Why not a portable DVD MP3 player?

[tgpo]

Could always go for an iPod. 7500 songs in the palm of your hand....but you sure do pay for it.

[BigSandy]

When and if this technology ever come's about on a portable mp3/dvd player, how much trouble would it be to implement the mp3pro to it ? From what I have heard, it cut's your bitrate in half without any noticable loss in quality. Just what I have heard.

[RabidDog]

for my two cents I certainly dont think you are ever going to get this for under £100 .. too much high spec tech in there. Also as someone else mentioned the true failure of most of these 1000 plus songs devices is the display and navigation software I dont really think any of them have got it right yet. Why bother with crappy old moving parts as well when 1gb plus compact flash cards are becoming affordable. No moving parts means smaller cheaper and more reliable. size is everything.
Also it damn well better have mp3 mp3pro wma and ogg support on it!!

[Karate Media]

for my two cents I certainly dont think you are ever going to get this for under £100.. too much high spec tech in there.

Which brings up the question -- what are the technological differences between a $30-$50 CD MP3 "discman" and a theoretical DVD MP3 "discman" that would cause the latter to cost more than $100? Is there really $70 worth of technological difference between the two?


One specific hurdle mentioned, though, so far: Navigation. Good point - doesn't seem to be a problem for CD MP3 players, but there is concern about ease of navigation with 4 GBs of music. This doesn't seem like it would be too big of a technological hurdle, though.

As for batteries, I think that's a moot point, personally. I don't think the point is for someone to listen to 4 GB of music in one sitting, any more than the point of an iPod is to listen to 20 GB of music in one sitting. It's simply just another way to have a large selection of music available to you with less clutter. And, obviously, in locations such as automobiles, there is the opportunity to use power sources such as cigarette lighters.

The reigning opinion seems to be, "Feh, why bother?" Perhaps this begs the question: What is your opinion of portable CD MP3 players? Are there limitations that you put up with w/ 700MB that you simply couldn't endure if the capacity rose to 4 GB? Are sales of CD MP3 players so lackluster that the thought of creating a DVD MP3 player is stupid?

I know it seems strange to harp so much on a theoretical product, but each of your responses make me think about it a little more...

[Jester700]

Hell, I want a mini DVD RECORDER that will allow high quality 24 bit non-compressed recording. Doubt I'll ever GET it, but one can dream...

[Cornucopia]

@KarateMedia:

FYI, 90% of Autoreverser cassette decks don't reverse the heads, they just switch from rolling the cassette in 1 direction to the opposite direction. The heads are special in that there are 2 sets--top tracks and bottom tracks. In 1 direction just top tracks play, in other direction the bottom tracks play. Very little additional moving parts.

gcutler said:

What I think would be interesting, but has as little chance of existance would be to take the Size of the MiniCDs (They hold 240MB) , but use DVD technology so that you could fit about 1.2GB on a DVD-R the size of a Mini-CD media (Mini-DVD) . The Devices could be smaller, yet hold an obscene # of mp3s.

There already are such things. Both stamped DVD-Rom and DVD-R/RW/RAM (don't know about + Media being available). That's what Hitachi uses in their DVD-Camcorders. Capacity: 1-1.2GB. 8)

@RabidDog:

Yes, CompactFlash has no moving parts vs. CD/DVD, but on the flipside, what if you lay your CompactFlash-Playing MP3player down and somehow a magnet gets next to it. ALL GONE! Not so with CD/DVD. That is one of the plusses of optical media. Plus, you could loan a disc to a friend and if it's messed up you could have easily prepared by making a backup (of the backup?) for a couple of bucks as opposed to the cost of another CF card.

Overall, I think the idea is a good one and will probably happen in the not too distant future. Witness how DVD makers are adding the "non-standard" capabilities (Raw MPEG reads, Mp3, Jpgs, DivX?) much more than they used to. Mainly in the name of differentiating themselves from the competition. You know, it's either "Better Quality" or "More Features" or "Cheaper" or some combo of those. You're just too far on the forefront.

Keep looking,
Scott

[Karate Media]

Man, what is it with me and people glomming onto my lightly tossed-off references? First I made a sarcastic aside about coffee lawsuits that turned into an entire thread of its own, and now people are paying way too close attention to my throw-away comments on auto-reverse!

It was just my way of saying that I don't need too many options -- like a portable CD player that - viola! - also hooks up to your computer and burns CDs! I'm certainly not taking that to the beach, and might seriously think twice about taking it outside my house, since it costs $250-$300 and all!

And I promise I will try to refrain from off-the-cuff remaeks from now on! (right...)

...Although... the last auto-reverse tape deck I owned did spin the heads around, but that was years ago...

Ah, nevermind!

(Sorry Cornucopia, had to do it... )

[Jester700]

Yeah, I used to sell audio and ALL A/R decks flipped the heads. Of course, that was 12 years ago... Although my Sony deck of 8 years ago also does this. I haven't looked lately.

[gcutler]

Might I point out that a DVDR of mp3's will take an addition 3-6 sets of batteries to listen to the whole thing? Depending on bitrates, you are talking 80 hours? Let's not forget navigating a folder structure with 1200+ files...

That is something I hadn't thought about. Lucky my tin foil hat is also a Solar Collector with 70 hours of battery life (only if I also wear my Tin-Foil Underwear)

[energy80s]

For myself, I consider 128 Kbps to be an acceptable bitrate

My God, 128 is shite quality. Don't go below 192 and preferably use 256 or 320Kbps.

[Cornucopia]

KarateMedia:

I thought it was possible that you WERE talking off-the-cuff, but I was just being a "Knowledgable Snoot" that day.

BTW, I used to own 2 A/R decks, both of which were the Direction-change variety (that technique prob. got borrowed from automobile A/R decks which didn't have as much room). I had friends who had the flipping type, and even 1 friend who had a deck that did the direction change, but with a normal head that raised and lowered itself. Now, THAT one was cheaply made and would easily get out of alignment!

Please don't refrain on my account. I still appreciate the humor/sarcasm/wit.

Scott

[Karate Media]

For myself, I consider 128 Kbps to be an acceptable bitrate

My God, 128 is shite quality. Don't go below 192 and preferably use 256 or 320Kbps.

My God, I hope you are joking. Otherwise, you need to meet my brother, the kind of fellow who agonizes over the exact arrangement and direction of his speaker towers.

I have found 128kbps to be perfectly suitable, especially for "portable" situations. I don't need 256kbps to listen to the Stooges while zoomin' down the highway -- I'm a music fan (and failed musician), but certainly no audiophile (which may explain the "failed musician" part )

[vitualis]

It is a matter of preference. 128 kbit/s is probably "alright" for portable solutions but you can definitely hear the difference between that and say 192 kbit/s CBR.

Regards.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I can hear the differance between 128kbps and 192kbps mp3's,using J-Stereo(alt-preset)with LAME increases the frequency range and quality especially with bitrates<192kbps.
On a side note wma 9 sounds CD transparent(wav) at 128kbps.

[EddyH]

Well it's ok if you're just using tintastic PC speakers or playlisting things for while working on the compy..
And some people have tin ears so it sounds ok, especially if they got one of those highly perculiar encoders (WMP7 and WMP8? RealJukebox? it must be something nasty like that... usually accompianied by several duplicate JPGs and a Desktop.ini) which lock the treble down to a DAB-like 15khz, or worse, 14khz. Like listening thru a hose. Even the cheapest tapes do better than that... (and that still sounds... ok... at 112, 96kbit)

Higher rates do sound better, but for the average non-audiophile, 128 does ok, particularly if 1. you have a decent encoder 2. you dont make the mistake of listening with decent headphones.
There's some encoders can make 128 sound like 192 from a poor one (too many about)... and unfortunately vice versa (sometimes in the same prog)! So upping your bits may not always be the best fix.

Or find something that supports ATRAC3 (WMA? Euch.)


Why wouldn't a dedicated DVD-mp3 player work?

because.

1. The market's too split between memory card mp3 players, hard disc iPod things, 8cm and 12cm CD portable players.... last thing you need is a DVDROM one.
2. Sooner or later some mug will buy it and assume it plays videos somehow (or DVDaudio at least). The consumer mind as of the moment is CD=sound, DVD=video.
3. If you can afford to buy the burner and the media, you're not such skinflint that you just want a dvdrom without video playback (or just a hard disc player)
4. Good God man, just how lazy or strapped for carrying space are you that 12 hours on a CD sized disc still isnt enough?

....happy with LP Minidisc player... LP2 usually of course. LP4 occasionally. Mono or SP for more challenging material.
Better than a silly 8cm player

And MP3 on CDROM may not be redbook, or on DVD to the DVD *video* standards, but data on CDs/DVDs (ISO9660, and UDF) is a fairly standard thing y'know. Not like a drive that can read it, or software that can interpret it, is any big deal.

[Karate Media]

4. Good God man, just how lazy or strapped for carrying space are you that 12 hours on a CD sized disc still isnt enough?

heh heh heh heh heh......

I think points 1 & 2 are valid, but would argue with point #3: Sure, I can afford the burner; I can also afford the Alienware desktop I work on, but I sure as hell ain't taking either one on the road with me. I think a number of people would agree with me that they wouln't want to spend too much on something they plan on toting around and scuffing up and getting dirty and possibly even losing or getting stolen, and would thus pass on any options that would raise the price -- hence my aversion to buying a HDD-based MP3 player.

BTW, 96kbps hurts my ears, but my tin drums don't mind 128kbps...