Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[benn600]

Everyone please help compile a good list of iPod alternatives.  I am selling my Nano and Sansa so I may have room for a new player.  I'm seriously considering a large, hard drive based player--which will be my first ever hard drive player.  I am thinking I will want a very large screen 3" or larger with a bare minimum of 30GB but would really like 160GB like the new iPod.  It never hurts to have good sound quality with good battery life.  I've looked at Cowon but have only seen smaller (30GB) players.  It must support FLAC and lots of video formats.  I'm really hoping MC soon has more on-the-fly encoding for portable players and am really hoping someday I'll be able to sync directly from a VIDEO_TS folder, selecting a title (such as the entire movie or television episode) with automatic conversion to suitable format and resolution...wow, that would be nice.  Then I'll obviously want all my favorite music directly copied in FLAC with cover art...and photos...and games...and whatever else there is.

I look forward to your ideas!  I know there are lots of other players out there but some are less known and really nice.

[RFB]

The Archos 605 goes up to 160GB.  The player looks huge, though (4.3" Screen).

http://www.archos.com/products/gen_5/archos_605wifi/index.html?country=global&lang=en

Rick

[BartMan01]

It must support FLAC and lots of video formats.

Good luck with that.  The Archos devices look nice, but don't support FLAC.  Their CODEC support looks somewhat limited, but it does cover the major players (with optional plug-ins).

[benn600]

Why don't more players support FLAC?  Is it too expensive?  Oh wait, it's free.  Are portable device makers unsure of how to implement it?  Oh wait, that information is readily available.  Are they concerned no one uses FLAC?  Oh wait, it's probably one of the best lossless codecs and may be more popular than APE.  Is FLAC or APE support more common?

Hard drives are only increasing so more and more people are moving to FLAC.  I could have never used FLAC 5 years ago when I first ripped our entire music collection.  I was using a 40GB hard drive!

Not to go too far back (2.5GB hard drive), I remember getting a 40GB hard drive and thinking I was SOO lucky.  Actually, now that I think about it, I remember when my dad and I both upgraded our computers to 20GB hard drives.  $100 at Sams.

[BartMan01]

Why don't more players support FLAC?

I would say:
Fear and big media.

Corporations seem to fear the 'free/open' projects.  Could be lack of understanding, could be that there is no licensing body/corporate entity that blame can be shifted to if the project is later found to be in violation of any laws/patents.  It could also be that in order to use the project they must agree to licensing terms that they can not live with.

Big media does not want these open projects to exist.  They fear that these CODECS will be used to pirate and distribute their material outside of their control.

[benn600]

As if MP3 won't.  Lol.  MP3 is just as un-DRMed as FLAC and even though there is licensing with it, everyone has a few licenses in every media program.

[lalittle]

Are they concerned no one uses FLAC?  Oh wait, it's probably one of the best lossless codecs and may be more popular than APE.  Is FLAC or APE support more common?

Unfortunately, the quality of a codec has nothing to do with how popular it is.  The lion's share of "the public" are a bunch of sheep -- they'll use whatever the biggest company tells them is best regardless of whether or not it's "actually" best.  This wouldn't be the first time that a superior standard did not win out over other, less capable standards.

That said, in all fairness, FLAC is barely a blip on the radar compared to mp3 or AAC.  This is indeed unfortunate, but it's true.  Most of the public have never heard of FLAC -- they've heard of mp3 due to it's early market penetration, and they use whatever Apple has decided to set as the default in iTunes (which most people probably still incorrectly think is mp3.)  FLAC is well known amongst more informed people, but most of the public is excruciatingly uninformed.  It's unfortunate, but it's the way things are at the moment.

Larry

[lalittle]

The Archos 605 goes up to 160GB.  The player looks huge, though (4.3" Screen).

http://www.archos.com/products/gen_5/archos_605wifi/index.html?country=global&lang=en

Rick

Thanks for the link.  I was really excited about this player until I discovered that it did not support Audible (aa) files.  That, unfortunately, is a complete deal breaker for me.  It's just TOO much of a pain to convert audible files to another format -- especially when I'm used to them just working natively, as well as the fact that aa files always bookmark automatically on an iPod.  If it wasn't for this single issue, I might seriously consider this unit.

Larry

[benn600]

Well, right there you see how lack of file format support will kill a product's success on these higher end products.  Yes, the iPod works for everyone (most).  But these other products still must sell to someone so they pick a niche and sell there.  They should be going for the high-end market who has the knowledge to know the difference between good and poor sound quality.  They are also MUCH more likely to know about FLAC.

Taking the sample of users at this forum.  What percentage do you think knows about FLAC?  60%?  Or FLAC and/or APE?  75%?  The fundamental difference between lossy and lossless compressions?  80%?

The general public might get 5%.  That same market goes for the iPod.  I bet a lot of those 5% who know more about all this stuff are much less likely to buy an iPod.  I know I'm less likely at this point and I'm in that 5% who understand this stuff better than the average person.  And I wouldn't consider a non-FLAC player because I'm in that 5%--simply wanting/knowing FLAC puts me in that group.  So no iPod but no alternative product either because many still don't support FLAC.

I would think it would be a few hundred KB or few MBs to simply add the FLAC codec.  Yes, concerns with licensing arise but they are probably easier to work with than the paid for licensing.

[RFB]

Thanks for the link.  I was really excited about this player until I discovered that it did not support Audible (aa) files.  That, unfortunately, is a complete deal breaker for me.  It's just TOO much of a pain to convert audible files to another format -- especially when I'm used to them just working natively, as well as the fact that aa files always bookmark automatically on an iPod.  If it wasn't for this single issue, I might seriously consider this unit.

Larry

Are you aware that  a new alternative to Audible just got started?  eMusic is now offering audiobooks in MP3 format (obviously with no DRM).  Pricing is considerably cheaper than Audible, too.

Rick

[benn600]

I think Audible is way overpriced and would not likely ever consider it.  I'd also be very pleased with no DRM options!

[lalittle]

Are you aware that  a new alternative to Audible just got started?  eMusic is now offering audiobooks in MP3 format (obviously with no DRM).  Pricing is considerably cheaper than Audible, too.

Rick

Thanks for the link -- I wasn't aware of them.

Larry

[jkrzok]

One factor about lossless is that many people, even if they know about the advantages, just don't care. I didn't get a player for critical listening; I got it to listen to while out and about and in those situations there's so much ambient noise and other distractions that the benefits of a lossless codec would be lost. A high quality lossy encode is just fine.

And file size is file size. No matter how big drives get, you'll never be able to fit as many lossless encodes on a player as lossy ones. Many people would rather have a wider selection.

As for format support, look into Rockbox for any player you may want to consider. I installed it on my Sansa and now have support for most of the audio formats I know of, including FLAC and APE (although APE is problematical ATM). It a free alternative to the firmware on your player and is worth a look/download.

http://www.rockbox.org/

[benn600]

Although people's music collections are increasing in size, it seems obvious that hard drive capacities are increasing at a greater rate.  There comes a point when you've got so many CDs that you back off a bit simply because you've got so much and you are less likely to experiment with new, unheard music.  So, once the average portable player capacity curve surpasses what people have, on average, then FLAC will increase.

I've made it clear that I could never have elected for FLAC or another lossless codec 5 years ago when I first ripped our entire collection.  Every file I ripped back then is now backed up to ~10 DVDs just for archival purposes but will likely never be touched again.  And many other people are in the same boat.  With so much extra capacity, I can go all out and pay the extra money for FLAC.  For mp3 storage, most people don't need to do a dang thing.  Their built-in hard drive is likely plenty big.  My FLAC collection is around 350GB and it's not real likely that someone would have a 500GB drive in their system nor would they devote that much to it.  But for a measly soon to be $100, you can buy a 500GB hard drive and you're set!  Lots of people are setting up home servers now and many of those people are likely going for a terabyte or two just so they can have plenty of space.  Once they have the server, they gotta use it!  I would have never built a 7TB server like I have now 2-4 years ago because of a lot of reasins:

1. The biggest is that I didn't know about Media Center.  I never would have even cared about storing our DVDs on the server without an incredible program for accessing the content, which MC is the answer.
2. VERY expensive.
3. Less knowledge so I didn't even know much about lossless or even higher bitrate lossy.  I was actually living with 64Kbps encoded MP3s for a while.  I gradually realized what a mistake it was down-encoding my small but large collection just so they would all match and to save space.  I noticed when I bought a good set of computer speakers with good high-end response.  It didn't sound good at all and I knew it wasn't the speakers.

The key month is around July of last year.  That's when I discovered MC.  MC has cost us easily $20,000 (no joke).  When I add up the server costs, new HTPC building, remote controls, tons of CDs and DVDs, FLAC efforts (re-ripping everything), and all the time I've put into this stuff is worth thousands more.  But I enjoy it and MC has allowed me to rediscover lots of digital media.  It really helps that they aren't out to get us like Apple is--where they could start disabling different functionality from contract restrictions, etc.

[Robo983]

Supprised not to see much on the IPOD Alternatives in this thread. I hope more contribute because I haven't heard anything good about any of the new players coming out and mostly what I do not like is what seems to be a trend of low storage say 16Gb and less. What good is that?

I have to second the comment about anything Rockbox supports. It actually makes using an IPOD realistic. The only problem I have is that Rockbox can't take advantage of using the hardware decoder for video so I still have to boot up to the IPOD firmware for that and use Apples file and folder structure. I can still use all of MC's features for sync which is great since I hate ITunes. I would consider buying an IPOD as long as Rockbox supported it but I really hate to give them any of my money when they want to keep me from using it the way I want. I hate that if you use there firmware (not Rockbox) you can not get your music or other media back off. I think of my portables as my backups.

The other trend I do not like is that everyone is moving to the scroll wheel thing. That interface is nice but I do have some problems over or under scrolling to a menu item. I want a player that has buttons for things. This is why I am still buying the iRiver h120, and h320 on ebay and still recommend them to friends and family. I haven't heard good things about the h10 and then again they were trying to be like an IPOD replacment when iRiver moved to that design. As long as those players are running Rockbox that is still my pick but I think they are all MD'd.

So hopefully this bump up will get some others with experience chiming in since I bet this holiday season will see a lot of new devices in peoples hands.

[ThoBar]

I have to voice my support for Rockbox device too! ... to the point where I am seriously considering a second (for the wife) iRiver h320 / h340 off Ebay - you cant get 'em anywhere else...

I LOVE my h340. So many features, so solid (you'd expect that from something that, admittedly, looks like a brick), and with Rockbox, so flexible. It's a pity iRiver stopped making large capacity players, as their devices are really very good.

Cowon is also a brand with a reputation for good devices, and one that I will likely move to.

I WAS going to buy an iPod Classic, but just cant bring myself to do it until (if) there is a rockbox port for them.

[datdude]

Just go here: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/compare/

[ThoBar]

Just go here: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/compare/

Thanks for the link! Those Cowon Q5W's look very tempting....

[lalittle]

Just go here: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/compare/

That's a really cool site -- I hadn't seen that before.  Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, however, the information for the iPod Classic on the site is not accurate.  For example, the specs for the iPod Classic 160 lists only mp3 and aac (as well as aiff under "other formats" for some reason) as supported audio formats, but the iPod can also play both wav and aa (audible) files.  Other units DO list wav as a supported format, so this isn't a matter of this format not being listed at all.  (On an interesting side note, the 80GB Classic DOES list aa files -- it's just the 160 that does not.)  Similarly, for video formats, the site lists only H.264 for the iPod even though this player also plays mov, m4v, and mpeg4 files.  In the Audio Enhancements section, the site doesn't list any EQ for the iPod even though the this unit does off preset EQs.  I agree that offering ONLY presets is really annoying, but to not mention this is simply not accurate.

I'm not saying that the site failed to mention these things on purpose, but these seem like very obvious omissions, and when a site called "anythingbutipod.com" gets such obvious features incorrect, it gives the appearance of "cheating" in order to make the iPod look worse than it is.  That aside, it's still a very informative site that puts a lot of alternatives in one spot and has a really helpful database system.

Thanks again,

Larry

[benn600]

How about this: show me iPod Alternatives that have a 160GB hard drive in them.

Why do HD camcorders with a hard drive have a measly 30GB???  Why are so few products available with the top ends of the spectrum products: 16GB flash players & 160GB HDD players?

[Baron Samedi]

There is less and less portable audio players with high capacity... Out of the iPod classics most of the players are flash based.

Whatever, do you know if there is players handled by MC and allowing playing statistics? This is one of the reasons i'm using iPods.

[benn600]

I agree.  Play stats seem to only be handled in the iPod.  When certain things don't work with other players, it makes you want to just use the iPod.  It's the easiest and best known solution.