Can we get an iPod death knell counter going here? With all these reports of "iPod killers," I think we're over due.

I'm sure iPod will get beaten eventually... sony's walkman *eventually* did. This certainly isn't a killer. Maybe if the price had been much less. If given the choice of overpaying for Sony's brand or Apple's, Most of my friends would pic the Apple every time.

Remember the aibo? How bout the RMAV 3000, or the eVilla, or any number of industry changing failures put out by sony. Sony's kind of like Sears, an aging brand that used to have some relevance, and is now just lost.

Not that it matters to this iPod devotee, but could somebody clarify what works and what doesn't on this thing? My impression is that the only format supported by the "Podman" is ATRAC3, and that all other formats must be re-encoded into ATRAC3 in order to work.

True or false?

Let's see here:

Price: $400 each, no winner

Capacity: 20 GB each, no winner

Weight: 3.8 ounces vs. 5.6 ounces; score one for Sony.

Size: 4.6 cubic inches vs. 6.1 cubic inches; score another one for Sony.

Song Capacity: 13,000?? BULLSH!T--that's at a pathetic 48Kbps ATRAC3, vs. 128Kbps AAC. Numerous audio quality comparisons put ATRAC3 at the *bottom* of the list, but even assuming equal quality at the same bitrate, you'd have to divde that number by 2.6 (48 --> 128), for a total of, voila, 5,000 4 minute songs, the same as the 20 GB iPod! Imagine that! Conversely, iTunes/iPod can downshift all the way to as low as 16Kbps, but assuming you wanted your music at 48Kbps (same as Sony's), you'd end up with room for...voila, 13,000 songs! What an amazing coincidence! I call this even, but with a slight nod to Apple for being honest about the iPods' *realistic* capacity.

Battery Life--30 hours vs. 8 hours, ouch; however, Sony drops to 27 hours at a "high" bitrate like 128Kbps (see above). Still, *THIS* is the only true achilles heel for the iPod--battery life. Call this one for Sony, bigtime, if it's true.

Not listed: Ease of use, compatibility with iTunes/iTMS, ability to play MP3s and other formats, PDA capabilities, etc etc etc...ALL of which go to the iPod.

Next??

ok, size same, price same.

So lets compare real things. Battery. Sony wins that one. That's all.

I don't know a single person who uses their music service. Every person I know at this University, if they are playing music, is using iTunes. And the number of iPods is overwhelming. So much for them being too expensive. Do you realize how many students have these things?

Ease of use. Apple wins.
Connectivity. Apple wins. Dual format.
Cross platform. Apple wins.
Music store--95 million songs sold in one year. That's equivalent to a good 4 and a half years of Garth Brooks record sales!

These wannabes should stop copying Apple and go out an innovate something. Sony did so well with the WalkMan. Now, they're just a bunch of has-beens.

could you point out any web sites comparing the audio formats like ATRAC,AAC,mp3 windows-media etc ?

Quote

Tiger wrote:
ok, size same, price same.

These wannabes should stop copying Apple and go out an innovate something. Sony did so well with the WalkMan. Now, they're just a bunch of has-beens.

The first statement is wrong. The Sony is smaller by a decent amount.

The second statement is ironic in that maybe Apple "should go out an innovate something" and not rip off its developers so much. Oh, I forget, in Mac land it's ok for apple but not ok for anyone else.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Tiger wrote:
ok, size same, price same.

These wannabes should stop copying Apple and go out an innovate something. Sony did so well with the WalkMan. Now, they're just a bunch of has-beens.

The first statement is wrong. The Sony is smaller by a decent amount.

The second statement is ironic in that maybe Apple "should go out an innovate something" and not rip off its developers so much. Oh, I forget, in Mac land it's ok for apple but not ok for anyone else.

I forgot to say, the sony looks like a big turd of a player. ATRAC sux a$$ and only ATRAC makes it a non-starter. The UI looks weak. The apple scroll wheel and integration into iTunes is just way better, and really the only usable things for non-techies. Adding a convertoATRAC as another step in which things can f'up is dumb on sony's part. For apple, it's a good thing the idiots at sony are more arrogant and obstinate than the idiots at apple.

only for ÑŒber hipsters...haha

http://www.retropod.com/

The piece reads:
"The Walkman supports only Sony's ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus compression formats which is the standard format on Sony's MiniDisc players and its Windows-only 'Connect' online music store."

But then says:
"The new Sony device also supports MP3, WAV and WMA files."

Which is it?

The extra battery life is a bunch of marketing smoke & mirrors. The battery chemistry is the same with both units. The only thing that will give the Sony unit a longer battery life is the cache in the unit stores more music (albeit at a much lower quality).

Because of the amount of music in cache, the unit doesn't have to access the battery-draining hard disk drive. If sony used the same bit quality in their music as Apple, their battery life would be about the same as the iPod.

There is plenty of room in the market for another toy. I love my Ipod but I'm still curious to see what Sony can do. Have to agree about the ATRAC comments, the quality isnt as good as the other formats in my opinion. I use AAC and MP3s at 192 upwards.

I think Sony shot themselves in the foot by not supporting mp3s. Think BetaMax......

Apple need to put one of these in the Ipod:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/25/tosh_fuel_cell/

Gee...I wonder which player you'd like better...seeing how this site is "macobserver.com".

The price is too high...but the battery life, weight and dimension of the sony unit SLAUGHTERS the ipod.

Both players play other formats...both players use their own crappy propriatary format.

Wonder how well it sits in your pocket? I'm wearing jeans right now and I have a Rio Karma (20GB) in my right front pocket. Also, can the Sony device play back full albums gapless without ripping the CD as one big file?

Doesn't sound like it plays any open-source formats either.

NW-HD1... Catchy name. Just rolls off the tongue!

I gotta wonder how well that display will work on a nice sunny day outdoors, though.

When it's all said and done, if anybody could match the iPod, it would be Sony.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Gee...I wonder which player you'd like better...seeing how this site is "macobserver.com".

The price is too high...but the battery life, weight and dimension of the sony unit SLAUGHTERS the ipod.

Both players play other formats...both players use their own crappy propriatary format.

Wrong. ATRAC3 is consistently rated the WORST compression, while OGG and AAC are the best. The battery life is a lie. Like someone already said, it's only rated that way because it's got 256Mb of flash to run off. If you do like I do and cherry pick songs off the hard drive, it'll last about the same.

Just a bunch of lies and deception. Sony is digging themselves a long-term hole they are going to have trouble getting out of. They're gonna alienate an awful lot of customers - many of whom won't buy their products again. This could have repercussions for their entire line of merchandise.

Quote

When it's all said and done, if anybody could match the iPod, it would be Sony.

That's true. Guess it's safe to say nobody's gonna catch the iPod any time soon.

I believe there's a point where things are just TOO small to the point they're difficult to use. I think the iPod Mini is as small as these things should get. I can't imagine navigating through 13,000 (crappy 48Kbps) songs with that tiny little Sony turd, with that tiny little pad/wheel thingy. There's another photo circulating around where it's laying in someone's hand and it looks like they're about to crush it.

As technology gets smaller, I hope Apple will keep their iPods the same sizes, but use the extra room for more battery space and added features.

So does this thing play MP3's or not? I keep reading articles that say it doesn't. If the only format this thing plays is ATRAC3 then I don't even know why we are bothering to discuss it. It's existence only seems to indicate that Sony is destined to be the next Disney.

Although that brushed metal look is kinda nice...

Quote

Biff wrote:
So does this thing play MP3's or not? I keep reading articles that say it doesn't. If the only format this thing plays is ATRAC3 then I don't even know why we are bothering to discuss it. It's existence only seems to indicate that Sony is destined to be the next Disney.

Nope. It only plays ATRAC3. However, it can convert an ALREADY-COMPRESSED mp3 or WMA into 48Kbps ATRAC3. Wow. Talk about high fidelity!

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1512853428563728/

Looking at this thing, I like it. It's small, light, has good storage space, and actually looks nice. This looks like the best iPod competitor yet.

That said, I think the price is too high to compete. Face it, iPod is king. Even if this thing is "as good as" an iPod, it won't stand a chance if it's at the same price. It needs to be lower. Your average Joe knows iPods. If they see an iPod and some other thing with apparently the same specs and price, they'll go with the iPod. This is one case when the lemming-ness of consumers works in Apple's favor, big-time.

The battery life thing is interesting. Seems like a gross exaggeration from what I'm reading here, but even if that's true, your average Joe won't know that. That's the only thing I think might attract customers to this over the iPod. I'm interested to see how their claims stack up to real-world tests.

ATRAC also has no mindshare. Heck, I've barely heard of it myself, and I keep up on these things. When I hear it, it sounds just like "8-track", which is practically synonymous with ancient technology. Is that intentional? If so, someone at Sony should get their head checked. If not...someone at Sony should STILL get their head checked for not realizing it and coming up with a better name. And I do not believe 48kbps ATRAC music is anywhere near the quality of 128kbps AAC. I think this can only work against Sony, really.

If this thing were $200, I'd say we have a real iPod killer. At $400, we just have an iPod copy that's most likely doomed to live in the real thing's shadow. I just don't think anything's going to take the iPod's crown unless it's a lot cheaper or absolutely demolishes the iPod in specs.

Edit: Wait, does is REALLY not support mp3? I'm confused. If it ONLY supports ATRAC, then....um, no. Just...no. That lowers my opinion from "best non-iPod" to "why the @#$% would anyone want THAT?"

I can't believe they actually use this name for their format!! It's like naming a new car model the 'Aedsell3.'

Okay, so when they say it "supports MP3, WAV and WMA files", they mean they include software to convert those formats to ATRAC. Yeah, greeeeeat. So we're expected to take already-lossy mp3s and recompress them into another lossy format for an extra level of audio degradation? Give me a break. And people say APPLE is too hung up over its own formats.

I'd just love to hear what a song sounds like after converted from 128kbps mp3 to 48kbps ATRAC. That should be good for a laugh. Or a cringe.

I almost have to sort of admire Sony for having the balls to make a digital music player (and a $400 one, at that) that doesn't even play mp3, the one format that's synonymous with digital music in the minds of 99% of the population.

I think Sony has WAAAAY over-estimated the power of their brand name. If anyone actually gets duped into buying this thing, they'll probably end up hating Sony for the rest of their life.

From the photo posted at the top of this article, the click-wheel for this thing is actually smaller than the earbuds!

How easy will THAT be to use?

We are organzing the "Million iPod March" for July 14 in Washington, DC to protest iPodicide and those who support and practice it. Please show up with as many iPods as you can get ahold of. The more iPods you bring, the fewer of you we need.

Thoughts and prairs to Manut Bol.

C'mon - it is a nice looking unit they have here lets give it that.

BUT... yeah if this ATRAC codec is the same as on the mini-disc player it is really, really, thin and sub-standard - noticeably lower quality than MP3 or AAC. So many of the stats are irrelevant.

AND... yes I agree the navigation looks REALLY small - the scroll wheel really is da bomb!

Make the thing too small, and you're going to get heat problems with the disk. I wouldn't give much for the long-term reliability of this unit. And battery life? I've had more problems with Sony batteries than I want to count.

Let's leave ATRAC alone for now (personally, I think it's a load of ****, but many people won't care, as they'll listen in noisy environments, or the music can stand the distortion).

But more to the point, how good is the integration with the computer? And one more thing... how many labels will sign up to be sold by Sony's music store? I don't see this as a winner. It's a "me-too" which will go the way of the eVilla, etc.

Who really cares about how small these things get? If it fits in a pocket it fits in a pocket... get any smaller and it becomes to easy to lose.

Quote

Guest wrote:
And one more thing... how many labels will sign up to be sold by Sony's music store?

I know of one for sure. (Sony, you dullards!)

Which leads me to wonder if Sony's labels will continue to license to iTunes. (hmmmm....)

For all you guys saying "it LOOKS nice," yeah - it looks OK. Kinda like a cross between a cel phone and a VAIO laptop. OK. Great. Personally, I think it looks "safe" and "non-offensive." In other words, they're doing everything they can to appeal to the largest possible base and take no real chances. Way to go, Sony.

Quote

Billy K wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
And one more thing... how many labels will sign up to be sold by Sony's music store?

I know of one for sure. (Sony, you dullards!)

Sorry, I meant to say "what *other* labels will sign up...".

Um, yes... unless and until this thing sells well (which it will likely only sell well with the MD enthusiast crowd, though that is lunlikely now that Hi-MD is out), Sony Music will still need to make money / generate sales. iTMS is becoming the place to do that.

Integration of Sony Music into the fold of a "finally" unified sony brand will come LAST. First they are going to get their electronics / computers / hardware lines in line. Then look at their media groups.

Quote

Billy K wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
And one more thing... how many labels will sign up to be sold by Sony's music store?

I know of one for sure. (Sony, you dullards!)

Which leads me to wonder if Sony's labels will continue to license to iTunes. (hmmmm....)

One good thing in my opinion is that it can push Apple in making the iPod battery life longer...
A bit of competition is only healthy in the market. Obviously with the Atrac3 encoding I'm not sure the quality of music can really be defined as "competitive"..
Believe me.. I sold a Sony MD player I got last Christmas cause the music lost too much when encoded in that format... and also cause here in Italy it's so difficult to find Md disks...

though i'm not happy about this atrac nonsense, it might not be as bad as you all make it up to be as the software automatically transcode the audio (doubt you will loose that much quality really if you stick to sensible bitrates and not go down to 48 (yes it supports higher rates)) when you transfer the files. so in practice you just drag and drop your mp3 files onto the player. how much performance hit this take though, worries me.

having to use their software to copy music onto their player sucks, but is it that different from other brands? ipod, you have to use itunes, for toshiba you have to use some toshiba software or windows media player plugin that wraps a SAT encryption around the mp3 file, and something simmilar for panasonic through their extremely shitty sd-jukebox software. so unless the audio turns into $#!% due to conversion (which i doubt as most transcoders are good these days, and most people don't notice mp3->aac nor mp3->wma) and it doesn't take too long (worried about this) i think people are making a bigger fuzz about it than necessary.

thing to worry about though; will sony be good at updating the software when newer windows'es and such arrive. sony usually suck at this.

for most part it seems to me to be much nicer than ipod (which i guess ipod-lover will flame me for) and interesting as an alternative to the new toshiba gigabeats with wlan/lan etc.

Quote

mahuti wrote:
Remember the aibo? How bout the RMAV 3000, or the eVilla, or any number of industry changing failures put out by sony. Sony's kind of like Sears, an aging brand that used to have some relevance, and is now just lost.

aibo is a formidable success actually.

... probably runs for 30 hours without any speculative bullshit I've seen posted here.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The extra battery life is a bunch of marketing smoke & mirrors. The battery chemistry is the same with both units. The only thing that will give the Sony unit a longer battery life is the cache in the unit stores more music (albeit at a much lower quality).

Because of the amount of music in cache, the unit doesn't have to access the battery-draining hard disk drive. If sony used the same bit quality in their music as Apple, their battery life would be about the same as the iPod.

Where do you get this from? Is there anything published regarding this player that suggest this to be the case? What's been written about this device has mostly been about making circuitry that is power saving blah blah. Sony has great battery life on other products (NetMD, Vaio Pocket, etc.) and they deliver the promised battery life (at least as well as iPod) - so why shouldn't this one?

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Sony can beat Apple on battery life. Hell, EVERYONE beats iPod on battery life.

You guys are iPod-obsessed... I mean, c'mon:
1. "ATRAC is bad". Fair. As for the fuzz about 48khz; it's not like you HAVE to use 48khz (however, it is indeed stupid of them to use that to measure amount of songs you can add).
2. "The Sony is too small, easy to loose, etc"-bullshit. Eh.. But iPod mini is a great thing for its size? Get real; smaller is better! If you might as well get that Sony device that plays video, mp3 (yes, no Atrac), and what not.
3. "Longer battery life than iPod, oh, that can't be true!"
4. "Sony is just selling brandname". True, but has anything but exploting their brandname to a fanatic following kept Apple alive? (before you all go nuts, I do have an Apple here).

Of course, when the next generation iPod comes out being smaller and boosting better battery life, noone on this forum will be in doubt of the battery life figures nor will anyone say that shrinking the size was a bad thing.

Sony has the highest product success ratio of any company in the world. iPod won't be around long because of this. Comparing Sony to Sears is like comparing you to Elvis. There is no basis for comparison...what ever happened to Mac taking over the world???!

Sony will conquer this market...will Apple go back trying to conquer the computer world?????! Probably not...what's next for Apple....cars?! LOL!

Subject says it all.

Right on! Mac users need to access their brains...and quit parroting Jobs (a horrible specimen of a human being if there ever was one!)

Sony can smash Apple, Inc. anytime they choose. They will kill the iPod just by introducing new models 6 times a year. Name one company that has defeated Sony in the market place? Think, don't just parrot!

To draw potential ipod'ers away from Apple. It looks ok, has ok specs. I simply don't believe you will get 30 hours out of it, it has esentially the same battery as an ipod!
Though it looks ok, its not at all as cool as the ipod. And ipod mini's RULE!
if they could just boost the gigs up a few, though that doesn't seem to matter to anyone seeing that they sell out in moments everytime a shipment arrives.

size, same?

the Sony is the size of a credit card!

new atrac3 compression at 48k is almost CD quality.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
new atrac3 compression at 48k is almost CD quality.

Interesting, because the only site I could find that wasn't associated with Sony came to a different conclusion regarding quality.

CDFreaks.com conducted a listening test with all formats using 128Kbps encoding (OGG Vorbis, LAME MP3, AAC, ATRAC3 and WMA). OGG came in first, and ATRAC3 came in last (by a significant margin).

Another question I would have for Sony is this: If 48Kbps is (near) CD quality, then why is Sony Connect selling at 132Kbps? This defeats the claim of being able to hold 13,000 songs (claim based on 48K).

And it is not as if 132K is going to be BETTER than CD quality, since you can't create a compressed version better (meaning greater fidelity) than the original. Combine this with having to convert any other (unprotected) music you may have to ATRAC3, entailing decompressing and recompressing the music in the new format, and many may find that there is just too much loss in quality.

Battery life is certainly a plus, as is size. I think the Achilles heel of the NW-ND1 (besides the name) is the ATRAC requirement.

For ferks sake...

There is not such thing as 'CD Quality', in the sense the term is used and misused and abused in such talk.

It's not what = 'CD Quality' that defines the end result of reasonable or high quality reproduction, it's what sounds right on a instance to instance basis...

No matter what you use, in the way of lossy codecs, you will not get 'CD Quality'. All lossy codecs produce sub 'CD Quality' reproduction.

Some combinations produce close to what people might call 'CD Quality', but none produce 100% authentic reproduction of real uncompressed audio as heard from first-gen analog and digital recordings.

As it goes, having worked with ATRAC and other lossy codecs longer than most 'net' users have had the chance to be 'experts' on digital audio for, all i can say is this :-

If you want perfection - and dont wanna pay extortionate money for a flawed (badly built) Flac capable player (i.e. the Karma), then stick to using a walkman or CDP and uncompressed media. If ATRAC, as in pre-ATRAC3, is your benchmark, do likewise and stick with it.

If you want something that resembles something between hi-grade analog cassette recordings and the common (read sh*t) commercial CD audio remaster at best - then drool and go mad over lossy audio and stick to loving yer iPod's.

In the real world, the rest of us (even those of us with better options, and less inclination to splash out daft money on overhyped 'net audio' players) tend to stick to finding a fairly content-sounding level of repro is we got to lossy audio use, or we do like i suggested the perfectionist do.. forget lossy and seeking top quality from it.

As for iPod users - they probably wont admit it, but they are only doing what MD users do.. get on and enjoy their choice. iPod and MD users have more in common than they care to admit to.

'Tom Kat' aka Just An UnCool Cat

*happens to like ATRAC in all versions, and hates Ogg pseudo-religous nutters...*

people seem to use various listening tests of atrac3 to judge the 48khz/atrac3plus and other bitrates on atrac3plus on the player. atrac3plus is far supperior to atrac3 and they are very different (why couldnt they call it atrac4 to avoid all the confusion?).
it's a bit like using mp2 vs ogg to prove that ogg is better than mp3.

Apple should not be threatened by this horrible performing Sony Product.
All of sonys complex HD-82blahblah are probably just trying to impress people by giving formulas they know no one would understand.
I have a great respect for sony, But as you are figuring out, I have greater respect for Apple; But please dont consider this a biased opinion, 'Nice try Sony, You did very well on this one, But not enough to be comparible to the dell jukebox, iRivers 20GB model, And of course, The wonderful iPod.

YOU ARE ALL GAY! you can't have fair and unbiased comparesons between two products on one of the competing products' site, ha losers!

face it I-PODS ARE $#!% THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE BUY THEM IS BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST HARD DRIVE MUSIC PLAYERS WITH ADVERTS SPREAD ACCROSS THE WORLD.

Sony's NW-HD1 pisses on the I-pod, when songs are set to the same compression rate the Atrac3 of Sony beats the AAC of apple hands down, the sony is stronger than the I-pod, its has a longer battery life (in two ways) lasts for 30 hours and it doesnt ware out after 1 year of purcase, as for style i must admit the I-pod is very stylish in a contempory kind of way, but the Sony is also very contempory both players being the complete opposite the sony black and metal and the I-pod white.
As for price yes the I-pod is better value but what is Ј50 to Ј100 (dollers) when you are buying something of this price in the first place think before you open you mouth next time JR

I have used two Sony MDs

They are junk....

Sony use atrac format, which exclude all the popular format such as mp3,ogg,wma,asf....

It's really time counsuming to use Sony MD

and the sound quality is poort than expected

I can't tell any difference between mp3 and atrac

To be honest, ogg file is far better than atrac

( You can check the experiment ,,,just type at Google)

Sony lied and ectorted my money...

No point debating. The market had spoken.

ATRAC3 at 132kbps has a true cd quality and AAC not
and i like SonicStage more than Itunes
but i realy do not understand why here stays that ATRAC3 id the worsest one:S http://www.noveo.net/rjamorim/plot18z.png