyone knows the battery life is pretty poor. I would have preferred that they kept it the same size as the gen 2 and kept a bigger battery. I do like the large display and the support from the aftermarket.

As for sound quality I'll withhold my opinion for now.

You can express your opinion, just don't say it without backing it up with some ABX results.

WMA has a history of being a poor performing codec at mid-high bitrates (except at low bitrates where it deservingly has a decent reputation). Numerous ABX tests have confirmed this.

Not to mention, comparing WMA 128kbit VBR (which has not really any settings to tweak and there hasn't been exhaustive blind testing) to LAME APS (which has been tweaked to sound as perfect as possible and has been blind tested to death) is asking for it.

Not to say that you are wrong 100% of the time. I seem to remember some samples where LAME APS actually beats Musepack (the king of high bitrate lossy codecs). It is possible, however unlikely, that maybe a few WMA files sound better then LAME APS. Chances are highly unlikely though and if you don't back it up with ABX, then we won't listen.

What is probably happening here is the classic combination of WMA's habit of increasing the loudness of the file and the placebo effect. Since you didn't do blind testing, you can easily trick yourself into thinking something sounds better then the other.

I'll just make a few quick points here:

1. The main problem is that your statements are completely subjective and misleading, and you offer nothing at all to back them up:

a) You haven't shown that you can ever hear a difference between an MP3 and WMA file of comparable bitrate/quality modes/whatever
b) You haven't shown that you can hear the difference between an original sample and either of these formats
c) You haven't given any examples of where these supposed differences are noticeable or can be found
d) You haven't qualified what "richer" and "warmer" mean in a technical or objective sense, making any sort of comparison by a 3rd party absolutely useless.

2. This rule has been a defining part of this community from the beginning, and is non-negotiable. There is no reason for someone with 100+ posts to blatantly ignore it.

3. Hydrogenaudio is supposed to be an objectively minded community that relies on double-blind testing and relevant and valid methods of comparison in discussion to relate modes of perception. The current "audiophile" speak of non-audio related terms which are completely subjective and open to redefinition on a whim, are utterly useless for any sort of progression in discussion. This is not OK on any level here (even a relatively "harmless" case like this) because if it is allowable in some cases, then it doesn't make sense to try and disallow it in others, and it just ends up making the job of the staff more difficult.

4. There are other communities which are specifically in favor of these kinds of subjective, non-critical, and opinionated accounts, and Hydrogenaudio is not one of them. If you don't like it, post somewhere else. You might try rec.audio.opinion or Head-Fi, or any of those types.

Jesus Christ... its not like he was shamelessly trolling or instigating a codec holy-war. He just simply stated that he prefers WMA over MP3 to explain why he chose the MP3 player he uses. Why the hell should that be against the rules?

...Imagine going to a general car forum, ran by a Ford owner and getting banned for not "OMG BACKING EVERY STATEMENT MADE WITH EXTENSIVE CAR-PREFERENCE-PERFORMANCE TESTS" for casually saying you perfer Chevy over Ford.

This isn't cars, this is audio. As well this isn't supposed to be a 'general audio forum' like your 'general car forum' this is a scientific community here to further the development of digital audio compression. If he wanted to make that statment he could have either:

a. Provided ABX results or
b. Not mentioned his 'warm fuzzy feelings' about WMA

I think its pretty simple, choose a or b, or shut up.

There is another HDD player to be mentioned:

Philips HDD-100 ... 15 GB, very exclusive I-Pod-Like design, very lightweight (167 g due to a Magnesium casing) and way too expensive for my taste (it is even more expensive than a 15 GB IPOD ...)

Take a look at the high-res picture:

http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/h/hdd100_...0_00_ihr_de.jpg

Product page:

http://www.consumer.philips.com/global/b2c...uctId=HDD100_00

Greetz

JL

Jesus ... I should go to bed ... seems I just overread the first post due to some major discussion about "warm and fuzzy wma sound" ... sorry guys ...

but it's still up to certain point subjective.

For example there are some samples where I can ABX both Lame 3.90.3 APS and Vorbis q 5, but the artifacts in the vorbis version are more pleasant to my ears. If I can ABX both it sort of comes down to personal preference and sensitivity, doesn't it?



Note:
But I have WMA, and yes I have ABXed it against the originals, it's got a kind of metallic sound.

Edit: Sorry it was Vorbis q 5

Hmm... I think we shouldn't be so aggressive about this.
I agree that Ezra's post the way it was written was blatantly against TOS#8, and probably it should have been pointed out, however, I think one could see that it was not his (her?) intention to make an unsupported statement about codec quality.
It is widely recognized in this forum that certain codecs can add some "colour" to the encodings, making files sound "Vorbish", "MP3ish" or "WMAish", especially at lower bitrates. The sound is probably not easy to describe in objective words, and so people recur to using subjective words like "warm", "full" or "rich" to describe it. This, of course, is of no use when trying to make progress in a discussion about quality or a technical one, and should be avoided at all costs; however, Ezra wasn't making a claim of this type, s/he was merely justifying his/her choice of portable hardware, which doesn't require any 3rd party confirmation.
Is it so difficult to believe that s/he can hear artifacts in WMA VBR 128? I don't think so. If you are still skeptical, you can ask whether s/he is able to ABX it vs. the original or LAME APS. If s/he is (which isn't unlikely), can you blame him/her for liking the sound that WMA produces?? S/He never claimed that WMA is more transparent than LAME (which would be hard to believe and would require hard proof); only that WMA sounded "warmer/richer/fuller" than MP3 (and than the original, probably) to his/her ears.


Asking for ABX results for something like this is absurd; the only thing that ABX can do is to make sure if you can hear a difference between two samples or not. Once it is established that there is a difference, ABX is useless to determine the quality of the encoding, unless it is so subtle to make ABXing difficult and get results like 12/15. If the issue is about "warmness" or "fullness", ABX can't say anything about it.


I understand that this is a community with scientific views on audio compression, what makes it different from other forums and that's precisely like about it; nevertheless, I think there should also be room and tolerance for the expression of opinions and preferences (as long as it is clear that they are only that, which wasn't obvious enough in Ezra's case), since not everything can be objective. If it were, then everyone would be using only one or two codecs, yet there is no absolute consensus on the format (or settings!) of choice for everyone. Some prefer lossless (in its many flavours), others MPC, AAC or Vorbis. Some even still use MP3 (or WMA!) as their favourite format even if it is well established that they are inferior to others. The reason for this, is the heterogeneity in people's preferences, which are probably non-objective in many cases. Is the warm fuzzy feeling of a GNU licence an objective reason if you can just as easily use MPC or AAC for personal use? Is it objective to prefer using MPC --braindead for your encodings when you cannot even ABX --standard? This kind of attitudes are usually well tolerated; why can't someone liking WMA's sound be tolerated too?

~Dologan

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.

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.

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.

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.





... 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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

Edit: typos, etc.

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.

FYI: WMA thread here (with test). Everyone interested is invited to continue WMA (quality) disussion there to keep this thread on topic.

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.

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).




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




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



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.

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...

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

Things like this are my reason for hostility against WMA.

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.

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.

(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.]

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.

lets get back on topic please...

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



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



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.




Again, see MP3Pro and AAC.



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



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.



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.

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.

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.

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

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. ?

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.