Sony NW-A3000 20GB MP3 Player - £99.97!

greatbigkev

Hi again,

I can't speak for other Sony players but the NW-A3000 and A1000 had firmware updates in December 2005 that allowed non-transcoded playing of WMA.

Independent tests of ATRAC3plus are pretty difficult to find. The test you linked from was for ATRAC3, not its successor. Hydrogenaudio has a few hints, including one or two low-key independent tests, but - in any of these tests - there is always a risk of subconscious bias towards the sound that you know best. Some WMA fans swear blind that the codec is superior to MP3 while others say Ogg Vorbis is the only way to go.

It's horses for courses to some extent. On a portable player, you need to strike a compromise between file size and quality. I don't agree with Sony's claims that ATRAC3plus 64kbps is at least as good as 128kbps MP3 but I also don't think the majority of people are going to notice much difference beyond a certain point - especially when they're listening to their music while commuting and on terrible earphones!

The big advantage with ATRAC3plus on the A3000/A1000 is that battery life (which is pretty good anyway) is improved with the Sony codec over the use of MP3 and WMA (and, I would guess, over AAC now that's an option).

seanyseansean

greatbigkev wrote:

Hi again,

I can't speak for other Sony players but the NW-A3000 and A1000 had firmware updates in December 2005 that allowed non-transcoded playing of WMA.

Independent tests of ATRAC3plus are pretty difficult to find. The test you linked from was for ATRAC3, not its successor. Hydrogenaudio has a few hints, including one or two low-key independent tests, but - in any of these tests - there is always a risk of subconscious bias towards the sound that you know best. Some WMA fans swear blind that the codec is superior to MP3 while others say Ogg Vorbis is the only way to go.

It's horses for courses to some extent. On a portable player, you need to strike a compromise between file size and quality. I don't agree with Sony's claims that ATRAC3plus 64kbps is at least as good as 128kbps MP3 but I also don't think the majority of people are going to notice much difference beyond a certain point - especially when they're listening to their music while commuting and on terrible earphones!

The big advantage with ATRAC3plus on the A3000/A1000 is that battery life (which is pretty good anyway) is improved with the Sony codec over the use of MP3 and WMA (and, I would guess, over AAC now that's an option).

Cool, thanks for the info.

I still think that for most people mp3 is the way to go - it's universal, isn't proprietary, and can be encoded with regular PC software. With the current Sony software I couldn't recommend a Sony player to a n00b, although I do agree their hardware is fantastic.

I just miss the Sony from a few years ago that made good kit and didn't have a media division breathing down it's back, making them cripple stuff.

gromituk

seanyseansean wrote:

But that's not true. The output bitstream is fixed but the implementation isn't.

You are stating exactly what I said and then saying it is not true. I didn't say that implementation was fixed, or I wouldn't have agreed that coders can be improved - within limits. The standard (as expressed by the bitstream) is fixed.

If MP3 has no disadvantages then why were other things like AAC developed?

greatbigkev

seanyseansean wrote:

I still think that for most people mp3 is the way to go - it's universal, isn't proprietary, and can be encoded with regular PC software. With the current Sony software I couldn't recommend a Sony player to a n00b, although I do agree their hardware is fantastic.

I just miss the Sony from a few years ago that made good kit and didn't have a media division breathing down it's back, making them cripple stuff.

I agree. Mind you, I'm very, very happy with my NW-A3000 (Christmas pressie from the missus) - it looks fab, is easy to use, isn't an iPod and sounds great.

Having said all that, if I was looking to spend £150-plus on a digital audio player now, I probably wouldn't get a Sony. Some of the others have the ability to drag-and-drop music files rather than having to go through a particular software and that is a fantastic feature. It means you can add music wherever you are. At the moment, I can only add new tracks on my home PC because that's the only one with Connect installed.

On the other hand, at £85, I could definitely put up with the Sony's shortcomings!

gromituk

Being able to drag and drop with a file manager (such as Windows Explorer) also means they will work on any operating system (that supports the format of the storage medium) and allows you to store anything there, such as documents or pictures, even if the player itself doesn't understand them. This is the "USB mass storage device" specification. There's no excuse for devices not being designed in this way. The simpler and cheaper ones are very likely to be like this.

However, this standard does not dictate how you should store information about the music, such as playlists. Some players simply play each folder in turn, the track order being defined by the order in which the tracks were put on the player. Others are more sophisticated, like the iPod, which uses a proprietary database format to store track info, even though it is configured as a mass storage device.

JamesP

Hi Guys,

I missed out on the Tesco offer...is this still a good price £130 inc VAT + Delivery?

http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?Quicklinx=3TBQ&CategorySelectedId=11212&NavigationKey=11212,50417

GoofyGAT

A purple Sony NWA3000 20Gb MP3 Walkman is now going at Novatech for £114.99 (incl VAT, excl del) . G