MP3 Player recommendation

[t0rek]

I'm planning to buy a new MP3 player, a simple and little one. I'm not interested in video playback, just wanna have a very compact thing to play my music. So far I looked into these two:

Creative Zen Nano Plus (http://www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=213&subcategory=214&product=12720)

Sandisk Sansa Express (http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1226)-SanDisk_Sansa_Express_MP3_Players.aspx)

But I haven't decided yet. Which one do you think is better? Any other good recommendations?

[smcd]

Between the 2 I would recommend the SanDisk. Features are about the same, but the SanDisk allows for MicroSD expansion memory so you can carry even more music. (about $10 a gb for these at newegg)

[Doomulation]

Yes, either that or a phone with AAC playback ;)

[t0rek]

AAC? Yarr, I'm a pirate with a ship filled with my precious MP3s. OGG, AAC, nothing... :P

[Falcon4ever]

iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod iPod nano

[smcd]

falcon4ever: you stereotypical mainstream consumer whore! :P On a serious note, iPod are considerably more expensive than the 2 models he posted (excluding shuffle) they aren't horrible though if you don't mind dropping $20 - 300 more for a music player.

[BlueFalcon7]

Zune!

I personally like the Zune better than the iPod. I didn't like the iPod ever since they made the video models. They just seem too... flat.

Between the 2 you linked to, I would say ScanDisk, though you are probably going to get better sound quality with the creAtive one.

[thepreserver]

The Insignia MP4 player has given me great results, and even has 2 headphone ports! But recently, I have been glancing at the iPod nano...fine piece of hardware!

[t0rek]

I don't want to spent more than $60 in the thing.... No video... BTW if if I have money I won't buy an iPod nor a Zune. I would go for a Creative Zen Vision, but those babies are expensive

[Toasty]

I think I would also go with the SanDisk. Same reason as sethmcdoogle pointed out.

[JKKDARK]

I use my PSP :matrix:

[t0rek]

UPDATE:

A friend from Minessota, bought me the Sansa Express, and I just got it here. It's great, but I'm still unable to update the firmware...

Edit: I just updated the firmware, this player rocks, thank you for the advice guys! :)

[Doomulation]

$80 for an MP3 player? I'm disgusted :plain:
Anyhow, WHY the mp3 player, why oh why not an AAC player? So much more for your money.

[t0rek]

$80? It was $56 for me. Where did you got that price? And why you have all that hype for the AAC format? I don't even have one AAC file so I don't need it. I rip my CDs @ 225 VBR MP3

[Doomulation]

$80? It was $56 for me. Where did you got that price?
From the post in the first post... $79.99.


And why you have all that hype for the AAC format? I don't even have one AAC file so I don't need it. I rip my CDs @ 225 VBR MP3

Because it is superb. On a 1 GB memory card, I have currently 1700-1800 songs and still 25% free. It sounds terrific at low bitrates as 24 or 32. AAC is easy to convert to. Why use oversized MP3 files when you can use state-of-the-art compression for free?

Btw, FYI I didn't mean to sound I was disgusted at your purchase (I wasn't and I'm not, because it's your money, not mine ;)), but spending $80 at a poor player using a decade old format when you can use state-of-the-art format for the same or a little more.

[General Plot]

For something that wasn't specifically designed for music, this lil baby does a damn fine job of it.:D


http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9922/pspmp3ii7.jpg

[t0rek]

From the post in the first post... $79.99.



Because it is superb. On a 1 GB memory card, I have currently 1700-1800 songs and still 25% free. It sounds terrific at low bitrates as 24 or 32. AAC is easy to convert to. Why use oversized MP3 files when you can use state-of-the-art compression for free?

Btw, FYI I didn't mean to sound I was disgusted at your purchase (I wasn't and I'm not, because it's your money, not mine ;)), but spending $80 at a poor player using a decade old format when you can use state-of-the-art format for the same or a little more.

Well I already said it was $56 for me, maybe they haven't updated the reference price. I know that AAC sounds better than MP3 at 128, but terrific at 24 or 32? Well I just don't think so, you sound like those iTunes fans, that defend AAC all the way against MP3, and the weird thing is that you are not an iPod / iTunes fan. I pretty understand your concerns with very high bitrates, hell for some people 128 is good enough, and I know that AAC beats MP3 there, but 32/24 bitrates sound ridiculous to me...

[Toasty]

Yeah, I agree. IMHO, while 32 kbps AAC is certainly better than 32 kbps MP3, I wouldn't consider it anywhere near "terrific". The artifacts are painfully obvious at such a low rate and make most content much less enjoyable, at least to me. I suppose it's a fairly subjective matter though.

[cooliscool]

For something that wasn't specifically designed for music, this lil baby does a damn fine job of it.:D

Just too bad it sucks at everything else. Sold mine, couldn't be happier without it. :)

[Doomulation]

Yeah, I agree. IMHO, while 32 kbps AAC is certainly better than 32 kbps MP3, I wouldn't consider it anywhere near "terrific". The artifacts are painfully obvious at such a low rate and make most content much less enjoyable, at least to me. I suppose it's a fairly subjective matter though.

HE-AAC + PS @ 32/24 sounds terrific to me. Can't hear a thing compared to the original. Should I provide samples?

[t0rek]

Yes please provide them. Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.

Anyhow, read this stuff:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html


The first (obvious) conclusion is: No codec delivers the marketing plot of same quality as MP3 at half the bitrates.

Consider that this conclusion came by comparing HE-AAC @ 64 with LAME MP3 @ 128. If HE-AAC @ 64 doesn't have the same quality as MP3 @ 128, how would you explain a HE-AAC bitrate offering superior quality? sorry, but you are satisfied with very low bitrates / sound quality, and that's fine if you prefer it that way.

[General Plot]

Just too bad it sucks at everything else. Sold mine, couldn't be happier without it. :)
Dunno, now that we have full res video capability, if converted right, videos look downright crisp on it. Games are beginning to get better as well. In any event, I'm not letting go of mine any time soon.:P

[Toasty]

Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.
Or he could just use a public domain song. ;)

[JKKDARK]

Games are beginning to get better as well.

http://209.85.12.234/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

http://media.ign.com/games/image/object/879/879524/hotbrain_PSPBOX_USboxart_160w.jpg

[General Plot]

http://209.85.12.234/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

http://media.ign.com/games/image/object/879/879524/hotbrain_PSPBOX_USboxart_160w.jpg
Need I remind you?:plain:

http://psp.ign.com/objects/711/711340.html
http://pspmedia.ign.com/psp/image/article/734/734404/crisis-core-final-fantasy-vii-20060922035602717.jpg

[Doomulation]

Yes please provide them. Please rip some seconds of one song of your CDs, one in HE-AAC + PS @ 32 and the same seconds in LAME MP3 CBR @ 128. Not the whole song because of the copyright stuff and forum rules, you know.
I'll provide some samples. Unfortunately, I have not any CDs around and all currently uncoverted MP3s are at highest 128 kbps, but I could try to find some mp3s from the web. Otherwise, anyone is free to donate a sample, of course.


Anyhow, read this stuff:

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html
3 notes:

1) Page is old (it dates from 2004!)
2) All codecs deliver not the same quality.
3) I use Winamp's AAC encoder, not Ahead's.


Consider that this conclusion came by comparing HE-AAC @ 64 with LAME MP3 @ 128. If HE-AAC @ 64 doesn't have the same quality as MP3 @ 128, how would you explain a HE-AAC bitrate offering superior quality? sorry, but you are satisfied with very low bitrates / sound quality, and that's fine if you prefer it that way.

See above.

[t0rek]

So you are telling me that in 3 years they have improved the codec so much that now is like 2 or 3 times better? Don't think so. And of course another codec version will have different quality, but it's not such a giant margin...

UPDATE: Since I use Winamp too and Winamp uses LAME MP3 coder I'll make the test just for reference purposes.

The test:

"In my Place" by Coldplay will be ripped using Winamp 5.35 in the following formats:

LAME MP3 @ 128 CBR = Size 3,49 Mb
HE-AAC @ 32 = Size 919 Kb
HE-AAC @ 24 = Size 691 Kb

The files are inside the 7Zip file attachment, I used no compression, so it's just a container for this purpose.

So now, the ET jury will give a veredict

[smcd]

I for one can tell a difference between the files, even between the 24 and 32 bitrate... the highs and mid range sounds suffer a great deal.

[Toasty]

Ditto. Stereo separation also seems to take a hit in both the low-bitrate encodes.

[Doomulation]

So you are telling me that in 3 years they have improved the codec so much that now is like 2 or 3 times better? Don't think so. And of course another codec version will have different quality, but it's not such a giant margin...
Compression is a difficult thing... don't judge it too harshly. Testing is always the best option.


So now, the ET jury will give a veredict
I'll listen to your encodes and give you my verdict a little later when it's done. Just to check, but you DID use Parametric Stereo, right?

EDIT: Verdict is in. Your encodes sound "slightly" different. I could hear a slight problem at the "long" @ about 42 seconds in the song. Very, very subtle. HOWEVER, I took the liberty of compressing your MP3 myself and I couldn't hear a difference! So, here, I attach these files, 32 and 24. What's your verdict, EmuTalk buddies? :)

[Trotterwatch]

Ok, I can easily tell the difference with t0reks one (blind test).

The 24/32 ones were horrible.

Doomulation, your ones were slightly better but I'm sorry no way is that of a quality I'd be happy to listen to. Maybe if you are using very cheap speakers, but using decent headphones makes it unpleasant to say the least. Seems to clip a lot.

Maybe a trip to the Doctors to get your earwax removed is in order? :D

/Edit

My blind testing method was to create an empty Winamp playlist, put the 3 tracks in and then tap the skip track key a number of times so I didn't know which track was which. I then listened and noted what I thought. After that I skipped 1 track at a time.

I then did the same for yours.

[Doomulation]

You're too picky :P
I'm using a laptop with high-quality headphones myself, so... But my desktop speakers make it sound terrific too. They can even transform 56 kbps MP3 to terrific quality. Must be the sound card. Maybe the speakers too. They're both high quality I believe...
Anyway, is there any specific part that you found horrible or everything?
Btw, clip? What exactly is this "clip" effect? Can you describe it because I'm not sure I understand what it is. Maybe you could also point out WHERE the clipping effect occours.

EDIT: Two more files for you to listen to, if you're interested. 40/48 kbps, HE-AAC + PS
Also, one file, 56 kbps NO Parametric Stereo.

[t0rek]

MMM, I have no experience with AAC, so I didn't use the Parametric Stereo thing (is that something like Joint Stereo thing in MP3?), so I'm gonna rip them from the CD again and post them here. No point in using Doom files, you lose a bit of quality in any recomprenssion,they will sound better ripped from the original CD in theory, so here they are the files with the parametric stereo thing.

EDIT: Hey you talked about 32/24 first, and now you are talking about higher bitrate. If you use 64 HE-AAC it will be ALMOST the same as LAME MP3 @ 128 CBR. I even admit that

[Toasty]

@Doom: Your encodes did sound better than t0rek's, but I can still easily see (or hear, rather) that details have been lost, even in the 48kbps and 56kbps encodes. A blind test confirmed this with me as well. I will admit I'm impressed with how well AAC performs at low bitrates, but unless I was in a car with bad speakers and a lot of road noise, I still don't think I'd find those encodes acceptable. Like I said before though, how "good" an encoded file is depends on the listener. If you find 32kbps AAC acceptable, more power to you - you're lucky to not have to buy as much storage space for music!

EDIT: Will have to listen to t0rek's newest encodes later.

[t0rek]

Added more files, the same bitrates Doom just posted, except this ones are ripped out right from the CD.

[Trotterwatch]

Anyway, is there any specific part that you found horrible or everything?
Btw, clip? What exactly is this "clip" effect? Can you describe it because I'm not sure I understand what it is. Maybe you could also point out WHERE the clipping effect occours.

The sound isn't rich, it sounds very shallow and tinny, their is no depth at all to it. There are sounds that just seem cut off in frequency, and the whole thing is distorted and noisy. I'd listen to it in the absence of any other versions (like if it were a leak) but I'd be replacing it ASAP.

There are occasions when this isn't a bad thing. I had a leeked Oasis album once (Heathen Chemistry), 64kbs WMA which normally would sound awful, but I liked it. When it came out I picked up the CD and thought it was crap - too clean. The low bitrate WMA file was a bit grittier.

t0rek, the other files you just posted the 56 Stereo one was the best for me, a tiny bit more full sounding.

Generally I rip at 192vbr. Recently I've started converting some of the .flac files I have on my HD to v0 MP3 or 192vbr, as their isn't any discernible difference to me.

[t0rek]

I also rip MP3s @ 192 VBR and 225 VBR according to the stuff. 64 HE-AAC is supossed to sound almost like MP3 @ 128 CBR.

EDIT: So it seems that everybody notice the difference Doom, but if you are comfortable with that is your choice.

Back on topic, according to Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Hardware

...only a few players other than the iPod read AAC. It might be others around, but who knows. Also there's a Sansa model that reads AAC with an updated firmware, if I am lucky I might get AAC playback with a new firmware, who knows.

BTW which AAC player do you use Doom?

[Doomulation]

Well, let's find the sweetspot then, 'cuz I'm really interested in what you all find the sweetspot with AAC. I stand by that HE-AAC + PS @ 32/24 sounds perfect to me, but that seems just me. I don't have the original, so all I can do is do a lossy re-encode. If SOMEONE would provide me with the original, I can use it for re-compressing!

What is PS you ask? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo
Which AAC player do I use, you ask? Nokia 6131.

HE-AAC also further somewhat degrades the sound, so perhaps we should try LC-AAC. You may yet find good music at low bitrates ;)

EDIT: Listening test. Who wants to participate?
http://www.eluni.net/temp/We Built This City Listening Test.7z
File contains an original MP3 @ 320 kbps plus HE-AAC + PS @ 24-72 kbps, HE-AAC only (no PS) @ 24-72 and last, LC-AAC @ 24-104 kbps.
Let me know the results of the encodings. All encodings were done with Winamp's encoder, though LC-AAC was done through BeHappy.
Discalimer: I am in no way responsible for what you do with these files. They are provided here by me for LISTENING TEST ONLY. All other uses are done at your own risk.

[t0rek]

hey hey... the original is in the CD, how can I let you have it? sending you a WAV file? that will be crazy.

mmm, it seems that parametric stereo thing is like an improved MP3's Joint Stereo thing

[Doomulation]

hey hey... the original is in the CD, how can I let you have it? sending you a WAV file? that will be crazy.

You could rip it and compress it via lossless...
Though so again, it is not necessary... unless you absolutely want to, that is.

[t0rek]

anyway, my samples were made with Winamp 5.35, and I was following your procedures (parametric stereo) so there's nothing to worry about ;)

[Cyberman]

Try FLAC for lossless compression if you wish to send an EXACT copy. It will compress to at least 1/2 the size of a full track (20-50M) so that makes it (10-25M) maybe less.

[Toasty]

Monkey's Audio (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/) is also another lossless option. In my experience it performs a little better than FLAC in terms of file size reduction, but I'm sure it depends on the source material.

[Doomulation]

Just a thought here... but quality can be impaired with the use of a incorrect decoder.
Does everyone use ffdshow with AAC decoding set to libfaad2? If not, you should try that and listen again!
Since HE-AAC + PS actually strips high frequencies and stereo channels, you get a mono 24 KHz file, which will be decoded as 48 KHz, Stereo if a proper decoder is used.