Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Hardware

Latest Crop of MP3 Players 172

Anonymous Coward writes "A couple of interesting new MP3 portables were announced this week. The first one is Bantam's BA1000 that has near-identical size and weight dimensions to the iPod, but offers a number of features the older Apple doesn't like the ability to record from an internal FM radio. Choosing to offer the player in only 2GB and 5GB capacities, it looks like it is shooting to be the first sub $200 portable utilizing Toshiba's petite 1.8" drives. The other player announced was Samsung's Yepp YP-55, which claims to be the first Surround Sound MP3 flash portable. Using SRS Labs' surround sound simulator, the unit comes in 128MB and 258MB units. MP3newswire.net also offers an older, but nicely explained article on how this technology works using only two headphones to replace six speakers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest Crop of MP3 Players

Comments Filter:
  • blah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:15AM (#5768509)
    Yet another HDD unit. I went through three Creative Jukebox Zens before I gave up on them. The idea is awesome, but I'd want to hear some 'torture-test' stories (like, you know, using it while walking...) from some I-Pod owners before I shell out another $300 USD for something that's about as durable as a lightbulb.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:25AM (#5768543)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:28AM (#5768554)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Surround (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:29AM (#5768559)
    LMFAO how are you going to get surround sound with headphones? I thought headphones are the best way to get the sound since after all we only have 2 ears on the side of our head and get the sound pumped right in while cancelling most outside noise out. This is also precisely the reason I won't move on to SACD or DVD-A because when I'm jogging outside, I could care less if my audio is 16/44 or 24/92, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, LOL!
  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sh4de ( 93527 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:36AM (#5768584)
    MP3newswire.net also offers an older, but nicely explained
    article [mp3newswire.net] on how this technology works using only two headphones to replace six speakers.

    Um, no. The article doesn't explain how to "replace six speakers" with two. It describes a WinAmp plugin for "virtual speaker placement", whatever that is.

    Personally, I've found that all these "virtual" thingies are market-droid speak, snake oil at their very best. If your recording has two channels (assuming no multichannel encoding), a correctly configured stereo pair is the best option.

    Real multichannel records may give you true 3D sound, if you have the decoder, amp, and speakers to do it. However, the linked article describes an "improvement" to a system that's ill-suited for high fidelity playback in the first place.

    Why anybody would want to distort the sound even further from what it is after MP3/Ogg encoding, since you can get better results with a decent amp (budget models from NAD [nadelectronics.com] are very nice), and a pair of high quality speakers.

  • by n3k5 ( 606163 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @10:59AM (#5768636) Journal
    quote from the last link in the article:
    Using a technique similar to that employed in 3D movies - the speakers target each ear individually the way colored 3D glasses target each eye - 3D audio promises to deliver 360 directional sound. It does this by mimicking how the ears distingish sound to create that fore to aft perception.
    This is a superb comparison, I've been looking for years for such an analogy. Technology that simulates surround sound in a stereo setup, like this, works about as good as coloured glasses work for viewing stereoscopic colour footage: you get an idea of the desired effect, but it's way off the real thing.

    Humans (and other animals as well) use several different clues to localise spatial sound, let's have a look at them: Firstly, there's the time difference: signals that are off center arrive earlier at one ear and later at the other. We can't consciously perceive such minimal time intervals, but out brain is hardwired to perceive the difference between the two signals. Electronic circuits can fake this effect, as long as the listener doesn't move eir head. Secondly, the sound is filtered by the head and the auricles, again differently for each ear if the source is off center and differently for sounds that come from different directions in general. Electronic circuits (and also microphones mounted inside artificial heads) can approximate this effect, but each individual has a different head and different ears and would require a recording tailored to em specifically for this to work perfectly. There actually is equipment that tailors spatial sounds to one headphone wearing individual after having measured eir head's characteristics with little microphones places inside eir auditory canals, near the ear drums. This works rather well, but again can't compensate for movements of the head. If you want to use speakers instead of headphones, the situation is much, much worse. And thirdly, that head movement I mentioned twice above: humans actually do that on purpose and unconsciously twist and tilt their heads around a little when localising sounds, thus making use of the slight changes in the filtering that occurs because of the head and the auricles. So far, there's no technique that takes that into account.

    As you can see, that expensive new hardware that Dolby is rolling out now, the Pro Logic II Virtual Speaker [dolby.com] encoder, absolutely cannot produce the same effect as any ordinary 4.1, 5.1 or 6.1 setup. It may spice up a movie you watch on your TV, but you wouldn't even rely on that when you're playing Quake and want to hear enemies coming from behind. And that's expensive, high end stuff. A 'surround sound simulator' in a lowly MP3 player delivers even less. I haven't tried the one mentioned above, but I guess there's no way it could make music sound 'more immersive' or '3d-like'.

    What's even worse, we're talking about music here. The best way to play music back is, without the slightest doubt, exactly the way it is intended to sound, the way it was recorded onto the CD or whatever medium. All those fancy DSP functions you find in all kinds of (mediocre) stereo equipment are nothing but useless features that exist for the sole purpose to have more features than the competition; it's pure dupery. You can alter sound by adding reverb or applying weird equalisation or whatnot, but arguing this alteration would be an improvement to each and every track is very, very stupid; don't fall for that.
  • Re:2 Gig 2 Small (Score:3, Insightful)

    by n3k5 ( 606163 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @11:07AM (#5768662) Journal
    It is amazing how fast I filled up my own iPod with 5 Gigs of sound.
    That's nothing remarkable, it's got FireWire, it's meant to be filled up fast, see? The iPod it meant to be a peripheral for your Mac/PC, one on which you put music for your next week in the office or your vacation. When you're back, you can fill it with something else. It's not meant to store your entire music collection; it would be silly to do that, because you could loose your entire collection after dropping it on the floor just once, or if it accidentially comes near a strong magnet or it's stolen or ... you get the idea.

    On the other hand, 2 GB really isn't that big. At a reasonably high quality bit rate, it stores music for, what, 50 hours? More than enough for a weekend trip, but for a vacation of two weeks, hmm... rather give me 5 GB.
  • by nojd ( 592850 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @12:14PM (#5768934)
    supported by a company that is pretty good for not leaving their hardware owners out to dry prematurely.

    Cough cough *Newton*, cough...

  • by rmdyer ( 267137 ) on Sunday April 20, 2003 @12:34PM (#5769002)
    As devices get smaller, manufacturers have a tendency to start using smaller batteries. The unfortunate side effect of this is...

    a. The batteries last no time at all.
    b. The bud earphones can't be driven with enough current to get the volume you might want.
    c. Switching on anything marked "turbo" bass will eat those batteries even faster.
    d. Leaving the device off for a few weeks may actually drain the battery anyway if the device uses some kind of static memory storage.

    I recently purchased a cheap ordinary AM/FM stereo portable from Emerson with 10 station memory (model HR2001). The device uses 2 AAA batteries. The max volume is poor, and when it is turned off for more than 2 weeks at a time, the batteries are totally drained from storing the stations in memory.

    When I read about that yepp device I cringed. Who in their "right mind" would buy such a thing. I loath any portable device that uses less than 2 AA size cells. There's just not enought juice to run the circuitry and audio amplifier.

    The conspiracy is that now the battery companies are owned by the portable manufacturers, so like the Lexmark printers and printer cartridges, you are getting suckered into a recurring cost business model.

    And yes, the 3D "surround sound" audio from "bud" earphones is a joke, a marketing gimmick, the wool is being pulled over your eyes. It's just like the tube amplifier mobos, if a company can market to just the right segment of the population that can be sold to, they will. You are being used! Don't fall for it. Take some engineering and physics classes! Think for yourself! Don't let someone else think for you!!!

    Just my 2 cents.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20, 2003 @02:04PM (#5769385)
    I am trying to get my head around your "theory." So you believe apple has an exclusive agreements with every 1.8" hard drive manufacturer, yet somehow you can buy one of these exclusive drives for $99 retail. Wouldn't the fact that you can buy one of these drives negate your speculation before it became speculation? Normally, common sense would have prevented you from making such an absurd post. Unless something fishy is going on...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20, 2003 @03:23PM (#5769666)
    OGM is the same format as Ogg, it just has a different extension.

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...