iPod or Zen?
 

My sister is thinking of buying me a portable media player. The choices are:

- Apple iPod Video (30gb)
- Creative Zen Vision:M

I think that the Zen is a bit better than the iPod cuz of the video quality and battery life, but i dont know which one to choose. Any one know which one would be best?

Well, my experiences with Creative protable media players have been a little poor. It seems as thought Creative's products just somtimes like to screw with you. My ol' Zen seemed fit to have its drivers not work on first installation, so that wasn't quite a great first impression.

Now, I also own an iPod Mini 6gb, which works quite well. Installation was a breeze, and iTunes really is a fantastic program, once you learn to use it fully. The best part about an iPod, in my opinion, really is the compatibility with iTunes.

I would say Zen all the way. I have a Zen Touch 40GB player, 24-hour battery life, 96dB SNR, sturdy built, replaceable battery, beats iPod in every possible way. Plus the Zen Vision M has won numerous awards, you'll love it, it's an amazing player.

Double Post:
Prosthetic, do you have any idea what quality is? All my friends have iPods, nearly all of them had serious issues with it, they broke, won't shutoff, dead battery, you name it. I'm sorry but you sound awefully like an typical Apple zealot.

I had to return two video iPods before I finally went with the Vision:M. The first iPod had a broken button, and the second one had a bunch of dead pixels.

My Vision:M is pretty great, and I have not had any problems with it so far.

So basically, go with an iPod if you want access to a ridiculous amount of accessories, better and easier access to customer support, if you really enjoy iTunes, and to be part of the crowd. Everyone has an iPod, and they are definitely more fashionable and better looking than the Vision:M. Go with a Vision:M if you are an audio nut, want to have a better screen, and you like being different.

Vision:M pretty much wins when it comes to performance in my opinion.

A fifth generation iPod with Rockbox installed is where it's at, in my opinion.

I've heard some of the iRiver products are very, very good as well. Some of them also have Rockbox builds made for them.

I've noticed that a lot of the people who complain about iPod problems purchased their 'pods from 3rd-party retailers. I have a 4G 60GB colour iPod that I ordered straight from Apple and it's given me no trouble at all. I got my brother a 5G 30GB and he's had no trouble either.

I'd say that whatever route you take, if you do go with iPod, get it straight from Apple or a brick-and-mortar Apple Store. Not sure what Best Buy and the like do with their merchandise, but it seems to me like it sees a bit of manhandling.

Actually, all my friends got their iPods from Apple. However, if you talk about quality, it still has to go to Creative, Creative's players beats iPod's battery life by at least 2 fold, in my case, 3 fold. Creative players have really high sound quality, usually at least 94dB SNR or above, after all, Creative is the one that's the leader in audio products, not Apple, and I wonder why Apple didn't list SNR in their specs (maybe cuz they are nowhere near Creative players?). Next structural integrity, I have dropped my Zen numerous times on hard floor from about 1m above the ground, and it's still going strong, iPods on the other hand, is an entirely different story. I could give you more and more facts, but you get the idea. People buy the iPod just to say they have an iPod, it's like fashion, people buy Creative cuz they want a good and reliable player, oh and did I mention about the price, Creative players are much cheaper than iPods. After all, if you want an iPod so you can show it off (well I guess it won't be much of a show off since everybody has an iPod) then by all means go with the iPod, but if you want a high quality player that's going to last, then go with Creative, it won't burn a hole in your wallet too.

For the record I have dropped my iPod multiple times, and it has yet to break. Also, installing Rockbox lowered the noise floor significantly. I can turn the volume almost all the way up without hearing any hiss at all, and there isn't any hiss whatsoever at normal listening volumes. Although batterly life is somewhat shortened with the iPod version of Rockbox, it has been lengthened with other builds for other players. We're (that is, the audiophile community) hoping that future builds will actually improve iPod battery life.

I purchased my iPod at an Apple store.

I bought my Vision:M from Best Buy.

If we are going by performance/quality, Vision:M wins hands down. There is no debate about that.

The question here is which MP3 players best suits your needs and which one makes you feel the most comfortable. If Rockbox is really important to people, then obviously the iPod is the best choice. But I feel that the Vision:M has a little bit more to offer than the iPod.

What is Rockbox?

Alternative firmware for various DAPs.

One of the more recent developments with the project was getting it working on iPods.

I don't know exactly what improvements it has are, to be honest, though.

It is a replacement OS for the iPod (And others). It has all sorts of nice features, like file-tree based browsing, a 5-band fully parametric equalizer, support for OGG, FLAC, Wavepack, and MPC files, a really nice crossfeed effect, fully skinnable with themes, and a lot more.

You also don't have to use iTunes anymore (yes!). Just create the directory on your iPod and drag the files there. That is the primary reason I installed Rockbox on my iPod. I have always hated iTunes and the ID3-tag based navigation system that the iPod uses. Now, I can organize my files exactly the way I want them. That, and the MPC support. (Most of my own music is encoded in MPC.)

The only real drawback is that battery life is a bit lower than it normally would be, but I haven't had any problems, and I am confident this will be fixed as new builds are released.

Personally, I would say go get a Samsung or an iAudio mp3 player as I have found both vastly superior to the iPod. However, if I had to choose between a iPod or a Zen, I'd go with the Zen since it offers more features and is cheaper as well. The only reason I would get an iPod is if I wanted to listen to FLAC, in which case I would go for the iPod with Rockbox (but the iAudio X5 can also be upgraded with Rockbox which is even better).

But those dont go up to 30 gb do they?

Thanks for the tips guys. I guess im gonna get a Vision:m after all. I think 80% of my friends own an iPod now lol.

I really like that the zen can play radio and record it and also record voice. Also its bit cheaper than the iPod.

Well, I'm not sure about Samsung (I've only listened to their flash players), but iAudio definitely does. In any case, the Creative Zen Vision:M is still a great player and I'm pretty sure you won't regret buying it.

People buy the IPod for the same reason they by Budweiser - its the name, not the quality.

I have had several friends who've had many IPods between them. Obviously, some of them were abusive towards their MP3 players but some were not.

Ive heard some great things about the Zen as well as the Iriver. Id stick with those options before buying Apple crap.

Part of its the name, Lehah is right, part of it is the trend, but part of it is the "sleek" look. I mean the iPod does make the Vision:M look like a turd. The other thing is people like simple, which iTunes and iPod provide in spades.

I had a Creative Jukebox 3 for about 4 years. Replaced the hard drive on it once, but it died recently because of a cracked LCD screen ;(. What can you do. So I'm gonna be in the market shortly. I've been thinking iPod, but not too sure yet. I'm not a big fan of Creative these days. I just havent been pleased with their products as of late.

I really wish there was a good music portable like the jukebox that could record line in. That feature alone made that jukebox worth it.

I have an iRiver H10 5GB MP3 player. It has a removable, rechargable battery and it doesn't need any programs like iTunes or anything like it to import songs onto the MP3 player. That's the only thing i like about it. You can just drag and drop your songs onto it.

Oh forgot...

If you want to spring for it the Archos AV500 is supposedly the shit. It has 4.5+ hours of video playback. You can buy it on newegg for about $400 with a 100GB harddrive. It also records video or audio via line-in.

Boy, it's a good thing all modern Creative players support drag and drop through Windows Explorer, which is the simplest method of putting music on to a device.

Strike for iTunes.

In before comments about Apple stealing Creative's Interface ideas.

Personally I'll be purchasing a Toshiba Gigabeat S60. It runs Windows Media Mobile 5 and just looks like an awesome player. iPods are total shit and I refuse to buy one, and besides waiting for the Zune, this is my only real option since Creative players don't really have 60GB models and Archos' are very expensive.

Anything But iPod Gigabeat review
CNet Review

Its the top rated MP3 player on Cnet right now, scoring in at 8.3; higher than the iPod and top Creative players in its market. The only con is that it lacks a drag-and-drop interface and requires WMP9, but that can be worked around I'm sure, or at least might be fixed in future firmware releases.

Gigabeat doesn't work on Windows XP SP2. What is that all about? Seriously, what were they thinking?

I've been putting off getting a mp3 player for a long time and I really think I'd get a Creative product. I don't like iTunes and I don't like Apples playlist shenanigans. I just want to drag and drop my shit, hook it up to my car stereo, and jet. Creative has price, space, and battery life on their size. The only advantage I see with the ipod is if you rockbox it so you can play flac, mpc, and other shit on it. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to do it to Creative's products and that becomes a null factor.

I probably still won't get one for a while but it's something that's always on my mind.

Yeah and iTunes is hard to get stuff on your iPod, you connect it and it syncs. End of story.

I'm not an iPod pimp or anything, but the reason people love it is that they only have to mess with iTunes... The iPod works based off what is in iTunes. The average joe doesn't want to leave some songs on the iPod and some off, blah blah blah. He wants his music easy to play in his hand. And that is what iPod/iTunes is good at. And for Apple ripping you off for DRM crap, but thats another story.

I prefer more control, that is why I had a Jukebox 3 for as long as I did. I know when I get something, I'd prefer it to have line-in recording. Unfortunately, there aren't many of those. So I'll have to look at higher end stuff.

Course, I could get this!

iAudio over iPod anytime.

At least for me. I don't want an iPod, I want an MP3player. Given that the 'pod is nothing but a fashion statement these days when there really are vastly superior players around.

I checked out reviews of the Vision:M - it's really thick. Ugh. While I prefer it's extended battery life to that of my iPod Video, I think that I still would have bought the iPod had the Vision: M been out at the same time due to the thickness.

Storm Petrel doesn't have any friends does he?

Anyway my family and I have been using Apple products for the past 17 years now and the only issues we've ever had was a power supply that died in an old SE after 8 years and dead pixel on Dad's old Titanium Powerbook G3. I swear all these alledged iPod problems are some kind of slander campaign.


News: Apple have awesome customer support. If in the unlikely event of your iPod being faulty, they will fix or replace it.

How would Apple dominate the mp3 market by so much for being crap?

[quote]I bestow Merv with the blue ribbon for winning the race noone was running in. Three cheers for the champion!

Reminds me of a song.

"Everything Zen
Everything Zen
I don't think so"

I still don't understand, is a couple more millimeters of thickness going to kill you? And not only does the Zen have a much longer battery life, remember the audio quality, it's always going to superior to that of the iPods.

News: Apple will replace your IPod with a refurbished IPod that is not yours and will not have your music on it.

News: Apple has come under fire for the life of the batteries used in IPods. Yes, people don't know how to properly charge anything - an IPod, a cellphone, whatever - but this means that Apple should either...

A.) Support a more customer friendly stance where the customer can replace the battery without sending the unit in

B.) Make a battery that supports stupid customers

News: IPods are a single answer to a larger problem - portable MP3 music. Odds are that there are better products - and worse - out there.

Synching is very retarded if you have a music collection larger than what your player can hold.

"HEY YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS COOL NEW MUSIC. OH IT DOESN'T FIT :("

Highly unlikely in this case, but it's possible in many other cases.

Drag and drop gives a lot more control over what actually goes on your player, while syching is for convenience.

Personally, I'd rather have more control over convenience.

Get a life.

My sister has a Zen... and we have had a few problems with charging it and a few problems with the headphones port. Btw... are you the r1ch from bnet/dcloneirc?

It's twice as thick, or a little bit more. This will cause problems when sticking it into the pockets of my pants.

That's why I prefer control as well (which I said in the post you quoted). I have music collection that is about 30+GB so I could have this problem too. That's the biggest reason I might not get a iPod. Right now I have a work Mac, and a HTPC thats runs off custom software, no MCE Windows. I prefer the customizeability of the PC, but I love the ease of use of the Mac world too. Just need to figure out which one I like best before I buy a MP3 player.

Interestingly enough, I have an iPod, I use iTunes, and I have both syncing convenience AND control over what goes on my player. It's called "sync from playlist." Because my library's too big to fit on my 20GB iPod, I have a playlist which contains all the songs I want on it. If I want to remove some, I take them off the playlist. If I want to add others, I put them on. I plug in the iPod, it takes care of the rest. It's the perfect compromise: I get to control exactly what goes on my iPod, but I keep the ID3 navigation (far superior, in my opinion) and metadata syncing (playcounts, ratings, etc.).

To the OP: basically it boils down to what you want. If you want easy, simple music playback and loads of accessory options, go with the iPod. If you want more format support and don't care about sleekness/style, go with something else.

As to the iPod's reliability, I think the main reason you hear so many more complaints on the Internet about the iPod than you did three years ago when I bought mine is that there are simply a fuckton more of them out there. When I bought mine, Apple was moving 250,000 a quarter. Now they're selling 8 million in regular quarters and 14 million in the holiday quarter. That's a lot more players that can break if mistreated or manufactured badly. Out of all the friends I have who have bought iPods, I only know two who've had consistent trouble. So I wouldn't worry about the iPod from a quality front, and besides, if something's wrong with yours within warranty, Apple will replace it.

Care to back that up with proof? Seperating player's nowadays based on audio quality i ridiculous. They all perform equally good in that department.
If it was a couple of years ago, you could have gotten away with that statement, nowadays, no way.

Anyway, I have a 5G Ipod with Rockbox installed and it has worked wonders for me. Very satisfied. I mainly use it to listen to my audio format which is flac. Furthermore, hooking it up with a nice pair of UE super fi 5 pro's and a Emmeline SR-71 like i have and you've got yourself a killer combo.

What Merv is saying is true. It's a bitch when you have more music than can possibly fit on your iPod.

I have a Zen and the only problems I've had is I bought a sony USB/AC charger and it's a piece of shit but that's Best Buy's fault. And when I tried to charge it on my new notebook I forgot to install in the software... my fault. I've dropped it numerous times and it's ok. My friend has an iPod Shuffle... no problems. I'd go with Zen for one reason- price. iPod is popular for the name... and (like anything with Disney on it) it's expensive because it's iPod. I got my 5gb Zen for 120$ I regret not getting a bigger one for 160. Sure you can fine iPod accessories everywhere, but they are expensive and you can get Zen stuff off their site. (which I shoulda done with my AC adapter)

For me, iTunes is actually the biggest reason to stay away from iPods. As others have already mentioned, if you're used to transfer files on your computer via drag & drop or copy & paste and organize them in folders, the restrictive database management of iTunes will prove very bulky.

I know there are solutions to bypass iTunes and make an iPod "mass storage"-compatible, but these tools have to be installed on every computer you intend to use your iPod and music collection with. However, I'd prefer to just plug my MP3 player into the USB port of a computer and have it detect the thing automatically (all modern operating systems, including Linux and MaxOS support USB mass storage). That way, you can use the thing to store all sorts of files easily. From my knowledge, this is just not possible with an iPod by default.

YoMan, my proof is that Creative players have SNR of at least 96dB SNR or higher, for iPods, looks like Apple is too ashamed to list the SNR, if it's equally good, why don't they list it? Also, I don't remember an iPod as a equalizer built in, most Zen players have an built-in equalizer.

How can Bose have a reputation for high quality audio when it is almost unaminously agreed among Hi-Fi enthusiets that Bose is one of the worst speaker/headphone manufacturer out there? The answer is advertising, and shinies.

According to CNET the iPod is 0.4 inches and the Vision:M is 0.7 inches thick (even CNET wouldn't lie about that right?). And the Zen is shorter then the iPod. Unless you have some REALLY small pockets, I doubt you would have problems fitting that in your pocket.

Well, I've personally never listened to an iPod or used iTunes, but according to wikipedia (so it must be right), the iPod has problems with its bass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Bass_response

Thank you ORLY, glad to see someone who isn't an iPod zealot.

It's really not. I have about 85 GB of music and a 30 GB iPod Video. I have no problems choosing what I want to listen to and adding it to the iPod. If you have trouble deciding what to put on it, then you're going to have the same problems with other players.

I would just like to comment on the thickness of the Vision:M.

Yes, when compared to the 30GB 5th generation iPod, the Vision:M looks hideous. However, the look and thickness is really no different than previous versions of the iPod. Besides the negative aspect of not fitting in your pocket, I prefer the thickness. It handles much easier in your hand.

Don't let the thickness be a huge deterrent.

Not only that, but I never liked the looks of iPods, I think Creative players look way more interesting than the iPod, it just looks like a boring piece of brick.

It's in the way they chose to make it, not my inability to choose certain music over others. With a drag-and-drop interface it would be easy, but with the little checkmark boxes, it's damn annoying.

Also, ORLY, double the thickness would be a considerable difference, dontcha think?

That was a problem that was most present at the time of the 3G Ipod and which has since been improved in the 4G and now in the 5G. It's only applied to the headphone jack ouput, so if you were to use a true line out with pocketdock for instance this problem would be solved. Although using this method would mean no more sound control internaly inside the ipods firmware. Meaning that you would have to get an amp.

Quote from ipodlounge:

Saying that one is more superior than the other in terms of audio quality is just not right. If your buying a player today you tend to focus on other things like how many GB, price, how are you gonna use it etc etc. Cause you know that your essentially getting the same audio quality.

The bigger question is why you're limited to only Zens or iPods? In my opinion, iRivers are far superior (At least the HDD Models). You don't have to deal with annoying software for your music collection, and they support more formats than your iPods do.

personally, i have a 30 gig iPod video, and i love the thing. its my best friend, lol, not really but you know. the sound quality is awesome, the video quality is good, and theres a lot of stuff you can do with the right programs;)

Uh, like I said—sync with playlist. No checkboxes required.

If you want something on the iPod, you drag and drop it onto the playlist. If you want something off, you delete it from the playlist.

Or hell, just put it in manual mode. Drag stuff on the iPod, or just delete it off. Easy. Both methods are "drag-and-drop."

You never have to use checkboxes to determine what goes on the iPod and what stays off.

I do drag and drop with my iPod. I simply use the menu limiters at the top to limit the songs displayed by the artist, genre, album, or any combination of the three. Then it's a simple CTRL+A, a drag and a drop.

Well regarding my experience with Zentouch and an Ipod. I say I prefer the 40 gb Zen due to the superior battery life and quality. However, I still think that the Zen is crap as well. Maybe mine is old to which it starts having problem but it is still a deterrence nontheless (a year old). Has some stupid problems like the button commands changing all the time (i.e when I press the back button it sometimes thinks I am pressing the menu or...at worst...the RANDOM button). Sometimes my zen also freezes when I try to turn it off which is really annoying trying to find little pointy objects to press the restart button. Also there was a point (glad it doesn't do this anymore...) when the scroller didn't work. But yes I still enjoy my Zen Touch; how else would I be able to carry around 40gb of Eurobeat.

I decided to go with the ipod for one key reason: The 30GB Zen was not available locally and I made sure to buy a 3-year extended warranty, since I've heard how unreliable Ipods can be. As is, I'd had zero problems with it and I wish I would've gone the extra $100 for the 60GB one. Worst thing I can say about it is the bass kind of sucks, but an earphone upgrade to something in the $99 range made a world of difference. Without taking anything away from Zen and based solely on my own experience, I would recommend the iPod.

Edit: Also, AAC format is great. I can't tell the difference at between AAC at 128 kbps and mp3's at even 320. Definitely a great space saver.

Hahahaha what? I read this as you complaining that iTunes does stuff for you. You want to indiviually move and keep your music organised? Why? Using your computer shouldn't be a chore! You're holding back progress of the entire software programming industry!

I like how iTunes uses drag and drop anyway. This is going to be shocking but usually when I want to fill my measly little 1GB iPod Shuffle with songs I drag from from the Library into the iPod Shuffle icon, all within iTunes.

Yes this tricky solution is ticking the fucking box.
http://members.westnet.com.au/rbelfo...ges/ipodhd.jpg
When I want to print stuff out at uni, I just (wait for it) drag and drop them onto my unmodified iPod Shuffle and then, get this, plug it into any old windows box at uni and order it to print.

Could we be a little less pretentious for a moment?Doesn't look like it.What are we even talking about audio quality here? Remind me again, we are talking about listening to compressed digital audio, outside with shitty little headphones right?
I can't even tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC file or a vinyl record. A mate of mine who's pretty much the biggest music buff I know listens to everything as 80kbps mp3.

Because I have a system. I have been using that system for nearly a decade. It works, and I like it, and I want to use the same system with my DAP. Everything is organized in folders just the way I like it, and I'd like to have the same organization on the go, thank you. I want to be in control, and not at the mercy of somebody else's system.

Nope. We're talking about listening to un or barely compressed audio using $300 noise-isolating in-ear monitors. I don't know what kind of listening you do, if you can even really call it listening.

http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/images/er4-top.jpg

I bet he can't tell the difference because listening to music with the stock iPod earbuds all the time damaged his hearing beyond repair.

YOU BET THAT WITH YOUR MONEY DO YOU? Last time I was at his place I think he used winamp or something and doesn't have an MP3 player.
Rich. Pretentious. Maggot. I bet WITH MONEY that your taste in music is horrible and your headphones, that cost more than 4 weeks of my welfare benefit, don't make it any more bareable.

My taste in music is supreme, ( ;) ) with many different and varied genres represented on my iPod, but this thread isn't for discussing musical tastes.

Oh, and I'm not rich.

I think we should stick to the topic, for one thing, there are plenty of people out there who are capable of hearing different sound qualities in different portable players, therefore these people have a right to critisize players for not up to their personal standards. Different earphones also contribute to the sound quality, and Ipod's earphones are not the best out there. And some people listen their music unconpressed or barely, like me I like to find mp3s in 320 biterate if possible, or at least higer than 128.

And knowing these forums, I bet alot of people here play around with audio mixing or music remixes and recordings, and a good ear is needed to tell the different between audio quality in either bit rate or hardware is a CRUCIAL thing in music or audio mixing. And just cause your friend is a music buff, doesn't mean hes able to tell the difference between different SOUND qualities, he simply just likes listening to music. Some of us here, actually can tell the difference, not everyone can however. And PC speakers are not the best speakers in the world either. A song at 80 kbps tends to be alot more distorted and lower quality in sound compare to higher bit rate. Not as bad as telephone quality, but its getting there.

And theres no need to insult his musical taste, when theres no mention of it in this topic and hardly contributes to your argument.

In the end, Ipod isn't for everyone, and people have a right to express their negative opinions on it. Like me, my Ipod's battery life decreased horribly to the point that is now a paperweight in my home in Hong Kong. It also doesn't turn off well and at times turns on despite the hold button is on. I didn't even bother using it as a external hard disk, it dies too quickly.

This shit is hilarious.

Tsk, tsk, remember the new GFF Mission Statement... ;)

Are we playing intarnets yet?

I have a Zen Micro and it's served me pretty well.

It's small, snazzy-lookin', and really easy to load songs on to. You don't hafta convert 'em or anything; you just open the program and drop 'em in the box. It's slightly cheaper, too, I think.

Unfortunately, somethin's screwy and I haven't been able to load songs on it for a while. Possibly the problem is with my computer; I'm just too lazy to sit down and have a good look at it. My computer refuses to burn cds now, too........

R1CH: I made this exact thread in a different message board a month ago. My final decision: Zen Vision:M.

Reasons:
1. More crisp screen
2. Higher decibels
3. Sound recorder (spying rules)
4. FM radio
5. Great video playback and conversion program (needed if file doesnt match with player well)
6. Ability to, while on "RANDOM PLAY ALL" mode, click two times to load the folder that the song that's playing is in (unlike ipod).
7. Battery Power Better

DOWNSIDE - Had to buy the A/V cord online because most stores seem to only care about ipod accessories.

DOESN'T MATTER (To me) - No itunes-like service. I steal my music. I don't need a service.

So how is it workin for ya so far?

How is this useful?

Personally, I can't tell the difference between a 320 kbps track and an 80kbps one and that's when playing it through £500 worth of car stereo. I guess my hearing has been destroyed by listening to music the way it should be heard, live and at huge volume.

I have a little iPod shuffle and it's awesome. I load up iTunes, click the playlist I want, hit the synch button and then have seven hours worth of music to listen to. Total time from old music to new music, about a minute. The battery lasts longer than the amount of music that's on there and the number of times I'm away from a USB port for more than 8 hours of constant music listening are fucking rare.

I'm sure if I was some kind of techy obsessive I might be bothered about sound quality and using Explorer to drag little folders about and shit like that but I ain't. I'm just someone who occasionally takes public transport and wanted to listen to music while I did it and the iPod suits me fine.

Can you just drag and drop your music files onto the iPod shuffle in Windows to listen to them or does it require iTunes? I was thinking about getting one of those a while ago. <3 random simple players.

In the end, its a personal decison to which brand you wanna get. Some people love Ipod for these reasons, some people choose another over other reasons. Most people have posted the good parts and bad parts of alot of brands, its up the person to make the final decision,does he want a Ipod cause most have it and it can be used with Itunes? Or does he want a player that costs less and has better sound quality?

Well I probably won'y buy anymore Ipods since my last one is now a white brick.

Its up to the individual, what we should do its display our opinions and facts of the hardware and respect each other's opinions as well.

And if you want to place songs in your Ipod, you need Itunes. Ipod doens't work without Itunes.

Thank you Kairi, glad to see someone who is reasonable. And RABicle, a lot people can hear differences between different audio quality, like Kairi, I can't stand 128kbps, all my MP3s are at least 256kbp and for complex music I put them at 320kbps. And your comment against Piccolo about his/her music taste is the biggest crap I have ever heard. So you are saying people with good music taste can't spend money on things they want? Bullshit.

The last half of this thread looks more like a trolling fest than one about a real discussion about the G5 iPod and the Zen Vision:M. I'll add my two cents.

The iPod and the Vision:M are basically equivalent in features. Both support the 5-star rating system and smart playlists, though iTunes/iPod integration of smart playlists/synchronization is infinitely superior than Creative's integration with WMP10/11 (though 11 is much better than 10, in my experience). The Vision:M also supports Unicode-formatted tags, which means support for Asian characters, symbols, and the like, which the iPod has supported since at least 4G and which the Zen Touch had none.

Both support videos: the iPod only supports H.264, which is the best video codec out there right now, but has a RATED battery life of 2 hours at video (which means it's really less than half that). The Vision:M supports DivX4/5 (and DivX6, in my experience) and XviD without Global Motion Compensation enabled, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and Windows Media Video (though I've had the majority of my WMV's rejected by Creative's software for being incompatible, and had one "compatible" WMV at 320x180 resolution hang my Zen upon playback). The Vision:M also has a rated battery life at video at 4 hours, but most users have been able to coax it to play back 5 hours with ~500kbps DivX video. If you end up outputting your video to a TV, the Vision:M supports an outputted resolution of 640x480, infinitely superior in quality to the iPod's 320x240. Both device's battery life for audio is rated at 14 hours, though I've read numerous reviews stating that the Vision:M's battery doesn't reach 14 hours due to MP3 bitrate above 128 (and as usual, many iPod users report batteries which don't quite reach 8 hours).

Audio format support: iPod supports MP3, WAV, AIF, AAC. Vision:M supports MP3, WAV, WMA. Sound familiar? If you mod your iPod, it should also be able to play OGG and FLAC, but both would drain the battery beyond belief. If for some reason you actually purchase music online (lawl. what are you doing on this forum then?), the iPod is limited to iTunes, whereas the Vision:M can take anything from any store OTHER than iTunes (and RealPlayer?). However, in my opinion, AAC is infinitely superior to WMA as a codec. The Vision:M has an odd feature where its photos have a clear need of ANTI-ALIASING. But if you zoom in with your photos, it no longer becomes as big a deal. Both devices support use as a removable storage disk, but the iPod (unmodded) does not support true drag and drop like the Vision:M does. A bonus for the Vision:M is an included mic and FM tuner, but the iPod has more accessories which more than cover the Vision:M's extra features.

In the end, it really comes down to personal choice. For me, my horrible experience with the 4G iPod's battery life pushed me to the Vision:M without a second's glance back. However, the iPod is a nice device.. it's just that the Vision:M really does offer more to the user.

Well done on picking that one up Snow Patrol, never mind that it was intentionally ridiculous, mocking the way he drew conclusions based off nothing regarding my friend. I don't even know what music he listens to.

You've also missed the point regarding sound quality. My argument is taht player X having a higher SNR (whatever that is) than player Y is pointless becuase we're all listening to music that has been digitised, compressed, played through a consumer electronic device with shoddy ear bud speakers in a noisy environment like a bus. Sound quality is meaningless. Generally I listen to a lot of punk and alt. rock, the music is often intenionally distorted, or the band couldn't afford a producer to polish it up for them anyway, what's the point of anything more than AAC for something like this? Sure sometimes I can pick up a bit of distortion on a Moby track or something yet somehow I get over it.

But this argument is blatantly false, because this isn't true for everyone. Some of us go to the trouble of using lossless codecs for our music, and we even buy special devices like line out cables (to bypass most of the internal circuitry of the player) and headphone amplifiers (to drive high-impedence headphones) and high-end in-ear headphones. (For isolation and quality sound reproduction.) Some of these headphones can block as much as 40dB of outside noise. Perfect for listening on a bus. In fact, I used them for that very purpose when I went to Panama City with my church. We love music and want to have the best portable music listening experience possible.

By the way, SNR means "Signal-to-Noise Ratio", and it refers to the ratio of signal (your music) to the background noise generated by the device itself. Every electronic device, by its very nature, generates a certain amount of intrinsic noise. This is called its noise floor. The goal is to get the noise floor as low as possible, and the signal as high as possible, without clipping it.

neothe0ne left out a couple of features that the Zen Vision:M has over the iPod in what was otherwise a great breakdown of the pros and cons between the two players.

First is that the Vision:M has a FM radio, which is nice if you want to hear the news, check the weather, or add a little variety to your music. In addition to that, the Vision:M has voice recording. I've personally never really found this feature useful in my Samsung YP-C1Z, but it's there for those of you that want to take advantage of it. Finally, the Vision:M also seems to allow you to carry around your Outlook stuff so you can take a look at it whenever you want (although this feature won't be of much use to people who don't use outlook, like me).

I would also like to add in some input to the whole soundquality thing. MP3 players are first and foremost PORTABLE media players. No one should expect amazing sound quality out of them, and I highly doubt its possible to tell the difference between a 128 kbps MP3 and lossless on ANY portable media player (and to anyone that says they can tell the difference using stock earbuds, I will bet that they can't back that up with a proper ABX test).

First of all, if you don't even know what SNR is, RABicle, then you should go do your research before coming here and saying things like you know what you are talking about, because I have done my share of the research, I spent 2 weeks researching before purchasing my Zen Touch.

And to neothone, Zen Touch DOES HAVE Unicode Tag support, my Zen Touch is the living proof, I have songs that are in Manderin Chinese, German, French etc and they all get displayed properly on the Zen Touch.

In the random play all mode, every song of my 10,000 songs is mixed and songs play randomly. There is no way to hit the "back" button to goto the folder of the song that's playing. The back button simply goes back to the most recent menu or folder you were in. But clicking the middle button once will take the current playing song to the 5 star rating system and hitting it once more will automatically load the folder that the song is in so I can browse and click some other cool song from that album.

The other way to do it is hit back and goto "ALBUMS" and i find (on my own) the album of the song that's playing. I dislike doing that while driving my car.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that users have different preferences of organizing their music. The iPod/iTunes concept just so happens to drastically interfere with mine and that's why I will never recommend an iPod to people who prefer to have their music organized in folders like I do.

I'm with Rock on this one, I keep all albums in their individual folders and just drag and drop them into my Zen Touch.

I have an order structure as well so the only iPod I'd use would be the shuffle if it allows for drag and drop in windows and not iTunes.

Can someone answer my question please?

The shuffle requires iTunes. That being said, it would be pointless to have a directory structure for your files when using a device where you can't actually select the song you want. You can set it to play music in suffle mode or in order, and you can go forward and back, but that's it. You couldn't just change directories and go to a different album.

My mum and sister both have iPod's, and ask me to upload all the music and organise it and such and I find iTunes to be very tedious and annoying. I personally have a Zen micro, which only packed in after I dropped it for the millionth time. As far as i'm aware the recent Zen with colour etc was voted the best mp3 player, so i'd definitely go with Zen. I prefer the look of Zen's too, iPod's just look boring to me.

Thank you Sian, you are the exact same as me lol, I find iPods boring too.

How about neither? Zune is due soon... wait for the big market switch before buying, IMHO.

Zune? Zune will probably be a miserable failure. MS really needs to stop with the "Me too!" mentality.

I still have yet to see a single justification for how someone organizes music in folders that isn't possible with ID3 tag organization.

Also, the iPod does not only support H.264. Its primary format is H.264 at 320 x 240 w/ a video bitrate of up to 768Kbps, but it can also play MPEG-4 (which can be generated using the XviD codec) at 480 x 480 (a misnomer, it's actually MPEG-4 whose width and height are mod16 and whose total area is less than or equal to 230,400) and up to 2.5Mbit. I've made some widescreen 640 x 352 MPEG-4 encodes of anime for playback off a 5G iPod and not only do they look great on the screen, they look great on a standard-def TV. There are plenty of iPod-focused video converters that'll help you make videos that will play well on it.

Furthermore, the iPod's battery life on video is pretty much 2 hours, not 1 as someone claimed, especially if you're using MPEG-4 instead of H.264 (since it's less computationally intensive). And the 60GB iPod has 3 hours on video, since it also has a bigger battery.

And yes, the iPod has supported Unicode since the first gen, and still does, but it seems most other players do now as well, which is good.

Did you know microsoft will "buy out" apple subscribers? They will buy any song you've bought off ITunes for yoru Zune player free of charge.

Because it simply isn't?

Here is how I like to organize my music:

My iPod's root directory is my top-level domain. And then everything is organized like this:

Mp3\Genre\Album Name\ (And Disc number, if applicable.) Everything is organized exactly like this, always. If a song is from a video game, it will always be under \Video Game Music\. If it is from an anime show, it will always be under \Anime\. All electronic music that isn't from an anime show or video game goes under \Techno\. I don't bother to divide that by sub-genre. Any kind of classical music (you know what I'm talking about) goes under \Classical\. I also do not divide this by sub-genre. \Rock\ is for rock, and \Pop\ is kind of a catchall folder for anything that doesn't fit in the other folders. Knowing this, and, of course, having all of the album names memorized, and what genre they belong to, I can find anything I want in seconds.

This kind of organization scheme simply isn't possible with the default iPod OS. But Rockbox makes it a reality.

So when I go to Genre > Game and all my game soundtracks are there, or I go to Genre > Anime and all my anime soundtracks/singles are there... etc., what's different about that?

And what if I just want to get to an album really fast? With your system, I have to go to a genre first. With an iPod, I could do a genre first, OR I could just go Album > [Album name]. Done.

I think ID3 tags allow more flexibility, and folders are just too rigid. Database-like organization allows for way more possibilities.

I just prefer to nagivate my hierarchal directory structure. I've been doing it that exact way ever since I encoded my very first Mp3 file, and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I like to know exactly where everything is, what is in each folder, how they're named and labeled, etc. I like to be in full control of my files and my iPod is no exception. I'm really very anal about how my files are organized.

The biggest thing that bothered me was trying to organize multi-disc OSTs. With my system, I can just click on the album name and navigae to \Disc 1\, \Disc 2\, etc, but I couldn't find an easy way to do this with iTunes and the default iPod OS, so I ended up having to make each disc into its own album, which just cluttered up my list.

The main problem I have with iTunes is when I just want to add a single track (without creating a new album). Normally, I just take a second and change the album title to either "Random" or "Anime Vocal Collection" (since I pluck a lot of these off the internet and don't want to make directories for every little single I come across). Having a folder to dump them in would save a couple seconds, but I've learned to deal with that over the last few months.

I like using iTunes overall, but I can't say I haven't wished for a more traditional "drop file in folder" setup a couple times (like, say, when I download an album with zero tag information filled in...ugh...Or when I have "Seiken Densetsu 3" vs "Seiken Densetsu 3" or "Me & Satan King OST" vs "Me and Satan King Original Soundtrack" vs "Me and Satan King OST")

Edit: Doesn't show up in the actual post, but there should be an extra space between "Seiken" and "3". That little extra space creates a new directory.

See, that's the thing. You think that "folders = organized." You need to make the shift, like I did, that "indexed, searchable metadata = organized." Because, in the end, if your files are tagged correctly and you use an application that uses those tags to organize your files, not only do you know exactly "where" they are, you can navigate and use them in many more flexible ways. It took BeOS' brilliant BFS filesystem to teach me this, and finally the rest of the computer industry is moving towards what Be realized years and years ago: folders are rigid and inflexible. They're good as loose organization tools, but the real power of information lies in instantly searchable metadata and saved queries (or, as OS X calls them, "smart folders").

So, basically... I used to use folders to organize too. Then, by using a different system, I was opened up to a whole world of things I could do that I couldn't do before, which really didn't have any downsides. And besides all that, tagging my files means that iTunes automatically organizes them into files, so that if for some reason I need to get to the underlying files, they're grouped in the filesystem. I'd imagine in the future, even that will become superfluous—iTunes could just pass a specific query to Finder/Spotlight and it'd return the files in question. And this isn't just on the Mac—Windows is (slowly, painfully) moving in the same direction. Whenever WinFS debuts, believe you and me they'll be trying to de-emphasize the folder as the basic unit of organization.

Maybe for you, but not for me. I've never had any problems with my system. It's fast, smooth, clean, and efficient, and I will never give it up. I don't even want to be bothered with tagging files. I've never done it, have never felt the need to do it, and wouldn't care at all if ID3 tags had never been invented.

To me, file-tree is more intuitive and people who are in control of their PCs will have no problems controlling what's where on them.

Besides, iTunes is the exact opposite of organized, regardless of how well your files are tagged. It puts all of the files in random directories like F00 or A03 and gives the files random names like A0204.mp3, and mixes files from different albums into single folders. You call that organized? I prefer inflexible and rigid; rigid like the internal structure of a diamond, because in the end, it's easier for me to remember where everything is located and how to find it.

That will be the day I will have to start weaning myself off of my computer, hah!

I just had a thought. I wonder if one's preference for metadata-based or file-tree based organization is a result of that person's memory? I have a very good memory and I know where everything is on my computer. Navigating to any one file or directory isn't ever a problem, and never has been, which is why tagging files is a moot point for me. There's no need for me to, and it would only be a waste of time.

Enlighten me. What ID3 tags did you use, and what firmware version? It just occured to me that Unicode is probably supported in Firmware 2.x, but I didn't feel that wiping my entire library to upgrade from 1.x to 2.x was worth it.

Double Post:
You've never used iTunes, have you? iTunes easily handles disc numbers without having to change the album name, whereas Windows Media Player doesn't, and is a major frustration for me with my Zen Vision:M and game soundtracks.

It worked with firmware 1.x, right out of the box, now I have the upgraded 2.10.05 firmware. By ID3 tag I meant the information that you can edit when you go into Properties of the file, I hope that's what you meant. And some of my files have Chinese, French and German characters in them and they all get displayed correctly.

I used iTunes for a long, long time before I installed Rockbox. I am aware of the "Disc Number X of X" entry, but I still couldn't find a way to organize an album into separate discs, like this:

Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection\
\Disc 1
\Disc 2
\Disc 3
\Disc 4

I tried everything and never could get it to work the way I wanted. I tried tagging my Chrono Trigger songs with Disc 1 of 3, 3 of 3, etc tags, but it didn't work. Perhaps I was doing something wrong. In any case, even if it had worked perfectly, I would still have installed Rockbox, because iTunes is clunky and messes up my organization.

I did mention that.. it's one of the last sentences in the second to last paragraph. It's just that my post was so cluttered you probably missed it :p


If you actually wanted to separate the discs as if they were seperate albums, then no, you can't do that without changing the album name. But still.. why would you want to do that anyways?

Why? Because that's how I organize my albums. If there is more than one disc, I create a subdirectory for each disc, instead of lumping them all together in the same folder.

Like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ganization.jpg

Gah! Terrifying.

Lack of tagging aside, file-tree is not at all intuitive. It's completely learned. Think of how your brain works—the way it connects pieces of information together. The categories we create for things aren't concrete within our own heads. That's why we can make mix CDs, to continue using music as an example: we can see relationships between things that are fluid and flexible. The whole point of digital music is to get all our stuff OFF discrete discs and INTO one big playground where it's more accessible, flexible.

This is why metadata-focused filesystems (especially once these become networked, which will happen both with Leopard and whenever WinFS arrives) will be infinitely superior. We can use the folder as a rough form of organization, but true power will come with saved queries, especially once adding metadata to our files becomes semi-automated or just an automatic behavior. Network-searchable metadata indexes mean that our particular method of organization (which might not jive with someone else's) will be unimportant—we can still find stuff as we think of it.

As desktop/network filesystem search technology becomes more and more refined and technology progresses, I think we'll find that the searchable metadata world really is easier—because it more closely mimics how we think. The folder/file analogy came from the hierarchical organization systems of yesteryear. As we've moved forward, we've found that information which becomes not statically categorized but searchable and contextually linked to other similar information to be MUCH more useful! Think: the web. Think: wikis. And this is only scratching the surface.

Uh, maybe in the hidden folders on the iPod, and that's just to discourage using their music player as a mass-piracy device. Remember that they were creating the iPod at the same time they were trying to woo the record labels into allowing for online music selling. Some concessions had to be made. On my computer (and on any other computer), iTunes organizes my files into Artist/Album/## Title.ext. Or, Compilations/Album for things I've marked as being... compilations. ;)

It really just has to do with whether you're capable of storing that hierarchy in your head. If you are, that's great. Not everyone is, and even if they are, some would rather not, like me. Why should I have to set up and remember a structure? Why waste that capacity when I can just search for things, or set up saved queries to group similar files? I think that the static file hierarchy is one of those "old guard-isms," something that "technologically literate" people hold onto and (intentionally or no) lord over those who can't or don't want to be bothered.

I mean, there are people who lament the demise of the punch card. Why? Because it made technology more inscrutable and less accessible? Fuck that. And in 10 years, I'm sure we'll look back on the file/folder-only system of computer navigation as similarly antiquated and silly. "Why did we ever do it that way?" we'll ask ourselves. And the long-haired tech geeks will go "I LIKED IT BETTER THAT WAY!" and the more normal among us will just keep using what will be, I believe, a better, easier, and more efficient system.

Maybe how your brain works... I can't say I've ever thought this way in relation to my computer's files. I tend to think about things, well, more... sequentially? ABCDEFG man, not ABCG. There is a place for everything and everything has its place, that's what I always say. Not only is my computer organized as such, but so is my house, my workspace, my room, and everything around me.

I've never bothered to remember a hierarchy. It just happens. If I install a program into a certain directory, I never forget where it is. If I put a certain album into a certain part of the structure, I will always remember where it is. (Because anime music always goes in the anime folder, and the same for other genres and their folders, and of course, I would never forget the album name either.) Once the initial structure is set up, you know that everything from that point on will always follow that structure. You only have to memorize it once.

Hehe, maybe you'll look back on it as silly, but I will still be using it as long as it is allowed. Hopefully, searching for files using metadata will be optional, and people like me can completely disregard it. Then everyone is happy and we can all be friends. :)

I guess that's the difference between essentially analytical brains vs. creative brains. The possibility for new ways of interacting with and organizing information that could reveal new possibilities or connections between it all excites me.

I guess it comes down to personal taste. :)

Yeah. I hope nobody took my inane ramblings personally, heh.

Ah, I see it now. Sorry about that. I was at work so I was reading really fast since I'm technically not supposed to be posting or doing anything else non-work related. :D

Don't worry, I do things almost the same way. :)

Umm... sorry, but you're wrong. You can do exactly that with an iPod. Trust me, that's how I find the music that I want to play.

Double Post:
Add a disc number to the Id4 tags and the iPod will sort the stuff by Disc/Track #s.

You can organize them by Album, or by Genre, or by Artist name (or whatever), but you can't organize them in precisely the way I mentioned, (In a hierarchal directory structure with sub-directories for genres, albums, and discs) to my knowledge. Did you see the image of my folder structure? Tell me how, using the default iPod OS, and iTunes, to organize my songs, exactly like that, so that, when navigating using the default iPod OS, I will be able to browse through them in exactly that way. (Just as if I were going through my hard drive in Windows.)

I tried that, it didn't work. I tested it with my Chrono Trigger album. All of the disc numbers were properly entered, (as well as all of the rest of the information) but it still only sorted all of the songs under "Chrono Trigger OST". What I wanted, was when I clicked on "Albums" in the main menu, and then selected a multi-disc album, was for it to go to a sub-screen with each of the discs listed separately. Then I could pick the disc I wanted to listen to. But I couldn't find a way to do that.

But, even if I could now, it doesn't matter. All of that is in the past, and I'll never have to worry about it again.

There isn't. The iPod by itself isn't a folder-based navigation system. You can get close with ID3 tags. For instance, like I said, I could drill down to the Chrono Cross OST by going "Genre > Game > All Artists > Chrono Cross OST". Or I could get to the first Azumanga Daioh OST by going "Genre > Anime > All Artists > Azumanga Daioh OST 1".

What it lacks in adhering to your exact system, however, it makes up for in flexibility. It's faster to get to that Azumanga Daioh OST by going "Albums > Azumanga Daioh OST", 'cause it's in the A's. Or, I could get all Frou Frou tracks to play by going "Artists > Frou Frou > All Albums" and shuffle them. With your system, Frou Frou's work is spread out over both the Pop genre folder (I'd assume) and, say, a Movie Soundtracks genre folder.

But, obviously, all this is merely an academic exercise.

For multi-disc albums, I've always used ascending numbers for the tracks on second and third discs (eg. 14-28 on the second disc, 29-46 on the third, etc.) This always help keep things in order. Now doing this can't really be automated, so you'd have to work at it.

I prefer both Library, and file structure (yeah for Winamp 2.9!!). But if I had to choose, I'd choose library. File structure is fairly good for copying and editing files, but rarely so for listening. Too messy.

Oh, I know you can't. But Mucknuggle said I could, so...

Also, no album exists in more than one genre folder. And navigating is no problem. Let's say I'm in the second level directory, this is what I see

\Anime\
\Classical\
\Comedy\
\Pop\
\Rock\
\Techno\
\Video Game Music\

I can just go to Anime and then to Azumanga Daioh OST. Or if I canted to play some Jet'sN'Guns, I just press back twice, and go to Video Game Music, and then to Jet's'N'Guns. See, simple.

I actually used to do this for some multi-disc albums, but it was such a pain in the ass that I quit.

I don't see what's different about using the Genre menu item. It's the same on an iPod. If I browse to it, I can just hit back up to Genre, to go Game, and get to a Game OST. Simple. ;) AND I get other options, like to browse the full list of artists, without picking a genre first.

Agreed. I like iTunes' scheme—if you put in disc number info it tacks the disc number on the front of the file name. Hence, anything on disc 1 would be "1-## Track Name.ext" where ## is the track number (of course). Means you can keep the album all together without making folders, and the files are in order so if someone obtains them from you, they'll still be in order when he or she adds them to a playlist.

True. Except for the fact that I actually have to go to the trouble of filling out all of the tags. ;) Besides, there are other reasons I installed Rockbox. The primary reason being Musepack, OGG, and FLAC support. :D

Ok... I gave up on reading the stupid arguments on which is better three pages ago. I'll just add my two cents. :-D

Apple provides great products. The iPod is an example of those. No it does NOT look like a 'stupid brick' and YES it does have a great navigation system and good audio quality.

It just seems to me there are some serious ZEN fanboys out here who feel a desperate need to bash Apple products because of their own frustrations towards their popularity.

The Zen Vision: M is an incredible player, better than the iPod Video (Cnet did a whole coverstory on that, and they proved their point)

But that doesn't mean you have to completely dismiss the iPod as a bad MP3 player. Don't be an ass.

I just got the ZVM a week ago, and its interface is hands down the best I've used. I've been on vacation so I've spent plenty of time with it while traveling. It was only $235 at buy.com, which is an absolutely amazing value. I only wish creative would offer a wireless remote.

I doubt people are saying that the Ipod is bad, just that there are better ones out there.

Not to mention my Ipod's battery life has died so badly that it IS now a brick. And it keeps freezing and turning on despite the hold button on. The Ipod IS known for giving people crap like that. Other players hardly do so.

It has good audio quality, doesn't mean that other mp3 players out there are worse than the Ipod, there are players that have BETTER sound quality than the Ipod. And from the way that most people have gave their detailed reasons why they like Zen better, I doubt they are a bunch of mindelss fanboys who just wanna bash the Apple just cause its popular. Whether you like it or not, Apple products have their own bad points, as well as other brands, though it seems that Apple has a lot of bad points on their Ipods moreso than other brands. People here HAVE done their research before pointing out the bad in the Ipod, and unless you did the same thing, than you really have no right to claim that they are fanboys who bashed Apple just cause its popular, they have other reasons to back it up.

They just simply concluded that the only reason people choose to buy the more expensive Apple player over other brands that are cheaper and have better audio quality is because of the heavy advertising, and causing it to be popular and hip. I think we all know that alot of things in the world are overated, and that the Ipod may be one of them. They have shown their research and prove that they have valid reasons to believe this.

Maybe someone should make a comparisoon list, list out all good points and bad points about these brands and see how they compare. After all, all products have their bad points, let see how it all adds up in the end.

Personally, people should actually research the stuff they buy before they buy it, just cause Apple is more well known doesn't make it nessacy better. I paid about $400 ish dollars for my Ipod in Hong Kong, and now its just a paperweight cause of crappy battery life and function.

Doesn't having all this extra stuff sorta defeat the purpose of being a Portable music player.

No, it's still portable. The amp is barely bigger than the iPod itself (it actually weighs less), and I can fit both of them in my pocket. The IEMs themselves are very diminutive as well, easily shoved in a pocket.

PiccoloNamek the solution to your multi-disk question is quite simple. Put the disk number in the album name. I know you said you use Rockbox, but I figured I'd post the solution anyway.

As for the Vision versus Ipod arguement, from what I remember reading when looking at comparison lists the vision was indeed better. The only reason I went with an Ipod is because I was going on a series of vacations, wanted a portable music player before going and it had to be 60GB. Therefore I picked up the iPod.

I'm not an Apple nut, nor do I have some unjustified loyalty to my portable music player, but I'd like to chime in with a few things.

PiccoloNamek if this were 2 years ago I'd totally agree with you on filetree browsing, but now after perfectly tagging enough of my MP3's I have to say that Filetree browsing = tagging. I already offered a solution to the multidisk problem, and I'm sure you'd agree that if you did genre tag all of your MP3s one would have no real advatage to one over the other.

On iTunes. I don't like the idea of needing a mediator between me and my DAP. Again before getting the iPod having to do this really pissed me off, but there are advantages to having the two integrated.

Firstly the iPod/iTunes keeps track of how many times I've played certain songs. While I always have my 'go to' tracks I like to make sure I take advantage of all the songs it holds. What I can do is sort by playcount and make a playlist of unplayed songs.

Same thing goes for song ratings. I can easily make a list of all of my "5 star" tracks.

Just today I was able to get rid of a load of dead air from those annoyingly short skits/interludes from my player. Because I can sort by time I just looked at all the tracks that were less than 1:00 and kept the few that I knew were music and killed off the rest. Again, this is something that I would not be able to do with a simple drag and drop interface.

Initially, I did add the disc number to the Album name. So when I clicked on "Albums" I would see something like:

Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection Disc 1
Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection Disc 2
Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection Disc 3
Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection Disc 4

But when I did this for multiple albums, it started making the list a lot longer than I really wanted it to be. What I wanted was a sub-directory under "Cardaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection" that just had "Disc 1, Disc 2, etc.

Now I have that.

I have to amend my last post, I just realized you can do all of that with a drag and drop interface. Using Winamp I could just create a library of the MP3s on the device.

iTunes = Lose.

Did you miss all of Storm Petrel's posts or something?

I'm sure if another player comes along with even better audio quality and longer battery life and cheaper, he would switch from Zen to that.

He has valid reasons for using Zen despite his views on Ipod's popularity, and one has to wonder why most people will choose an Ipod, which is more expensive, when there's a much cheaper player with better sound quality and most important, longer battery life? His reasons for getting Zen makes sense, and his views on Ipod's popularity is his own opinion. ( and they are true to some extent, whether people wanna admit it or not) That doesn't make him into a fanboy that just bashes Apple with no valid reason. If both players equal in price and sound quality, and he bashes Apple, then he's probably just bashing it cause its popular. But this is not the case. He's only a crazed fanboy if he bashes it for no valid reason. He has done his research, so his views are not unreasonable and he has backup to what he says.

Non-fanboys give informed researched opinions, fanboys do not.

Dunno about the rest of you, but I rather buy a cheaper player that doesn't freeze on me, has longer battery life and audio quality. But hey, maybe that's just me.

I'm sure he actually works for creative.

While we're at it, anyone tried the Iriver E10? I'm thinking about getting it (6gb/32hrs battery/18mW). My current 1gb isn't sufficient anymore, but I'm also very concerned about sound quality (iPod out of the picture). I heard Irivers usually sound better than Creatives?

RABicle, your stubburness has yet to cease to amaze me, and no I don't work for anyone, I'm a full time university student.

I will ban you from this thread and consequently from the boards for like I dunno a day or two if you do not quit this nonsensical trolling. I already warned you about this in your journal that I'd do this if you continued this bullshit in this thread.

Now let's all play nicely please.

More information on this new Iriver would be cool. I don't know much about that line of product and it would be nice to have some information on how they stack up to Creative and Apple's players. =)

I seem to think that there is a bit of a double standard here. It seems every one thinks that iPods break or are poorly made compared to Creative players. This has not been my experience...

I have/had a creative jukebox 3 that had issues with the headphone plug (which i had to VERY carefully re-solder), the hard drive died and I had to replace it. My brothers Creative Zen Xtra that he just bought is already having problems with the headphone jack and that is less than 8 months old. I used my player alot, but I did take good care of it. My bro is so careful with his stuff it makes me sick how he babies it.

My point here is not to say that iPods break less, or that creative makes shit... My point is that these portables break. It's just what they do. Saying that "my **** busted so all ***** are poorly made" is quite frankly, ignorant. Build quality is pretty important to Apple as a company and usually they are highly praised for reliablity. The same is true of Creative, their products tend to have high quality because of good quality control.

I think discussions would be better suited to see which player is better in features and usability over build quality. These dilusions that "all *** break" are ridiculous. If you get a lemon, its a lemon. If you don't take care of it, you got what you deserve. If it only lasts a couple of years, well, you got your time out of it. IT'S A PORTABLE. THEY DONT LAST FOREVER.

Agreed. I'm sure if you looked at actual percentage statistics for both companies, their products would probably be roughly the same in terms of quality. Both Apple and Creative make quality products. Companies that make quality products also have products that fail, for whatever reason. As I've said before, the only reason you hear so many more (net) complaints about iPods is because Apple is outselling Creative many, many times over. With way more players out there, that means there will be more players breaking. That doesn't mean that Apple's players are less reliable in terms of the odds, it just means there are a fuckton more of them out there.

But other times, you simply have products that have an almost ubiquitous problem. Mainly, iPod's with short batteries and Zen Touch Micro's with faulty headphone jacks.

Touch never had a faulty headphone jack, Micro did have it but it was fixed by Creative a long time ago.

Which is exactly what I said. But that doesn't change anything for those whose 1-year warranty ran out and still have a faulty headphone jack for their Micro.

You realize that the "18 month battery" thing was mainly relegated to a small portion of the 3rd gen iPods, which was out almost three years ago, right? The only reason it got trumped up was because of that stupid video of those guys vandalizing iPod ads in New York. I have a 3rd gen iPod myself, and while it's battery certainly doesn't hold the exact same charge as it used to, it still lasts several hours, after three years. Lithium Polymer batteries, as used in the new iPods, will easily last for 3 years and still retain the majority of their charge, if taken care of properly.

No, I don't think he meant the life span of iPod batteries, but it's capacity. Most users will be lucky if they can get 8 hours out of it.

I'd say that's patently untrue, especially of the fifth generation. If you're letting the backlight turn off and listening to albums or playlists (not skipping around every five seconds) you will easily get close to the "rated" battery life of the iPod. For the 30GB that means 14 hours of music, for the 60GB that's 20. For the nano this is especially true, as there's no physical mechanism to spin up to access other tracks.

Hmm, from what I have heard and read from various online sources, most people won't get above 8 hours on a battery-drain test, which is like you said, just let the player play without any interference. On the other hand, I did a battery-drain test with my Zen Touch, and after 24 hours of non-stop playing, it still one bar of battery left, so I just stopped it.

Wow 24 hours? Now I see a major reason why Zen is better.

My iPod's battery was almost dead when I got home one day from school, and I wanted to drain it completely and then recharge completely, so I left it playing on my bed with a slideshow and music on. It managed to do that for a couple of hours still... I was actually surprised at that. But I'm not complaining :-D

I decided on a Creative Zen for the battery life alone, basically. What I didn't realize until after getting it, was that it allows a wider range of music formats (wma, mp3, etc.), where, apparently, iPods only work with mp3s. I pretty much have only mp3 files, but there are still the few wma files that I wouldn't want to go without, and with iPods, you have to do everything through iTunes, where with Creative Zen, you can just as easily use Winamp, or any other music program.

When it comes to playing videos... I use both my computer and my television. There's no need for a 2" by 2" screen to squint upon just to view what I want to watch. The Creative Zen I bought doesn't even play videos, for that matter (basically cuts $100 off the price, while keeping the same amount of space, etc.). Pretty much the only problem I faced was losing the backlight due to dropping it about a week after getting it (due to the dimensions of the one I got, basically).

No offense... but you're posting the most ridiculous BS I've ever read on MP3 players. The iPod is (in)famous for its (nearly exclusive) support of M4A/AAC, in addition to ALAC (lossless in m4a container), AIF (Apple equivalent of WAV), WAV, and of course the ubiquitous MP3. Whereas the Zen only supports WMA, WAV, and MP3.

Also, the screen of the iPod and Zen Vision:M is 2.5" diagonally, which is surprisingly large.

I have the 30 Gig Creative Zen Vison M and I must say it is well worth the price. I don't know if it is superior to Ipod or not, it depends on what you use it for. The 30 Gig Ipod Video has better battery life when playing music by a couple hours, but the Zen has about 4 hours of battery life for video (about 2 times more than the Ipod) The Ipod Video is thiner than the Zen. The Zen has a microphone, it also freezes a bit more often than it should. I don't know about the Ipods menu system so I wont go into that except on the Zen you can create your own background with images from your computer (for those that like that kind of thing) Overall they are both really great devices, I only decided on my Zen because it was $50 off due to it being open box.