Share your favorite MP3 players!

[Mozgus]

Since pretty much everyone who owns a computer now owns a portable digital music solution, let's all share our current favorite models.

I've exclusively used an old iRiver iFP-100 unit for a few years now. I got it for 30 bucks back then, and it's only 128MB of space, but the audio quality is tops, the design is great, and the GUI is very feature-full and logical. I've tried two other cheap players with better specs, but they always failed in audio quality, stability, and GUI. Reviews indicate that iRiver has fallen to shit within the last 2 years, so I wouldn't suggest going with them right now.


I've decided it's finally time to make the jump to something respectable though, and after a lot of searching, I settled on buying the Meizu MiniPlayer. It's $100 on NewEgg, and just about the highest rated, solid state audio/video player in their listing under $200. It should get here Thursday. I can't wait.

[racketboy]

I have a first-gen iPod shuffle and am fine with it
I enjoy the simplicty

[Mozgus]

I have a first-gen iPod shuffle and am fine with it
I enjoy the simplicty

I've heard conflicting reports whether or not iPods require iTunes to transfer the music. If they do, then thats not simplicity. I refuse to use players that don't have UMS plug-and-play transferring. I don't want to install software.

But even if they do, I still don't wanna become like those fuckers on the iPod ads.

[devante]

Don't be anti-conformist. That'sjust as being bad as conformist.
Just do what you like to do!

The iPod requires iTunes, which isn't that adsince iTunes is a good piece of software. Not complicated at all.

However, I have an iPod and I found something called http://www.rockbox.org.
This is kind of a replacement "OS" for your iPod.
It allows all kinds of things, like custom skins/themes for your menus.
But more importantly, it reads the files on your iPod using normal file/folder structure.

In otherwords, you can simply drag MP3's from your PC to the iPod in Windows Explorer and then play them on your iPod as you would on your PC.
I wouldn't ever use an iPod without Rockbox again!

[racketboy]

I have a first-gen iPod shuffle and am fine with it
I enjoy the simplicty

I've heard conflicting reports whether or not iPods require iTunes to transfer the music. If they do, then thats not simplicity. I refuse to use players that don't have UMS plug-and-play transferring. I don't want to install software.

But even if they do, I still don't wanna become like those fuckers on the iPod ads.

Officially, it requires iTunes (which I enjoy anyway), but there is software to sync it otherwise.

[Perseid]

I've had the older version of one of these: for almost 5 years now and it has always done what I told it to do. I don't know why people rag on Creative's players. Mine isn't as sleek as an iPod but it does all the same stuff.

I know WinAmp will now sync most players out there including my ancient Creative player as well as iPods.

[RadarScope1]

I have an iPod, and iTunes. I like them both. I still buy CDs, and get most of the music I truly care about off of store shelves. So iTunes is used mostly for organization and of course for putting all the music into the iPod. Like Racket, I dig the simplicity of it. Advertising doesn't affect me one way or the other I guess.

Mozgus, the player you're getting looks great. Flash memory is the way to go. My old iPod crapped out on me earlier this summer (the HDD) and I have been waiting for Apple to announce a new line of iPods with flash this fall. Now it looks like that could be happening tomorrow. I'm hoping for 16 or 20 G of flash capacity. It will be ridiculously expensive though.

[durkada]

I've been fairly happy with the Creative Zen Vision:M devices. For me, storage is king -- it offers 60 gigs at over a hundred dollars less than the a similar iPod. its thicker than an iPod, which I don't mind at all -- especially as the battery last twice as long. To my shock, my wife who owns a video iPod, also seems to prefer the Zen.

The device you linked looks nice. It just seems like a waste to have such a nice screen without the data capacity. If 4 gigs does it for you, I'd see if I can drive the price down a bit more with a smaller product, without a nice screen.

Looks cool, though.

[Mozgus]

Officially, it requires iTunes (which I enjoy anyway), but there is software to sync it otherwise.

Like the rest of the free world, I play my music with Winamp. I've seen iTunes on other people's machines and it felt bloated and slow and featureless, like WMP11. No thanks. I also don't use tags in my music, and I prefer just manipulating physical folders, so all iTunes would do is make things more complicated. I also have no use for "syncing" since I have more music than any commercially available player can hold.

I've had the older version of one of these: for almost 5 years now and it has always done what I told it to do. I don't know why people rag on Creative's players. Mine isn't as sleek as an iPod but it does all the same stuff.

My step dad has that player, and aside from not supporting plug and play, its an impressive unit. Still it's not solid state, so it drains quick and will probably die like all hard drives do eventually.

The device you linked looks nice. It just seems like a waste to have such a nice screen without the data capacity. If 4 gigs does it for you, I'd see if I can drive the price down a bit more with a smaller product, without a nice screen.

Looks cool, though.

4GB is plenty. I listen to music throughout my entire worknights, and I wanted a device where I could throw on 24-32 hours of music, and 3-4 25 minute episodes of whatever show, and swap out the data every 3-4 days. This device has enough space for all of that.

[racketboy]

I used winamp for MANY years (1998-2005) and loved it.
But with my growing collection, I couldn't pass up iTunes' database-query-like smart playlists and its slick interface.
Winamp sucked in that regard. Add the seamless podcast and iPod support, and iTunes is essential in my daily lifestyle.

It is sluggish in comparison to WinAmp, but on a relatively modern machine (I run a P4 2.4GHz, 1GB RAM - 5 year old machine) and it really doesn't bother me much in terms of performance. (On my older PII and PIII Thinkpads, iTunes is pretty darn slow.)

I would call WinAmp featureless much sooner than I would iTunes.
Perhaps I have missed some recent developments with WinAmp, but perhaps you haven't given iTunes enough of a chance.

All I know is this long-time WinAmp user is very happy with iTunes.