Author Topic: Portable music players -- with replaceable batteries? (Read 12227 times)

ironcoder · « **on:** Sun, 14 February 2010, 14:41:12 »

I'm in the market for a portable music player for a family member.

The Sansa Clip+ looks pretty good because it supports micro SDHC cards up to 16GB and even plays FLAC! The only downside I can see is it uses an internal, non-replaceable battery.

Can anybody recommend a good portable unit that uses AAA or AA rechargeables? I don't want to have to throw out the unit when the battery dies, even if it doesn't work out to be that expensive over a few years. It just rubs me the wrong way to have a battery become a critical point of failure.

Thanks.

kishy · « **Reply #1 on:** Sun, 14 February 2010, 18:03:55 »

I've got something ridiculously inefficient, but I love it. More of a PMP than anything else...built for video but I use it for audio (since my smaller, preferred choice is out of commission as seen in a recent photo).

Creative ZEN Vision W, visible below:

Yeah, that's the former version of my present alias you see at the top.

And yes, removable battery on the W (as well as the Micros).

bigpook · « **Reply #2 on:** Sun, 14 February 2010, 18:07:55 »

I have two cowon mp3 players I got off of newegg. One is getting on three years old and the internal battery is still good. Cowon is nice as it plays ogg and flac. My wife has a portable that uses batteries and its kind of a pain as you have to replace them.

mp29k · « **Reply #3 on:** Sun, 14 February 2010, 18:09:56 »

It looks really hard to find them now with normal batteries! I thought iRiver might have them, but it seems like they all have the internal battery now too.

keyb_gr · « **Reply #4 on:** Sun, 14 February 2010, 19:46:22 »

Some of the last decent players to use AA/AAA cells were iRiver's T50 and T60 in 2007, and even those were kinda late. I'd just get a Clip+, and should its battery ever run low on capacity with no possible replacment in sight, there are these external battery compartments for charging USB devices which typically hold 4 AA cells.

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #5 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 09:06:55 »

Here's a review of these types of players on CNet: http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6490_7-6582800.html

I have one at home - I can't remember the manufacturer right now, that I bought to take with me on deployment. An old RCA Lyra model. It takes a AAA and an SD card. The ad copy says it will expand up to 1gb using the SD slot, I want to say it will take 2gb SD cards. It gave me yeoman service while I was away.

That being said: someone suggested using a cheap AAA USB charger and a cheap clip-type MP3 player. I have to think that would be easeir overall.

ironcoder · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 09:45:28 »

I also have an old Lyra and it's unbelievable. The battery lasts forever and it sounds fantastic. I just never imagined they would still be manufactured. If they are, then that's probably what I'll get. Thanks for reminding me and for the link, Shawn.

Kishy, I'll have to look into the Creative players, I had forgotten about them also. I have never owned one, but I had the impression they had a pretty activity community, firmware updates, etc. at the expense of not sounding as good as other players. Any truth to that? I have to admit, the one Creative product I do have, a headset, has not impressed me at all.

As long as it's possible to replace the battery (and not too expensive) I guess I could go with Ripster's suggestion on a Clip+. They really do seem like great units.

Thanks guys. I'm going to think on this for another few days before I do anything about it.

itlnstln · « **Reply #7 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 10:19:06 »

Make sure you have good speakers/headphones, too. I can tell the difference on over 50% of songs, but usually if I am listening on headphones (noise floor reduction). Using the -alt presets, I can rarely tell an MP3 vs. FLAC/CD, but I really think most of that is due to the poor recording quality up front. The albums I can hear differences the most on is stuff like Diana Krall, Canadian Brass, etc.

The bottom line is, unless you listen to very-well-recorded music, you probably aren't going to tell the difference (unless you compress to 128K, or something). If you're listening to Metallica, Slayer, Lil' John, or whatever; don't worry about it.

itlnstln · « **Reply #8 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 10:35:54 »

I wouldn't say 75%, either, more like 55-60%. The normal stuff I listen to, maybe 5-10% on a good day. I have one of two thoughts/opinions on this. When audiophools complain about MP3's they either:

A) Have never heard a well-encoded MP3
B) Aren't talking about well-encoded MP3s but the 128K garbage people DL from Limewire
C) Are full of bull****

I hope it's "A" or "B," but I really think it's "C." To be really honest, I consume most of my music at work off of my iPod (MP3) or Pandora on my phone (mostly for discovery). In either case, I am completely satisfied in the quality of what I am listening to (Pandora's a little weak, though).

Yes, Diana Krall is hawt. She listens to music on Totems.

itlnstln · « **Reply #9 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 11:15:27 »

I never understood how Lyle Lovett could pull. Either money is an aphrodisiac, or...

In any case, I still don't know how that guy could pull. Elvis Costello doesn't look too bad in that pic, but he certainly used to look like a tool. I think it was more of the glasses and clothes, though, not a natural ugly like Lovett.

kishy · « **Reply #10 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 11:39:06 »

Wow, a Tripod logo! (I had thought they died long ago)

A good 320kbps MP3 (remember, there's more to this than bitrate...bitrate can be sky high but quality can still suck) cannot be distinguished from a lossless format by a normal person. If you can tell the difference, you shouldn't be listening to music...you're focusing on the wrong thing and aren't enjoying the music anyway.

itlnstln, I go with 'C'.

itlnstln · « **Reply #11 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 11:49:31 »

Gee, what tipped you off? Kishy's right, though. If you spend all your time looking for quality differences in formats instead of listening to the music, ur doing it rong.* The occasional "scientific experiment" is fun, though.

*That said, poorly encoded music, crappy equipment, etc. can be pretty distracting.

kishy · « **Reply #12 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 11:57:19 »

Quote from: itlnstln;158444

Gee, what tipped you off? Kishy's right, though. If you spend all your time looking for quality differences in formats instead of listening to the music, ur doing it rong.* The occasional "scientific experiment" is fun, though.

*That said, poorly encoded music, crappy equipment, etc. can be pretty distracting.

Couldn't agree more.

I particularly dislike downloading a high bitrate file and the resulting audio sounds like it could have been adequately stored in a 96kbps file...

itlnstln · « **Reply #13 on:** Mon, 15 February 2010, 12:32:49 »

In the first video, Pete Rock used something like 27 samples to create the instrumental. It was proabably just encoded poorly. The Dungeon Family (who makes the instrumentals for Outakst) are awesome. You should check out the Roots - completely live band. The Philadelphia Experiment (IIRC, I'll have to check the title at home), is a great jazz album featuring some of the Roots band members and Karriem Riggins - the drummer for Diana Krall (and Kanye West and Common during concerts). Here is Karriem Riggins performing on J. Dilla's Body Movin' (the video's kinda lame):

>

News:

Author Topic: Portable music players -- with replaceable batteries? (Read 12227 times)