I usually like shopping online, to buy some clothing, shoes, MP3 and so on, I like the way very much. You know, it is cheap and convenient. Recently, I find a nice website: http://www.24retail.com/group_purchase_p18611.html , it is making a promotion: group-buying. Wow, I am so excited about it. All kinds of products: Bluetooth MP3 sunglasses player, Tablet pc, and Hot Phones. Enjoy bulk discount and good service, that is true. So, I can not help recommending it to you, my friends. I trust you must will enjoy surprise. No one is willing to miss such a good opportunity, right?
I have read the helpful online reviews here and have decided that MP3s are the way to go. I am stumped, however, as to which model. Personally, I am a technophobe, but am looking to purchase a decent MP3 player as a Christmas present. Has anyone had any experience of the Sony NWHD3? If so, any feedback would be greatly appreciated, particularly regarding music quality, battery life, and most importantly, value for money! Many thanks.
As a follow up to the excellent article posted by EazyDude, here's some more recent analysis based on how the formats compare a year on. Im currently deciding which to go for ;) MP3s 1) MP3s are not as good as CD quality sound -- choose your bit rate, 192kb just as good as CD 2) Most MP3s are not legal copies, but are free -- Most MDs are ripped from CD ;) 3)You have to get busy and find those MP3s and download them, taking time -- Now easier and quicker than going down to HMV! 4) MP3s create instant jukeboxes -- They do 5) No skipping ever on MP3 players -- Woohoo! 6) Limited memory size of protable players for the moment -- The new Jukeboxes are up to 30Gb!! 7) Portable players are very small -- they are but the juke boxes are still quite big 8) More computer time for new songs --not really 9) Expensive technology -- comparible to MD except the Juke boxes which are v. expensive 10) Great for parties with the right equipment. MDs 1) Nearer CD Quality than MP3s -- not so 2) Robust discs for the car -- easier still without discs :D 3) Not flawless, can generate errors, can skip or lose date entirely -- Getting better all the time though 4) Not cheap either -- comparible to MP3 5) Track versatility - names and order -- easier to do on MP3 6) Potentially 320 minutes per disc -- 5000 hours on 1 MP3 player 7) Can swap discs easily -- no need! 8) Pre-recorded MDs expensive -- avoid at all costs 9) Un-aesthetic collection -- cant see collection of MP3s 10) You can do more with an MD player, including put your MP3s on your MDs -- you can put MDs on MP3 easily enough. MP3 is definately the more versatile format The only MP3 players i consider are the new juke box ones. I really cant imagine anything more of a hassle that having to plug my MP3 player into my PC e
very morning to dowload an album saved on my HD. The juke box players hold more than can ever be needed so only with new albums must the player be connected to the pc. The main things to compare for me are, MP3 is better/same for sound quality the players dont skip and they hold more. they are still too big for my liking and way to expensive! Also, there is a dependany on the PC which could be a problem as technology or formats change etc etc Minidisc are still quite wee on their own, no stress lugging a couple of albums around at a time. how many albums do you really listen to in a day? The players are little bigger than the discs too wich is rather nice. Also MD is cheaper than the MP3 juke boxes. The sound quality may not technically be as good as high bit rate mp3s but thats not too big an issue when your out walking/jogging around town etc etc I think MP3 is the best format, its the format of the future too. But at the moment, the players are too expensive and too big compared to minidisc unless you want to go for one of the wee solid state guys and put up with connecting to your pc every time you want to change album and having to store all your albums on your PC or on CD-Rs. MiniDisc is chaper, smaller and more future proof. id be surprised if current MP3 players werent obselete in 2/3 years time. a minidic will last for as long as you look after it
I have been playing with both formats, using one of the Sony net based minidisc recorders. I think is is the 707 bought about 9 months ago from duty free in Stansted. I am very impressed by minidisc. The sound is great, and the discs have stood up to fairly frequent use. The big disadvantage is that the minidisc player is an electromechanical device, and some day it will fail. MP3 has penetrated the market much more fully and has no moving parts to go wrong. The problem with MP3 is that it is compressed, and can sound a bit funny. If you have a low bit rate, there is a price to pay. I have connected my minidisc to computer via USB, and recording is a doddle, and quick. You can edit the table of contents to suit yourself. You can also, with the provided software, burn your mp3 tracks on to the discs. Using the slowest speed, you can have about 5 hours of music on one disc, which is enought for most people for one day. There is a remote control with mine, so there is no showy unit visible for muggers to covet. I have also connected my minidisc to a DAB radio, and I have to tell you that the quality is wonderful. If you want things other than music, then you can have five hours of spoken work courtesy of the one word channel. I have not tried downloading DAB onto the computer yet, and that may be a challenge. Minidisc can handle may formats including MP3, wav, window media player format and plain and simple audi (including optical links). The discs are re-usable, and if there is a failed burn, you just try again
I don?t own a Minidisk player, I never have and I never will. When the format was released, it was hailed as the digital substitute for the cassette tape, but I didn?t buy that argument one bit. There?s little more satisfying to the egotist than being proven right, but now that sales in Minidisk players are falling I am being proven correct. The Minidisk is not a viable alternative to any music format. MP3s are equally feared and loathed by the music fan and record company executive respectively and rightly so. In my opinion, the MP3 format will continue to increase in strength for some time and become even more of a staple for the music fan. Here?s why? MINIDISK What benefits do Minidisks offer over any other format? They are smaller than CDs, size was surely a big factor in the consignment of the superior format, vinyl to the edges of sales statistics, but size wasn?t enough of an advantage for the Minidisk. CDs offered the carrot of having the word ?digital? in its name, but the Minidisk offered little in the way of new technology. The fact that the Minidisk was recordable (and rewritable) offered a fair advantage over the CD for a while (and consigned the cassette to the abyss), but not for long. Anyone with affluent enough to own a Minidisk player (which still aren?t too cheap), is most likely to own a PC or Mac with a relatively fast CD rewriter. With CD-R?s being so cheap few people even care about the ability to rewrite Minidisks, they?d rather have a permanent copy of the album or compilation that they?ve burned. Minidisk players are smaller than portable CD players and offer instant record ability, but these two advantages seem to be the only palpable advantages to owning a Minidisk recorder. MP3 MP3?s encoded at 128kbs, or even at 190kbs are not of the same quality as CD audio or Minidisk audio and this is an argument often used to discredit the format. But for me, this argument is superfluous. The average record bu
yer (i.e. the people who collectively decide which format wins out in the end) would not be able to tell the difference between the quality of a good quality MP3 and CD audio. It is only anally retentive audiophiles such as me who can tell the difference and less again care that the quality is diminished in MP3s. The great advantage of MP3s is that they are so small in size, that even on a 56k modem; you can download them for free off the internet. This inevitably leads to accusations of freeloading and the argument that MP3s are killing the record industry. Bullshit. If anything, MP3 downloading encourages people to sample albums and if they like what they hear they?ll pay for the album, though broadband may threaten the status quo. What record company executives are really afraid of (or should be) is that the music buyer can bypass promotional pushes, sample album filler material and decide what music they WANT to listen to, rather than be fooled into buying something they won?t like for £15. There?s nothing the capitalist fears more than a sophisticated demographic of music buyers. MP3 players have big advantages over CD players. The very small players have tremendous advantages in that they are literally tiny and are very cool. They are, however limited to one or two albums on their minimal memory and offer no record function. The real threat to the CD is the bigger players such as the Archos Jukebox or Creative Jukebox. These players aren?t any bigger than your average portable CD players, but allow you to hold hundreds of albums on their hard drives. The Mp3 player is a versatile solution to playing not only your downloaded music, but also most of your CD collection too! MINIDISK VERSUS MP3 There simply is no contest here because only price (something that is continually dropping for MP3 players) offers an advantage to the Minidisk player. For example, my Archos Jukebox Recorder 6gb cost ?400 14 months ago. Now, the Archos J
ukebox 10gb retails at ?300! MP3 players are not much bigger than Minidisk players (and the 64mb players are far smaller). The Archos Jukebox and Creative Jukebox both offer record facilities. Every track on an MP3 player can be easily labelled via the internet, something that proves incredibly useful. You also do not need to buy any accessories such as disks after your initial purchase of an MP3 player and therefore don?t have more disks to clutter your desktop. If Minidisk was truly the successor to the cassette, it would surely have a large in-car presence by now, but it is the CD player and now even the MP3 player that is most likely to be installed in more expensive models and eventually will filter to all models. Like I say, no contest. In my opinion, when Sony created the Minidisk as a successor, they missed the point and they missed an opportunity. The Minidisk and Philips DCC were marketed as successors to the cassette, but what was really needed for music was something that has never existed, a durable solution to all your musical needs, home stereo, car stereo, personal stereo, even for DJs. The MP3 is a solution that works and works well for all of these needs. There are some who believe that even the MP3 will be superseded by another computer format, but I really don?t buy this. The MP3 is so widespread and recognisable as a format, that any improvement technology will surely have to be backwards compatible with MP3. Just look at the MIDI format, it?s been around for 22 years and still no alternative can shake off its dominance in its niche. The MP3 is less of a threat to the CD as record company execs would like to make out, because people will always want a hard copy of their music, just in case things go wrong. But while the MP3 is here to stay, Minidisks never really lived.
after readings these reviews about MP3 being better, i felt i had to step in and voice my opinion (which is my first). ill state the facts: MiniDisc Cost - £100 - 240 youll get a decent redorder and player for about £150 Cost of media - £1 or less for a disc that can hold up to 320 minutes of music on using LP4 mode. thats about 5 albums on one disc - 6 if ure lucky. ill also note that their is no loss of sound quality if u use the optical cable. MP3 Cost - £60 - 200 Cost of media - youll pay about £30 for a 64MB memory stick which can hold an album on now im not being biased towards MD, i just know more about it than MP3. i find MD much more portable as u can record from nearly every digital source including portable CD's and pc's which means u can put your mp3's on minidisc.
Mp3 at 128kb/s on a 128mb RCA RD1070 Lyra MP3 player--33 songs, 5 corrupt. MDLP at LP2 Stereo (132kb/s) recording mode with Sony MZN505S MD walkman--37 songs, no corruption. I can't believe that this debate is even on! It's pretty obvious that MDs are the future, Sony Net MD's at least! With MDLP stereo recording mode, you can hold twice as much as a 64mb mp3 player can. My Sony MD comes with G-shock protection, I've dropped it from 1 meter 3 times and it still doesn't skip! The battery life is also worth considering, my MD only requires an average AA battery to last 50 hours, when Mp3 players only last 8-12 hours. My MD was only around $30 canadian more than a 128mb mp3 player, definitely worth the money. The only advantage Mp3 players have over MD's are there size, but a MD is also small enough to fit in your pocket. So don't waste your money on a Mp3 player, MD's are the future!
Mini Discs are obviously better than MP3 players. In 10 years CD players will be gone. Mini disc players will have replaced them. MP3s you can only listen to on your portable MP3 player or with a car kit. Mini discs have players you can install in your cars or MD stereos are also out. Mini Discs=wave of the future. MP3=15 minutes of fame, are almost up. MD's aren't much more expensive either. They don't skip or anything.
As many have said before me, comparing MP3 directly to MiniDisc isn't fair. Both are different mediums and formats and directly reviewing each's merits and downfalls isn't possible. Now, comparing the players directly is possible and on we go with my stab at this... I have owned both an MP3 player (of sorts) and various MD players/recorders in the past so I have a pretty good idea of where each stand. My MP3 player was actually a Sony Memory Stick Walkman. Indeed, it was very nice to look at being made from brushed aluminium and such. It came with a 64mb "Magic Gate" Memory Stick, which in reality could probably store about 60mb of music (the rest of the 4mb was used up by the block register, happens on all memory). Strictly speaking, it didn't actually play MP3s but it did play ATRAC files, same compression system used by MD. This compression format was superior to MP3 with 105kb ATRAC files sounding as good as 128kb MP3s. It did a very good job at playing music which sounded unusually good for a solid state format. However, it was held back by its limited memory capabilities and the fact that the software to transfer music for most solid state music players is below average. That and the measely 10 hour battery life really made me think twice about the £300 I had handed over. Another point I should mention is that the MS Walkman would only accept the white MG Memory Sticks which cost at least a third more than their purple counterparts! Before I move on to MD, I should mention that I sold my MD Walkman (Sony MZ - R90) so that I could afford the MS Walkman. Needless to say, I quickly got rid of the MS Walkman and got myself the latest Sony MD Walkman. With MD, the sky really is the limit. A lot of care and attention is taken into account when producing MD players, many of the high-end models are made from aluminium or magnesium alloys. I have seen hardly any MP3 players which are n
ot made from plastic. MD players also have the option of a remote control which is very useful when you're on the go. With MP3 players, you would actually have to physically take the unit out of your pocket or your bag which isn't too convenient if you're walking about etc. Battery life is also a big plus with MD. Yes, the early models had pathetic battery lives (Sony MZ - R55 anyone?) but many of them have now surpassed the 50 hour mark, with a few surpassing the 100 hour mark. If that isn't impressive then I don't know what is. The recording medium being affoardable little plastic discs is extremely handy for those who like to carry a selection of music. I myself travel quite a lot and I found only have an hour of music with the MP3 player quickly got on my nerves. With MD, it is actually possible to carry your whole back catalogue of music whereas with MP3, you would either have to have a hard-disk player (most of which are huge) or carry a laptop with all of the cables for transfer etc. We now reach the analysis of sound quality. MP3 in itself is an old format which hasn't really received any new updates over the years since Fraunhoffer (leading MP3 institute) first developed the format. Couple this with the fact that most people out there encode using Real Jukebox, which has a terrible encoder which produces a washed out effect, and you've got several billion MP3s on the internet which sound rubbish. MD has gone through several encoder updates, the latest being DSP Type S, which is the 6th generation MD encoding engine I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong. Those who claim 128kb MP3s are CD quality or even near CD quality should get their ears checked. If you actually compare MP3 with audio tape, you will find that the two are similar with MP3 having gotten rid of the hissing we all associate with tape. If you do a blind test with MD and CD and a good pair of headphones
, you will find that most people will be unable to distinguish the two formats. It has also been said that MD recorded songs are comparable to MP3s encoded around the 290kb mark. That is over twice the encoding rate of a 128kb MP3! And my conclusion? Well, this actually isn't as harsh as my criticisms above. The two formats are for two very different audiences. If you have a high speed internet connection (anything better than 56k), have access to your computer for most of the day (before you leave for work etc), or already have an extensive MP3 library, then an MP3 player is clearly for you. If you are an audiophile of sorts and love true quality sounding music, travel a lot, or have an extensive CD collection, then MD is really for you. Yes, there are other deciding factors such as price etc but I'm starting to waffle so I'll wrap this up now.
I offer the following for the possibility that it might help those who love music and who are new to mp3's ... Question your assumptions: A number of posts, including one found currently on this site, contain a flat statement such as "CD sound is better than mp3". Well, maybe not ... In June/2000, a German magazine name C't published the results of a double blind experiment testing if CD could be distinguished from mp3, playback. I have not seen an English translation yet, the original German article may be found at: http://www.heise.de/ct/00/06/092/default.shtml. A critique of it's methodology with some English may be found at: http://sjeng.sourceforge.net/audio/heise.html. They test involved 14 individuals including members of the audiophile community, double blind. The results simply stated are these ... While 90% of the mp3's encoded at 128k were detected, mp3's encoded at 256k were found to be indistinguishable from the CD's. So I suggest that to say that CD's sound better than mp3's, without qualification, is not quite accurate. A test was also done by Stereo Review not between CD's and mp3's but comparing different CODEC's, finding mp3 performance slipping below that of two competing CODEC's. It has been longer than I want to say since my college statistics classes, but instinct causes me concern about their methodology ... 1. The results are based upon three subjects. 2. The three subjects themselves were Microsoft, Frauhofer and Dolby Labs employees. Double blind though the test may have been, my instinct causes me to question the use of subjects who are so familiar with the nuances/idiosynchracies of each CODEC. For example, was one sound "better/worse" or was it simply recognizable? I believe it is preferable to use disinterested subjects as the C't test did. I'm an audio tweak of some thirty
years. I just spent $750 on a phono cartridge (moderate by audiophile standards). I listen to vinyl and CD. I have been told all my life how picky and obsessive I am. I have spent hours replaying the same 5-10 second segment from an CD-to-aiff file, then from a 256k mp3 of that file, back and forth ad nauseum. I do not think I could pick out the CD vs the mp3 in a double blind test any better than the C't subjects did. I'm archiving my vinyl and CD's at 256K CBR/normal stereo or 128K for mono. This gives me 80 archive quality hours on my iPod. But I'm not throwing away the aiff files or the CD's. Who knows what's coming next? Always expect the unexpected. I hope this helps. PS. recommendation/warning as may be the case: try an iPod and you will never be able to settle for a mini disc. Happy listening!
... that is the question really. Bear with me on this one, as this is going to be a long haul really. ------ |MP3s| ------ What are MP3s? -------------- There are numerous sites out there to give you good details on what they are, including: http://www.howstuffworks.com/mp3.htm But quite simply put, they're a computer format that encodes audio, or sounds to you and me. If you recorded CD quality sound onto a computer it would take buckets and buckets of room up and be very intensive to work with, so instead MP3s compress the music. To make the file sizes even smaller to work with, MP3s are usually recorded at a lower "bitrate", meaning that samples of sounds are not quite as good as they once were. Point (1) - MP3s are not as good as CD quality sound Where do you get MP3s from? --------------------------- By far the easiest way to get MP3s is to just make your own from your own CDs, provided that you have the right software and a CD-Rom drive of course. :) But I don't think that most people actually do this. Instead what I do believe they do is to download them from the internet, probably not 100% legally either. Point (2) - Most MP3s are not legal copies There are ways of getting them legally from the internet, but not a sector that I have really looked into. But if you do decide to start using one of many different file-sharing programs across the internet, please bear in mind that the files shared may not be condoned by the artist and if caught... Downloading files off the internet can either be painfully slow or quick and painless. Files sizes are around 3Mb and upwards, dependent on: - Length of song - Quality (bitrate) This translates to either about 15 minutes and greater on a 56K modem, or significantly less on a broadband connection. Point (3) - You have to get busy and find those MP3s and
download them, taking time What are MP3s good for? ----------------------- Well obviously because they're recorded on your computer, you can listen to them on your machine. Well, whoopee doo. Usually you can just stick a CD in there and that would be enough, but the file sizes do create an instant jukebox, especially with the size of today's hard disks. Think about writing all those songs onto a CD-R. You can typically fit about 10 hours onto a CD, and then play them back on your PC as you wish. Point (4) - MP3s create instant jukeboxes Modern technology has also developed the MP3 player, which involves hooking up your machine to your MP3 player and downloading them onto it to listen on the move. I don't really like the technology as it is at the moment as with about 64Mb of memory in your player, it won't give you much more than an hour's worth at a decent quality. Prices of memory are bound to come down, and popularity of these things is bound to pick up. The solid-state memory means there's never any skipping. What the battery life is on these things, I have no idea, as I've never looked into it. A major con has to be that if you want a fresh batch of songs, that you have to download another set of songs from your computer to your MP3 player everytime. Changeable memory chips are bound to pick up though. Point (5-9) - No skipping ever on MP3 players - Limited size of players for the moment - More computer time for new songs - Expensive technology - Portable players are very small Beauty of technology is progressing. I've seen on the net and know one friend who has one, a portable CD player which reads CD-Rs in the MP3 format. Some DVD players will also do this, so hooked up to your HiFi system... see where I'm going with this? Instant jukebox. Point (10) - Great for parties with the right equipment. So... what about
Minidiscs (MDs)? ----- |MDs| ----- What are MDs? ------------- Again, some very useful pages out there. For some starters into the field, might I recommend: http://www.minidisc.org/ Basically these are little magneto-optically based discs encased in a hard outer shell, much like your floppy disc is (ever wondered why it was called a floppy disc?), measuring 7cm square. Quite small really. They're great for throwing around in the car, in fact I can still remember the Sony ad where this guy on a skateboard ends up going over it and then listening to it later in the ad. They're capable of having near CD quality sound on them. They'll cost anything from about £1 upwards per disc, depending on how many you buy, what quality, how long and where. They come in 74 minute and 80 minute versions. Point (1-2) - Nearer CD Quality than MP3s - Robust discs for the car They have the capability of being recorded onto and re-recorded umpteen times. In fact, Sony (the creators) claims up to 1 million times. In reality, it's much less than this. I've found with cheaper discs that re-recording results in reading errors on the disc, much to my disappointment. Point (3) - Not flawless, can generate errors, can skip or lose date entirely You'll need an MD player of course to use these. Portable players range from about 60-70 upwards. My Sony MZR91 cost me 149, but it was stolen. Now have my brother's MZR90 but he got the MZR900, from the insurance claim. Much nice little machine, but I thought I might be nice. If they have a recording ability, they'll cost more. Minidisc separate units about 100 and all-in-one stereo systems... well, no research done in this field I'm afraid. I'm against all-in-one units. I did pick my car MD player second hand for 60 though. Point (4) - Not cheap either MDs are quite cool in one way in that they
are quite versatile. Once a disc is recored with the audio component on them, you can do lots of little things. (1) Label the disc and the tracks with a digital title, meaning the title will be displayed when you stick it in a player, much like CD-text. (2) Swap around the order of the tracks at any point in time In all honest, I thought this was cool at first, but have given up labelling my tracks as it's too fiddly. I'm just saving up to buy an MD deck where I can plug a keyboard into the back and just type the titles rather than using clumsy menu systems. Point (5) - Track versatility - names and order Technology has also been developed to longplay the discs, much like video tapes can be. One MD can potentially hold 320 minutes of songs, but I'd question the quality again. Like MP3s, the format is compressed on the disc, unlike video tapes when the tape just runs through slower, capturing fewer frames. Point (6) - Potentially 320 minutes per disc Having an MD player ------------------- Of course having individual discs, you can swap around from day to day and have a grand old collection to look at instead of computer based things. Downside is that you do tend to manually record them from a CD, which takes time and generates potentially quite an un-aesthetically pleasing collection. You can use the likes of http://www.cdcovers.cc/ to print out little CD labels for your MDs and stick them on, but you should really have the CD yourself and scan it in. Only reason the un-aesthetic result happens is because pre-recorded MDs are still quite expensive. I own a total of one, and I only bought that on my elective because I was bored of my music at the time. Point (7-9) - Can swap discs easily - Pre-recorded MDs expensive - Un-aesthetic collection And on a final note... You can always record your MP3s onto your MDs! Just make sure that you have the best c
onnection possible, a digital one is best. I personally have an optical connection between my PC and my MD player/recorder as well as from the back of my CD player and DVD player. If you've got a Playstation 2, have a look on the back, you'll have one as well. You can use an analogue cable as well, but you may well lose quality down the connection. By analogue I mean just a cable that you can probably pick up from your local electrical store. Explain the situation, they'll help. Point (10) - You can do more with an MD player, including put your MP3s on your MDs So in a nutshell ---------------- |MP3s| ------ 1) MP3s are not as good as CD quality sound 2) Most MP3s are not legal copies, but are free 3)You have to get busy and find those MP3s and download them, taking time 4) MP3s create instant jukeboxes 5) No skipping ever on MP3 players 6) Limited memory size of protable players for the moment 7) Portable players are very small 8) More computer time for new songs 9) Expensive technology 10) Great for parties with the right equipment. ----- |MDs| ----- 1) Nearer CD Quality than MP3s 2) Robust discs for the car 3) Not flawless, can generate errors, can skip or lose date entirely 4) Not cheap either 5) Track versatility - names and order 6) Potentially 320 minutes per disc 7) Can swap discs easily 8) Pre-recorded MDs expensive 9) Un-aesthetic collection 10) You can do more with an MD player, including put your MP3s on your MDs The choice is yours... I'd know what I'd go for. I've kept it to 10 points a piece, if you think any different, leave me a note. Thanks for reading.
I would join this debate in the corner of the MP3 player. This is because I have a nice little MP3 player which cost be about £70 two years ago. I love my MP3 player and apart from my family I don't know another person who owns one (and who says that the Highlands are behind the times!!). It is a very basic player and only holds 32mb, which for me is usually about nine or ten songs - it all depends on the compression of the song and obviously the length of it. (My sister has the same one and she gets about six songs!). Flash media cards have come down in price lately, which is handy as you can get a media card for about twenty quid and (in the case of the cards we have) each one takes another nine/ten songs. The cards are nice and small so they fit easily into your purse without taking up valuable credit card space!! I know that all you MD people are busy saying "well you get two full albums on a minidisk and they cost a tenner for five" (something like that anyway!!), but you have to sit and record those and to be honest I can't be bothered with that - it is like being a teenager again and copying tapes from your friends quickly so you can give them back tomorrow. Also, if you don’t want the whole of a CD – and lets face it – who listens to every track on a CD anyway – then you would have to sit by the machine and swap CD’s etc. When you go out and you want to take more than one disk with you, they are quite big (not as big as a cassette, but much bulkier than a flash media card) and to take a few would take up space in your pocket or bag. I have about 500 MP3's [erm - all legal ;)] on my computer and all I have to do is "drag & drop" the files and it takes about two minutes to copy to the player. Much better when you are in a hurry! The worst bit is actually making a decision on which songs you want to listen to! I suppose the whole issue depends on what you
use it for. I mainly listen to mine while walking to work (no moving parts so it doesn’t jump etc when moving!) or driving to my mum's, in which case ten songs in ample as each journey only takes about twenty minutes, on longer journeys I just listen to the same songs over and over, or swap memory cards. A good way to get round it all would be to get both and have the best of both worlds but if you are infact not rich enough for such frivolous behaviour then I would recommend that you go for an MP3 player, at least you can download music for free, and for those good citizens worried about law breaking, there is plenty of free & legal stuff – Roadrunner Records for example give out free MP3’s from forthcoming albums and I am sure plenty of others do too.
This really isn't much of a dicussion its more of information for anyone fooled by the power of MP3 anymore with technology as advanced as it is now Mp3's are amazing but limited those who have pc's are at least one step ahead but what happens when you want to take it a step further and listen to them away from your computer you have 2 options a) if you happen to have a cd writer you can burn yourself a nice little mixture of tracks on to a cheap writable disc but one thing it happens to be illegal. OPTION b) an MP3 player what a find portable music in a small compact peice of plastic... Or is it?? Although you dont have any moving parts in a mp3 player and it is a lot lighter it has its major limits, for the average MP3player when purchased comes with a 32 megabyte memory stick on a few it is internal memory, this will hold all but maybe 10 songs. Futher memory upgrade for only another 32 megabytes is about £78 the last time i checked for still a mere 20 tracks maybe a few more if you get short tracks! It also has the major factor you might just need say a PC to get mp3's to supplement your mp3 players capabilitys, if not you may find yourself in deep doodoo and i say it again mp3 players are not cheap for a half decent one you are in the range of 100 to 300 pounds maybe more. And in pops MR Mini Disc player. A mini disc capabilitys now a far greater than before you can now get connection leads to a PC to record mp3's onto them and with some models with the ability to lon play you can hold up to 320 mins of music. If you do not have a PC don not worry you can also record from your hi fi system, in either analogue, or Digital. You can pick up a mini disc from almost every well known electrical shop in the country from prices from £100 - £500 and cables for PC connection may be supplied or you can buy an analogue wire for about £4.99 which will do almost the same. It may be a bit pricier in t
he starting of buying a mini disc but in the long term it will satisfy your need for music far better than an mp3 player or mp3s on your pc. currently i have both options and i know which i like and to be quite honest mp3s are very time wasting Long live Mini Discs!
In my opinion there is no contest between the Minidisc and Mp3s. I mean, for one, with Mp3s, it costs loads to buy new memory and it doesnt carry that many songs, even though I suppose you could just keep them on your PC and just change the songs over when you want. The only thing Mp3 player does have over MD is the great qaulity. But why put them on Mp3 players when you could just put them on Minidisc. About 4 Albums worth of songs can fit on 1 minidisc if you buy the write player. Minidisc?s don?t cost that much atoll and you can put Cds and cassettes on them and of course also Mp3s but you have to get the right kind of cable (the better type of cable the better the quality). So what?s the point in Mp3 players if everything that they do can be done by Minidisc Player and more.
Minidiscs are at the moment a more mature technology then MP3 and that perhaps is why they are better. MP3's are great but don't get me wrong I think that their appeal is limited. The main problem I have with them is the fact that when you get bored of listening to the same thing in the middle of a day you have limited options as your archive is at home on the PC whereas with MD you have a whole record collection in one of your pockets. This fact about archiving means that i feel that a recordable MD with a few discs is a better option then say an MP3 player. When MP3 gets good enough and the devices on which you play them have affordable memory modules then you should consider one. But for the moment go with the norm the standard get an MD and a computer with a soundcard. Then you can download the MP3's you have got onto an easily archivable medium. With MD's at the £1 mark it is cheap to maintain as well.