Another Ipod thread!

Latest Posts | New Discussions | Hot Threads | Forum Topics
Help | Settings | Followed Threads
reply
14 messages
MattXR
05/01/2008 at 22:00
Rare poster on here so have a drink at the virtual bar if you please.

I'm thinking about taking the plunge, following the sheep and buying a sena iPhone case. Been making do with a Creative Zen for a couple of years now but I fancy a change and I do like the look/ design of Ipods.

I've heard bad things about Itunes (never used it myself- use Windows media player), so someone suggested I use Media Monkey. All of my music on computer is saved as a .wma file. I don't think Ipods play this format (MP3 only?).

Looking through Media Monkey it looks quite easy to convert them (if a little time consuming). Would it then be a case of syncing the Ipod up to the laptop and copying files across.

Any help/ advice appreiciated. Keep it simple, ta.

Oh, anybody know cheapest place to get an Ipod? (2Gb Nano should be fine but the bigger the memory the better)
05/01/2008 at 22:53
MattXR wrote
I've heard bad things about Itunes (never used it myself- use Windows media player), so someone suggested I use Media Monkey.

Why not try iTunes first and see if you like it? I'm sure some don't but most do and it's generally viewed to be very good. It's not a lot different from Windows Media essentially. You can use things like Media Monkey if not I believe.

MattXR wrote
All of my music on computer is saved as a .wma file. I don't think Ipods play this format (MP3 only?).

iPods play lots of formats. But not WMA. iTunes will convert from WMA to whatever else (MP3, MP4 (AAC), WAV, Lossless etc) as will other apps. A little free app called Switch is quite good for just converting a folder of files.

MattXR wrote
(2Gb Nano should be fine but the bigger the memory the better)

They don't make a 2Gb Nano any more though there was in the previous 2 models I think. 4 or 8Gb currently, 80 or 160Gb for the full-size ones.
MattXR
05/01/2008 at 22:58
Cheers Slenver. Had a quick look around and found a 4gb Nano on play.com for £90. Is this a good price?
05/01/2008 at 23:09
MattXR wrote
Cheers Slenver. Had a quick look around and found a 4gb Nano on play.com for £90. Is this a good price?

Probably. List is £99 and you don't get much of a discount in most places. You might get a little below 90 if you shop around.

Alternatively, you might be able to get one of the older models at a discount if you can find one. Unless video's important to you the shape of the old ones is much better I reckon.
fulltilt
05/01/2008 at 23:51
Slenver wrote
Why not try iTunes first and see if you like it? I'm sure some don't but most do and it's generally viewed to be very good.

I'd rather you didn't assume 'most', IME iPod owners suffer iTunes when what they actually want is the drag-and-drop interface/functionality associated with Windows and other mp3 players. I'm sure if you did a national survey of PC World you'd find 'most' view them as very good - understanding the demographic may shed some light on any reported collective view, i.e 'most' people know sweet fa about most things tech.

The iPod Touch interests me, and I can appreciate the compact form factor of the shuffle, though I'd never own one. Speaking as a Creative Zen owner, moving to any other iPod variant is crazy talk, solid state of the Nano acknowledged.

Converting files will almost certainly reduce quality, you're better off re-ripping your CDs in the new format.
06/01/2008 at 00:05
fulltilt wrote
I'd rather you didn't assume 'most', IME iPod owners suffer iTunes when what they actually want is the drag-and-drop interface/functionality associated with Windows and other mp3 players. I'm sure if you did a national survey of PC World you'd find 'most' view them as very good - understanding the demographic may shed some light on any reported collective view, i.e 'most' people know sweet fa about most things tech.
Maybe you're right (on either point), who knows? I just based my point on people I've met who all have no problem with iTunes (including me) and the reviews I've read that have all been positive. I agree that drag and drop would be better as an option though, but it's not something I personally would have necessarily used so far.

fulltilt wrote
Speaking as a Creative Zen owner, moving to any other iPod variant is crazy talk, solid state of the Nano acknowledged.

Entirely subjective. They're both good. I don't know what the OP's reason for wanting to change is. Both have similar features though each has some the other doesn't have. The Zen is cheaper though so all other things being equal that's a good argument for it.

fulltilt wrote
Converting files will almost certainly reduce quality, you're better off re-ripping your CDs in the new format.

I agree
MattXR
06/01/2008 at 00:26
Hmmmm interesting arguements their gentlemen. I really don't fancy re-ripping cd's- would take way too long. Would I really notice this change in quality? I haven't exactly got pin sharp hearing. (too many years riding bikes with no ear plugs )

As for the reason for changing, just fancied a change. I looked at Ipods before I got the Zen but was reccomended to go for a Zen over an Ipod by a techie family friend (think Ipods were quite new still at the time). Now this friend has gone and got an Ipod now, so I'm thinking a lot of flaws have been sorted out now hes gone and got one. And he's very impressed by the menu system on the Ipod.

And compared to the Zen, they are nice to look at

Think I need to go and play with one for a bit.
blessmycg
06/01/2008 at 16:08
Who wants drag and drop? iTunes does this if you switch off autosync, drag from your library into your player, drag as much as you want and have it all done for you in the background while you continue adding songs or doing wahtever else. Or do you really want to piss about with folders on your player? Seems so damned archaic. As much as it might look like one, an mp3 player is not a hard disc or flash drive with a media player built in, it's a toy, and as such it should sort itself out, minimum fuss. As an iPod does.

I bet you still use manual focus on a camera, don't you FT?

edit: Most people won't notice the difference in a converted track. But it will take quite a while depending on how much music you have and how fast your computer is.
fulltilt
06/01/2008 at 17:35
blessmycg wrote
Who wants drag and drop?

Me. I want my mp3 player to work on any Windows PC without having to first install iTunes, and I don't want to have to convert all my music from WMA either.

Quote
do you really want to piss about with folders on your player? Seems so damned archaic.

Weak. Most people are familiar with drag & dropping or cut & pasting their files between folders, it's proprietary software such as iTunes which causes all the bother. Hard disk iPods can be used as a portable hard drive, but that requires the 'archaic' interface you dislike - two functions, two interfaces, it's daft.

Quote
edit: Most people won't notice the difference in a converted track.

Depends on your starting bitrate and format. In order to make best use of space you 'should' rip at a quality where you would appreciate a drop-off in quality at anything below it. Converting to mp3 may be noticeable, certainly the mp3 version will require more space for the same quality.
blessmycg
06/01/2008 at 17:50
fulltilt wrote
Me. I want my mp3 player to work on any Windows PC without having to first install iTunes, and I don't want to have to convert all my music from WMA either.

but all my friends have iPods anyway. Why are you using WMA anyway? It has nothing much going for it over mp3 apart from maybe having a couple of percent better compression ratios - and for that you lost compatibility with many systems. It's the same reason I don't use AAC even though I only use iTunes and iPod.

Weak. Most people are familiar with drag & dropping or cut & pasting their files between folders, it's proprietary software such as iTunes which causes all the bother. Hard disk iPods can be used as a portable hard drive, but that requires the 'archaic' interface you dislike - two functions, two interfaces, it's daft.

I see where you're coming from. But what if you want to move... 16 albums, by 12 different artists from your PC to your iRiver. That means finding 16 subfolders in 12 folders. Notwithstanding some of it might be titled wrong. Then having 16 copy tasks running, and that always slows windows down as it tries to run both/all tasks at the same time rather than one after the other. I would type in the artist in the search, highlight from the list, drag and drop. And then iTunes sorts it out for me. Eeeaasy. I, like most people, don't use my iPod as a HDD, so that doesn't bother me. But if I did I wouldn't mind, because it makes sense to use a different interface for files and data. If moving data you want to see filenames and paths, it's important and relevant. Totally not the case for music.


Depends on your starting bitrate and format. In order to make best use of space you 'should' rip at a quality where you would appreciate a drop-off in quality at anything below it. Converting to mp3 may be noticeable, certainly the mp3 version will require more space for the same quality.

I'll give you that, but most people rip at 128 or 160kbps. And have various downloaded or shared songs at all sorts of bitrates. I don't think the loss through headphones will be notable if it loses a few of the bits here or there. Also I don't think that on even a 4GB player most people will notice that they can have about 10 songs less due to worse compression rates.


TBH Fulltilt I think this is a non-argument. You are (excuse my bluntness) an IT geek, and so you want full control of everything and to get the very last out of your available capacity. You bought an iRiver. I like to have a simple to use, pretty mp3 player with the least fuss. I don't care if there are some songs on my player in 320kbps, costing me 1 song's worth of space in 4GB. So I bought an iPod.

Horses for courses, innit
WhipHubley
06/01/2008 at 18:52
I'm not a fan of the bloatware that is iTunes either. Maybe I'm using it wrong, but sometimes it just completely buggers up my music library, by putting files that are clearly from a single album all over the place as distinct tracks. Or it makes a decision on the order of tracks in an album - and gets it completely wrong.

YamiPod gets my vote...

www.yamipod.com/

A simple, lightweight application that allows you to drag'n'drop your music files onto your iPod. No more, no less.

This whole idea of convergence ("hey, let's package absolutely everything into a single massive bloated application - users will love that!") just gets on my nerves.

I want my ipod manager to allow me to move files to and from the device, my phone to be a phone, and my mp3 player to be an mp3 player.

I don't want the whole lot bundled into an expensive brick that requires bloatware just to use the bloody thing.
zeroseven
07/01/2008 at 22:51
blessmycg wrote


I bet you still use manual focus on a camera, don't you FT?


I do. I turn the auto focus off 99% of the time.... show me a motion picture camera with auto focus....... you cant because beyond point and shoot its rubbish.

Buy a Zune.
Danny_Two
08/01/2008 at 11:38
MattXR wrote
Cheers Slenver. Had a quick look around and found a 4gb Nano on play.com for £90. Is this a good price?


The 8gb is £130, 4gb pods soon fill up, go for the 8 if you can.
paulk
09/01/2008 at 09:13
MattXR wrote
As for the reason for changing, just fancied a change. I looked at Ipods before I got the Zen but was reccomended to go for a Zen over an Ipod by a techie family friend (think Ipods were quite new still at the time). Now this friend has gone and got an Ipod now, so I'm thinking a lot of flaws have been sorted out now hes gone and got one. And he's very impressed by the menu system on the Ipod.
And compared to the Zen, they are nice to look at
Think I need to go and play with one for a bit.



I've been using a Creative Zen Micro for a couple of years. Got the wife one aswell. I use mine when running and the wife is cabin crew so wanted it for trips and using in the gym and the odd run. Was recommended to go for a zen rather than Ipod for various reasons most of which have been mentioned.

TBH by comparison they (the zen) are bulky, dire touch/menu system and I could never find the right running/jogging accessories for the zen. Ended up spending more time in the draw at home not being used - as did the wifes as she simply couldnt get the hang of the key pad so couldnt play what she wanted.

Got one of the new Ipod Nano 8 gigs in October as an early Christmas present. Much smaller/ lighter than the zen and the touch system is far more accurate and easier to use. Itunes is simple and works well and the accessories for jogging much better than I could get for the zen. Wish I'd bought an Ipod in the first place knowing what I know now. Next time the wife is in New York she is getting herself one aswell as she prefers the Ipod (ease of use) to the zen. They are about £100 there for the 8 gig.

HTH.
Your say
Terms and Conditions | Code of Conduct
email image
14 messages
Forum Jump