Sony to fight the Ipods

[n7]

It is also aiming to boost use of its online music store Sony Connect, as its Walkman will play songs only in the company's own format.

The device will be incompatible with other online stores and cannot play tunes in the popular MP3 format.

Haha, good idea if Sony wants to sell zero of these :roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: n7

The device will be incompatible with other online stores and cannot play tunes in the popular MP3 format.

Haha, good idea if Sony wants to sell zero of these :roll:

it CONVERTS mp3 to atrac b4 playing them.

:roll:

Sony said its Network Walkman NW-HD1 would carry 13,000 songs and sell for less than $400 in the US. This compares with $499 for the highest capacity iPod which can store 10,000 songs.

It is slightly larger than a credit card and less than half an inch thick. Sony said the battery lasted 30 hours, at least three times longer than the iPod.

It also promised shock-resistant technology that protected the hard drive if dropped.


Sony has sold 340 million Walkmans during the past 25 years, including several million CD players.

Don't worry about Sony.

letsee . . . cost's less than the ipod

is smaller

is NOT fragile

stores MORE songs

MUCH longer battery life (sure, uses rechargeables)


WHAT's NOT to like?

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: Czar
they tried this with the sony memory stick, now most high end sony cameras come with compact flash support as well

wtf? Most high end Sony cameras? Only one and that is the F828.

I prefer the Sony to my iPod. I sold my 2nd gen iPod as I couldn't live with the size and the remote was sh!t. I now have a 3rd gen iPod bu the remote is still crap.

I'd gladly pay more to have the remote. To me it is worth it. But I'll have to see how the conversion thing works. The iPod remote REALLY is lacking. Smaller form factor would help ala size of my MD would be nice But with 20Gb it ain't going to be any smaller though.

I love my MD's. The remote is classicaly and I really like it. So useful and simple to use. Battery life is stunning.

I'll see how this works and I may end up with one.

Koing

Wow...you prefer MD over iPod. Amazing. I went from MD to iPod and there is no going back for me. Granted, there are some nice things about the MD player; mainly the incredible battery life.

To complain about a remote is silly IMO. I know alot of people like them, but I find them useless on such small devices. They add to the length of the headphone cord and just end up tangled and in the way in my experience. They're generally too small to be useful, and usually don't have a display that's in any way useful.

You seem to think that the MD players are smaller than the iPods; again, I'm not convinced of this. The iPod is longer, yes, but it is also narrower and thinner. If you calculate the volume of the two, I'm fairly certain the iPod would be smaller overall.

The iPod is "simpler to use" than the MD player I owned as well.

The thing that kills it for Sony is ATRAC. I don't know why they're so hell-bent on this issue. The must be losing millions on lost hardware sales because of it.

Yup your opinion is valid but to me the things that are not so important to you are very important to me.

The remote issue is a BIG issue for. NOT having to go to the player and menu to change stuff like repeat once, repeat all, random play is a SIMPLE feature that I'd like to access via a remote. ALL MD's and old skool cd players have this also.

The remote on the iPod is at a big disadvantage because of this. The point about the remote cable and the headphone cabled is not a problem for my MD as the remote headphone's have a short cord . The iPod one doesn't so that is a pain.

I know for a fact my MD is smaller then the iPod. I've seen some big MD's but mine is very slick and small.

They are hell bent on ATRAC as it is their technology. To me the MD's I have sound better in quality then then when it comes out of the iPod keeping everything else the same.

Would gladly sell my iPod for the Sony if it was any good . Basically I just want my MD to transfer at fast speed's and the new HD-MD may be it or the one discussed in this thread.

I've spent over £1k ~ $1.7k on MD's over the past 5 or so years. Bought a 2nd gen iPod, had it for a month and sold it. Got a 3rd gen and it stay's only because I can transfer music to it fast and not have to burn a CDR then get that to my MD.

Koing

 

[FishTankX]

How many people actually rip their own MP3's? It seems that most Mp3 ripping done now adays is automated through iTunes or downloaded.

If they're downloaded, their sound quality is bound to be crap, anyways.

If they're converted from disc through a program, simple burner does that *beautifully* at speeds probbaly faster than high quality Mp3 conversion.

I don't see why everyone is so fast to judge this as DoA. most people are using POS stock earbuds anyways..

 

[HondaF1]

I do not know why there is so much commotion. Who knows what it will be like. Have any of you tried it?????????? Can you speak from experience???????? All I see is just a bunch of posts praising the ipod, no wonder, it is such a big success.

Now I have only some experience with the ipod, I have no need for one. I have some cheap flash based mp3 player and have no need for 20 GB of storage.


I had an MD player, but gave it back. The format is ATRAC. It is some kind of "lossless" or something format. Basically it removes the frequencies inaudible by the human ear or something, I may be wrong, I read it a long time ago, but yea, the quality was great, I gave it back because its mechanical based components entailed slow responses to commands like fast forward and rewrite. Writing to the device also took some time. Perhaps they will correct this with this device.

Perhaps another advantage may be the flexibility and a better sound experience with all their experience in making this stuff, thats just my opinion/thought.

but yes, the proprietary format thing is kind of annying with the MD's, but I do not know how it will be with the new device they are unveiling.


I am no electronics expert, but I have experience, but oit does not take an expert to tell to speak wisely. Wait and see. Hard facts before conclusions. Just my thoughts []

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: HondaF1
I do not know why there is so much commotion. Who knows what it will be like. Have any of you tried it?????????? Can you speak from experience???????? All I see is just a bunch of posts praising the ipod, no wonder, it is such a big success.

Now I have only some experience with the ipod, I have no need for one. I have some cheap flash based mp3 player and have no need for 20 GB of storage.


I had an MD player, but gave it back. The format is ATRAC. It is some kind of "lossless" or something format. Basically it removes the frequencies inaudible by the human ear or something, I may be wrong, I read it a long time ago, but yea, the quality was great, I gave it back because its mechanical based components entailed slow responses to commands like fast forward and rewrite. Writing to the device also took some time. Perhaps they will correct this with this device.

Perhaps another advantage may be the flexibility and a better sound experience with all their experience in making this stuff, thats just my opinion/thought.

but yes, the proprietary format thing is kind of annying with the MD's, but I do not know how it will be with the new device they are unveiling.


I am no electronics expert, but I have experience, but oit does not take an expert to tell to speak wisely. Wait and see. Hard facts before conclusions. Just my thoughts []

If you had read this entire thread before bashing us you would have realized that this new Sony device WILL ONLY PLAY ATRAC. On top of that, you obviously aren't very knowledgeable in this area. ATRAC is a LOSSY format like MP3, meaning if you re-encode an MP3 to ATRAC, you will lose quality. There is no way around this, and it is Sony's way of ensuring that nobody downloads music for free without paying a price in terms of sound quality and convenience.

Of course we haven't tried it, but regardless of whether we have or not, we are commenting on the specs. From what we have seen, it will be a POS DOA product, mainly due to the ATRAC format limitation. As someone who is greatly concerned with sound quality, I will never buy such a limited device. My entire MP3 collection is VBR LAME, and I don't want to lose any quality.

 

[wyvrn]

The company that has the most features that customers want will get the most market share. Limiting formats or using copy protection schemes spells lost sales, plain and simple. If sony doesn't play mp3s or enforces copy protection, I won't touch their product.

 

[HondaF1]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: HondaF1
I do not know why there is so much commotion. Who knows what it will be like. Have any of you tried it?????????? Can you speak from experience???????? All I see is just a bunch of posts praising the ipod, no wonder, it is such a big success.

Now I have only some experience with the ipod, I have no need for one. I have some cheap flash based mp3 player and have no need for 20 GB of storage.


I had an MD player, but gave it back. The format is ATRAC. It is some kind of "lossless" or something format. Basically it removes the frequencies inaudible by the human ear or something, I may be wrong, I read it a long time ago, but yea, the quality was great, I gave it back because its mechanical based components entailed slow responses to commands like fast forward and rewrite. Writing to the device also took some time. Perhaps they will correct this with this device.

Perhaps another advantage may be the flexibility and a better sound experience with all their experience in making this stuff, thats just my opinion/thought.

but yes, the proprietary format thing is kind of annying with the MD's, but I do not know how it will be with the new device they are unveiling.


I am no electronics expert, but I have experience, but oit does not take an expert to tell to speak wisely. Wait and see. Hard facts before conclusions. Just my thoughts []

If you had read this entire thread before bashing us you would have realized that this new Sony device WILL ONLY PLAY ATRAC. On top of that, you obviously aren't very knowledgeable in this area. ATRAC is a LOSSY format like MP3, meaning if you re-encode an MP3 to ATRAC, you will lose quality. There is no way around this, and it is Sony's way of ensuring that nobody downloads music for free without paying a price in terms of sound quality and convenience.

Of course we haven't tried it, but regardless of whether we have or not, we are commenting on the specs. From what we have seen, it will be a POS DOA product, mainly due to the ATRAC format limitation. As someone who is greatly concerned with sound quality, I will never buy such a limited device. My entire MP3 collection is VBR LAME, and I don't want to lose any quality.

-------> Yes, I mentioned before I am not an expert. ATRAC is a new format. It is not a completely new thing. MP3 is converted to ATRAC format, and that ATRAC format is then transferred onto the device. With that MD device, I could transfer I think around 4 or 5 formats, MP3 being one of them.

MP3 + other compatible formats --- converted ---> ATRAC ---> transferred to device

At least that was with the MD device, I SURMISE it will be something similar, then again, I only SURMISE, not BLATHER.


And suppose you have an Mp3 file, obviously it has experienced some loss in quality. Yes, some things are lost when converted to ATRAC, but it is of minimal ....




WAIT, I guess this person does not even know what ATRAC is. ATRAC is a format by itself. They will most likely give out software that converts from MP3 and other formats to ATRAC, they do not sell music in ATRAC format I believe, you convert MP3's to ATRAC format and then transfer it onto the device.


Is there loss of sound quality in ATRAC?: The answer is theoretically yes, there is some loss in quality, but whats ths catch? The audio is encoded, resulting in an end format in which there is no perceptually distinguishable difference between the original and final product. SO there you go. Like I said before, from a couple of readings I have done, ATRAC conversion involves various techniques such as psychoacuostics and sound technology and all that, taking away the sound whose frequencies are perceptually inaudible. i.e. you ill not notice the loss in quality.

So unless you tell me you have some kind of super sensitive ears and you are super human or something, then I will believe you. I do not even think you have tried out ATRAC. So there you go.
Please read first and speak. Please do not blather out.


^^^^^^^^The above applies only form my MiniDisc experience. I only SURMISE that it may be something similar to MD ways. But then again, it is only a SURMISE, not dumb ASSUMPTIONS.




"The device will be incompatible with other online stores and cannot play tunes in the popular MP3 format. "

-------> This is the line from the article that puzzles me. BUt then again, I SURMISE ....













"ATRAC is a LOSSY format like MP3, meaning if you re-encode an MP3 to ATRAC, you will lose quality. "


-------> Right. Read some articles on ATRAC and tell me later. Like you I am serious about quality, and the quality between the MP3 file and the ATRAC format on the device is what I agree with conclusions drawn from studies done on ATRAC: indistinguishable loss of quality. Some may find a minute difference, but it is at the most, very minute. SO unless you have beyond frequencey ears, you can be completely annoyed by a perceptually huge loss in quality.



I will have to await for more news regarding this device. Whatever I read on it, the authors seem doubtful on it, and have not fully tried out the device.

 

[magomago]

its like a mindisc with a permanant dirve what's the problem?

 

[Koing]

HondaF1 people are p!ssed because they would 'prefer' out of the box mp3 to work with NO CONVERSION to ATRAC. That to me is also my only niggle with the product. BUT if it works well and fast enough on my pc and laptop I'll probably sell my 3rd gen iPod and get it . I'd gladly pay £100 extra for the convenience of the remote and battery time. The software has to be good and not 'crashy' like bad reports from the first NetMD ones.

BUT my mate has a NetMD and on his system works well so I think they have sorted out that problem them.

I actually prefer ATRAC to mp3's. My MD's sound GREAT recorded from my CD's.

You are talking about a NetMD. Older MD's only burnt in real time. Then you had the 2LP (2x recorded length of MD either 74min or 80min MD) then the 4x (4x length on MD but was 4x worse quality). 2LP sounded good to me with my good headphones 888 ones. I don't want to walk around with huge headphones so those 888 Sony ones were great imo. MUCH better then the iPod ones.

The ATRACT format cuts out freqeuncies lower then 20Hz and higher then 20'000Hz. that is the range of normal human hearing in 'general'.

Guys they enforce copy protection as they do not want loads of people to d/l and share their music. I'm sure you would do the same if you had a business like them. Say you own a video rental business. I'm sure you'd rather copy protect your films then let people watch and copy them right? They are a business out to make money.

If this product is any good and suits my needs I'll get it. It the software is crap and transfers are slow I will not get it. If it doesn't need drivers to be picked up would also be a bonus

Koing

 

[abaez]

I have an ipod and an MD. MD is definately smaller and more sleek, but the only thing I use it for is to record concerts for that it is a great great thing. Never would bother with playing my songs on my md.

 

[FishTankX]

HondaF1, i'm an MD user. And the hit from going from ATRAC to Mp3 is there, and honestly if you're Mp3 is even *marginal* when you re-encode it to ATRAC it's gonna sound like *SHIAT*. This is my experience with

MP3->SP
MP3->LP2

SP provides less of a hit in quality but MP3->LP2 is just *horrible*.

If you people all want to try this out for yourself, take sonic stage 2 and re-encode some of your Mp3's to Atrac3+, which is probably the file format that the HD based players will use.

God, Sony. I love your MP3/ATRAC3 players to death. But why can't you just make our lives easier and use MP3?

Yes, the average person might be fine with it. But this is a website for enthusiasts who have invested hundreds of hours in ripping their MP3's and re-investing hundreds of hours in ripping to ATRAC is the surest way to piss off people with massive Mp3 collections.

MP3 has become successful not because it's sound quality is great (although that's a high point, ATRAC3 sounds better to me than Mp3). It's become so popular because it's compatible with everything and it's mother. And that convenience is what's made the MP3 revolution so powerful.

 

[apoppin]

You guys with mp3s . . . atrac "sounds" BETTER.

Too bad.

:roll:

Sony has a better system.

NO you don't generally convert from MP3 to atrac UNLESS your mp3s are of the HIGHEST quality.
ALWAYS go CD to ATRAC if possible.

Don't want to REencode? Don't bother with Sony.

IF you are starting NEW (or don't have a huge mp3 collection; or don't mind 2 or 3 formats), Sony's system is a GREAT alternative to mp3 and it will NOT 'go away' - the only place it is UNpopular is in the USA . . .

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You guys with mp3s . . . atrac "sounds" BETTER.

Sony has a better system.

Sony's system is a GREAT alternative to mp3 and it will NOT 'go away' - the only place it is UNpopular is in the USA . . .

Sorry dude, but ATRAC sucks ass. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

 

[sisooktom]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Don't want to REencode? Don't bother with Sony.

Thanks, I won't. Let's see, no one that doesn't currently own a Sony player has ATRACs, but most do have a good bit of digital music (meaning mp3s). So to use Sony's "Better System" (lmao at that btw), I have to start reencoding from square 1 with my CDs. And of course, now I'm locked into Sony because nothing else will play the damn ATRAC files. That's a big fat no thanks, I hope this thing flops in the US, can't say I care about anywhere else.

 

[apoppin]

dp

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: apoppin
You guys with mp3s . . . atrac "sounds" BETTER.

Sony has a better system.

Sony's system is a GREAT alternative to mp3 and it will NOT 'go away' - the only place it is UNpopular is in the USA . . .

Sorry dude, but ATRAC sucks ass. :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

how do U know?



:roll:

i have BOTH
Sony atrac KICKS ass.

 

[tazdevl]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You guys with mp3s . . . atrac "sounds" BETTER.

Too bad.

:roll:

Sony has a better system.

NO you don't generally convert from MP3 to atrac UNLESS your mp3s are of the HIGHEST quality.
ALWAYS go CD to ATRAC if possible.

Don't want to REencode? Don't bother with Sony.

IF you are starting NEW (or don't have a huge mp3 collection; or don't mind 2 or 3 formats), Sony's system is a GREAT alternative to mp3 and it will NOT 'go away' - the only place it is UNpopular is in the USA . . .

ATRAC will open the door for more DRM. Every test I have come across clearly indicates that while it is a decent format, there are others that are more popular and worthwhile in terms of audio quality and technology. You can take a LAME encoded MP3 and it sounds better to my ears than ATRAC. ATRAC only sounds better if its encoded at the same bitrate as the MP3.

Not to mention, you don't see a lot of ATRAC file sharing with non-US servers now do we? So where is the popularity you're talking about?

Sony seemed to have forgotten marketing 101. Their target market for this product, given its price point, will be existing owners of Digital Audio Players. In most cases that means they already have a library of files in one format or another. As others have said, MP3 to ATRAC = loss of audio quality. There's no getting it back.

They are trying to steal market share, which I guarantee will not happen at the price point and with the format support the player.

ATRAC is going to go the way of the betamax which was a superior format to VHS. It's that simple. I'm betting you were too young to see that happen.

 

[Zebo]

NO ONE can compete with apples industrial design team. Sony can't play mp3 and is ugly to boot. Not a chance.

 

[HappyCracker]

Sony's original failure with MD is still trailing them. The first players were not so good and expensive. With the addition of NetMD, they really have something; drag and drop, probably much like your iPod. I love my N10. It is rediculously small, has a pretty neat remote (the fact that it's inline with the headphones kinda bugs me), and the battery life is absofrickenlutely amazing.
Yes ATRAC is a format that Sony pushes. Is it like Intel with Rambus? No, probably not. You really aren't forced to use it; that's all the player knows, all conversion takes place on your computer. ATRAC is something Dolby Labs came up with many moons ago, and like stated above, takes advantage of psychoacoustics, etc., etc., etc. The sound quality at LP2 levels is good enough for me to use it over SP. I played the same song at SP, LP2, and LP4 and while LP4 left much to be desired, LP2 was pretty darn good. I've listened to a few of my old MP3 files since I've picked up the MD recorder and I can't say I cared for them. There's something off about them. Anyways, I've not heard/read much about the new HiMD, but I would imagine it's much along the same lines, supposed to be more quality stuff, greater storage, yadda, yadda, yadda. I also like the fact I can play with mixes using multiple minidiscs. CD burning gets costly, but that's not the point of discussion here. What about when you fill up your iPod? Can you easily add more storage? I know, I know, it would take quite some time to fill 10, 15, 20 GB, whatever they come in, but does that negate my point? Not in my eyes.
Now I'm not calling for jihad on MP3, but I feel there are better alternatives. Monkey's Audio is very nice. Nowhere near the compression of MP3, so that's not a good portable audio format. WMA just seems dumb to me. More of Microsoft. I didn't care for the artifacting either. So that really only leaves MP3 and ATRAC. You know my choice. For those of you that enjoy ATRAC, let it be our little secret. No point in trying to convert the masses.

 

[Aganack1]

It will have a rough road becasue of marketing. You saw how every in this thread threw a fit about not supporting MP3's... and that is just what the article said... but i can convert them. Sony will have a horrible time convincing people they can listen to their music libray on this thing. It could very well be a dud.

 

[sisooktom]

Everyone knows that there is better compression technology out there than MP3. That isn't the point. The reason people use MP3 is simple - ubiquity. Almost ANY player will play MP3s, excluding Sony's crap. This is nice since you're not locked into 1 vendor for all your subsequent digital media purchases. Sure Apple pushes AAC, and it's a great format, but they weren't dumb enough to leave MP3 capabilities out of the iPod.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: tazdevl

Originally posted by: apoppin
You guys with mp3s . . . atrac "sounds" BETTER.

Too bad.

:roll:

Sony has a better system.

NO you don't generally convert from MP3 to atrac UNLESS your mp3s are of the HIGHEST quality.
ALWAYS go CD to ATRAC if possible.

Don't want to REencode? Don't bother with Sony.

IF you are starting NEW (or don't have a huge mp3 collection; or don't mind 2 or 3 formats), Sony's system is a GREAT alternative to mp3 and it will NOT 'go away' - the only place it is UNpopular is in the USA . . .

ATRAC will open the door for more DRM. . . .
ATRAC only sounds better if its encoded at the same bitrate as the MP3.

DRM? Sony has to protect it's music BUT - currently - you can BYPASS DRM completely. i use RealPlayer where necessary with atrac and my MD. Sounds better ? - SURE and even at the same bitrate takes LESS SPACE.

Not to mention, you don't see a lot of ATRAC file sharing with non-US servers now do we? So where is the popularity you're talking about?

i don't share files; don't know . . . i have a HUGE CD collection and don't mind SEVERAL formats . . . btw, this product is NOT targeted to me - i like Mini Disc for my needs.

Sony seemed to have forgotten marketing 101. Their target market for this product, given its price point, will be existing owners of Digital Audio Players. In most cases that means they already have a library of files in one format or another. As others have said, MP3 to ATRAC = loss of audio quality. There's no getting it back.

not gonna bothers us with mass CDs, gonna d/l from Sony, OR have MP3s recorded at the HIGHEST bit rate (and what's the BIG DEAL - you can still have your mp3s . . . when you go for a joj, take the Sony instead - you will NEVER hear the diff' . . . )

let me try again:

Cheaper

more storage

better sound

smaller

less damage prone

3x battery life

They are trying to steal market share, which I guarantee will not happen at the price point and with the format support the player.

Good for Sony - are you a big Mac/Apple fanboy?

ATRAC is going to go the way of the betamax which was a superior format to VHS. It's that simple. I'm betting you were too young to see that happen.

as with everything else here . . .

you LOSE that bet!

and we'll see

:roll:

 

[stickybytes]

All this talk about atrac and mp3. In my opinion, AAC sounds the best.

 

[prontospyder]

I'll consider it when its under $100