[krazy1]

Well a week ago I decided to break down and get myself a new toy and I must say I am VERY happy with it. I went out in search of a MP3 player and ended up getting a 15GB iPod. I don't like Mac's much but I will admit this is the BEST MP3 player I have seen yet. These things are awesome and I highly recomend one to anyone in the market for a great MP3 player. I actually shouldn't say MP3 because since I got the iPod I now use .m4a format (.aac format to mac) and have been converting all my files that I use on my iPod to this format. The reason being for the format switch? iPod uses less battery with this format and the sound quality is excellent.

[Logla]

yup, aac is far superior to mp3.

[craig5320]

Ohh didn't realise it used less battery might convert my songs to aac as they go over to the pod. thanks

[krazy1]

A good prog to use if you want to convert outside iTunes is Easy CD-DA Extractor. Just have it convert your files to .m4a format and you should not have to go any higher then 128bit.

[Sourcer_2002]

huh less batterys??? odd.

[GutterPunk]

nice.... i want 1

[Logla]

Originally posted by Sourcer_2002
huh less batterys??? odd.

It doesn't require as much processing power as mp3 to decode and therefore doesn't use as much of the juice from teh battery.

Sounds better as well - a winner in my book

[Malus]

Are you transcoding from mp3 to aac? If you are, you are only further reducing the quality of the audio.

[krazy1]

nope, with AAC @ 128 it is actually higher then most MP3's @ 192 so no more loss to your songs..... AAC @ 128 is crystal clear. If you have gotten any songs through iTunes you will know how incredable aac @ 128 sounds..... AAC (m4a) beats MP3 sound quality and file size....

[Malus]

If you transfer from one lossy codec to another, you will always lose quality.

On the other hand, I'm a quality freak with 192k oggs on my Karma.

[tastyweat]

I love my MZ-N10 - may not get so many songs on a disc - but it's smaller, lighter and has better sound quality - but then it costs the same amount as a 20gb ipod... so... you make ur decision

[krazy1]

Originally posted by Malus
If you transfer from one lossy codec to another, you will always lose quality.

On the other hand, I'm a quality freak with 192k oggs on my Karma.

I agree with you on loosing more when converting from one Codec to another... I have noticed a little loss from .mp3 to .m4a but not enough to stop me from converting. BUT now when I rip CD's I rip them to .m4a @128 and it beats an .mp3 @192 and is even a smaller file then the mp3

[LowLevelOwl]

Well all my MP3's are at 320Kbps. If I were to convert to m4a, would the quality loss be something major?

[germanjulian]

IPod? best mp3 player? ...... rio karma is the best one. followed by the zen which only plays mp3's though but has much better sound quality then the ipod when it comes to mp3's (havent tried m4a). I have both and the zen is a lot better. karma is to expensive. and when you convert from mp3 to m4a you will loose quality cause both codecs get rid of different things to make music files smaller. and if you guys want the best codec for compressed audio its mpc which unfortunatly still doesnt have mp3 player support (portable player).

[germanjulian]

Originally posted by LowLevelOwl
Well all my MP3's are at 320Kbps. If I were to convert to m4a, would the quality loss be something major?

no not much but yes there will be quality loss. so dont.

www.hydrogenaudio.org for more info. all things music codecs


oh and I would get rid of the Ipod if I where you, not because its bad (CAUSE IT ISNT) but the battery life is taking the mic.

[krazy1]

Originally posted by germanjulian



oh and I would get rid of the Ipod if I where you, not because its bad (CAUSE IT ISNT) but the battery life is taking the mic.

Well have have 3 friends that have them and they have had theirs about 6-8 months and none have issues... My iPod playing at a reasonable volume lvl lasts about 8hrs. I have no complaints about that.


As for the Rio Karma, I looked at it but didn't care too much for the function controls. For me the iPod is much simpler and easier to control while I am working out. I don't even have to look at it, I can just reach down and skip songs, push the vol. up or down or even pause it all off the front of the player and with very little effort. I can keep my concentration where I need it. I guess in my initial post I should not have said "best" since best is a matter of opinion but I can say my 1 friend owns the Karam and is selling it for an iPod..... guess it is all a matter of personal choice.

[germanjulian]

must be.... (pz nice sig by the way)

[NCX]

Originally posted by disastropy
nice.... i want 1

me toooo searching around I found that I'd probably get a 15gb too if I had the money (best bang for the buck). Needed some entertainment for a flight down to San Martin (sp?) but ended up going with a GameBoy SP and the game Golden Sun. :shrug: probably should've gone for the ipod, but considering I was only running about $120, I was somewhat limited in my options considering I don't have a job at the moment... income is very slow.

[Malus]

I don't think the Karma controls are that bad at all. Volume buttons are on the side; I have never had a problem adjusting the volume while not looking at the player. I also find that the joystick makes navigating menus much more efficient, but that's just an opinion. Pausing and such is pretty easy too, just a tap of the stick. Perhaps it doesn't seem to be as intuitive as buttons, but it works just fine. To each his own I guess.

And to whoever said the Karma is more expensive, I bought mine for $300, which was like $100 cheaper than an iPod with just as much hard drive space. Seemed like a good deal to me.

[krazy1]

Originally posted by Malus
And to whoever said the Karma is more expensive, I bought mine for $300, which was like $100 cheaper than an iPod with just as much hard drive space. Seemed like a good deal to me.

I never said anyting about cost....but I paid $265 for my 15GB iPod.