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

Sandisk Sansa Express

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...

 

[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! 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 lain:
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.

 

[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.

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?