Abby Normal

Favorite excerpts from that one: "By the way, we call our modified firmware version of Sony MZ-N1 the "Pony MP3-N1" "Losing compatibility with proprietary, crippled, niche format is not our worrying!"

He has two of the necessary cables (with the necessary proprietary BS Sony connectors)--or is there additional charging circuitry in the base that's required? I guess 20$ USD for the base + a generic AC adapter is not really that bad. But still, I hate that crap. It's not just Sony that was guilty of it either. I've actually been eyeing these. I'm considering getting one and at least one additional LIP-4WM: Universal LCD Lithium Ion Charger There's some on ebay right now (about to end, but I'm sure it'll be relisted). They seem like a viable option for any units taking LiIon gumstick batteries.

Good things: Equipment browser, google, forum search, etc... Bad thing: asking every time instead of using any of the above...

That might be only the stand. I'd check with the seller. When I looked up the adapters you need to attach to the base (on ebay), it isn't clear whether they are modular and come with the tips necessary to use in various countries. It looks to be all very hit and miss. You might be better off trying to find a universal charger appropriate to your country with 6v/800mA output (what the Sony parts store says the specs are for this adapter--although at $47 they can bite me). Personally, I might even be tempted to find a USB/AC adapter with these exact specs and skip the base altogether. I know, the base makes it look spiffy. Actually, please someone correct me if I'm wrong--but doesn't the mA rating on DC output refer to maximum current draw? In other words, it isn't necessary to exactly match the mA just so long as you don't lowball it. So, for example, on Woot today is a deal for a set of universal chargers with a 1500mA max draw (though the plugs are probably for US only--I'm just using this as an example). If I used this with something requiring only 6v/800mA, if I set it for 6v, the unit would only draw the current it needs.

Curious--have you attempted to charge it by just letting it sit on USB? The equipment page claims it is "USB powered". My rh1 seems to charge just fine this way. It is quite convenient.

[As a result of a highly focused beam of ignorance, narp was transmorgified into Abby Normal.]

FYI, you can find replacement batteries for this model on ebay for less than $10 USD. Choose your seller at your discretion: http://shop.ebay.com/items/?_nkw=NH-14WM

Although it singles out Craigslist, it's perfectly applicable to forum transactions, too: Don't Hesitate To Haggle On Craigslist The key stand-out excerpt (IMO):

Not to mention million dollar ears.

I'll concede that my statement as written is subject to dispute, but I thought the intent was clear. He wanted a blanket statement about whether one device was superior to another with respect to exact signal reproduction. I didn't answer his question and neither did you. Although you provided the information necessary to do so. The answer is since, by your own definition, none of them are capable of precisely duplicating the original signal then none of them are capable of doing what he was asking. However, if what he meant was "which of these devices transmit better sound quality as a result of superior optics", the answer is still "none". Alternatively, if he meant "which of these devices is best at producing the desired result"?(which I highly doubt--although I'm sure he'll dispute this now)--then the answer is unknowable without a great deal of comparison--which he is capable of doing himself--which SOMEONE suggested he do already. So who got this right when nobody else did? bobt.... Well, partially. I'd still wager that bobt is right and that he wont hear a difference, barring any defective engineering on the part of any one of the 3 products in question. In other words, in terms of what your ears are able to discern...there is (probably) no difference.

The review was posted on your birthday, Chris. If you make a modicum of effort to figure these things out for yourself, you won't make it so easy for me.

I found a "non-official" copy that I am downloading now. They've labeled it "abandonware"--but I wonder to what extent that is true. If it were really "abandonware" (I've seen abandonware) you could download it via "oldversions" or other such sites instead of only "distributed" protocol methods.

Yup--I'm using EAC to create FLAC images I'd like to know more about this process, although I'm pretty happy with the handful of images I've made so far. That sounds like a good secondary archive format. Can you elaborate on how you do this? Thanks. (Must dash--breakfast is calling.)

Well, I like the way FLAC images work with cue sheets. It's a nice tidy package and elegantly resolves the issue of having duplicate track names on the same CD without having to add track number to the file naming scheme, leaving information about track numbers, etc, to the metadata. I realize this situation doesn't come up often--but I just happened to have recently gotten a CD that had 3 tracks all named "Spoken Introduction". I also realize you can probably do this with PCM as well, but my system is fast enough that it really isn't that much of a waste of time. It's also true that I have an obscene amount of storage and I could probably have a PCM image, a FLAC image, and still have room for lossy copies as well. I may eventually write some scripts that accomplish this (create MP3 copies) so I can have stuff ready to go for various purposes.

I have discovered foobar and have now concluded it is safe for me to use FLAC. I can have this topic kept open for discussion, but I'm proceeding with FLAC. I can use foobar to convert to WAV very easily and then of course I can go to ATRAC. A single step would be nice, but I'm not going to be forced to use PCM as my archive format because Sony wont support FLAC.

Actually, in the spirit of finding things out for one's own self, I'm ripping something to PCM that I already ripped to FLAC to see how big a difference it is.

LOL--I didn't notice that because I didn't think my good friend bluecrab would lead me astray. *DOH* Good call, cornreaper. I guess you were wrong, bluecrab--it was intentionally funny.

I realize the question has probably been asked before, but the answers can change over time. There may be newer versions of software that change the answer: Before I get too far into my project to archive my CD collection to a lossless format--can I/should I use FLAC? Do you still have to jump through some hoops to get it to ATRAC? I have plenty of storage for either FLAC or PCM, but I'd still like to have the space savings from FLAC if it doesn't add too much work for portability purposes. Please do not get into a debate about whether FLAC really is lossless as far as SQ is concerned--as far as I'm concerned this is settled. Thanks. I've put this off far too long, so if you can help me decide soon, I'd appreciate it.

Absolutely rewritable. The only ones that aren't are the prerecorded releases that you may or may not ever see.

Dude, have you no shame? Put some clothes on that cheesecake, will you? You're liable to give the poor fella a heart attack.

I'm not going to vote in the poll in case you're using it as a potential buyer tally. I just bought two of these and I paid what I felt I was willing to pay--$50 each + nominal ($4-$8) shipping charge. There is (was?) a listing in Germany for $75 and I was not (and am not) willing to pay that. That being said, if a few more weeks had gone by without me seeing an alternative and it was still there, I probably would've bought the $75 unit. Clear as mud?

Oh--but that's hardly the point. True--MDLP would be better, but this more than makes up for any shortcomings with its geek chic looks. Besides, I think he's nitpicking just a tad. Edit: after going point-by-point, I decided he wasn't nitpicking all that much. But I still think it is important to distinguish between the excellent hardware design and the crappy software design. Realize I'm making my comments in the context of "what's done is done--let's have the most fun we can with it" I'm pretty sure my 7-disc CD changer does the same thing. Shuffling between discs would put a lot of wear on the disc changing mechanics. If you want more of a shuffle that varies album and not just song title you just have to simulate it by prerecording a "shuffle". This is no surprise since shuffle doesn't work the way he expects either. Besides, if it did start seeking the next disc while playing the end of the last song he (or someone else) would complain about the noise (my 7-cd changer makes a racket when switching discs) while it's playing music! I must be getting old. So much of this seems petty. I'll have to agree with him here. That is MEGA lame. I put the blame squarely on the software designers. Another pet peeve of mine. Total agreement. I've got enough clocks--I'll put a power strip on it and turn it off entirely. I entered MD after the golden years, so I'd be more inclined to do all of this on the computer. Although I just acquired a wonderful Tascam 301 MkII that I'm going to explore this world with. Keyboard input, too. I think a lot of the problems are due to the software design. That IS a shame. Argh--good hardware, bad software.What a shame that such an excellently engineered product from a hardware perspective was completely trashed by poor software design.

I think it's very natural. You only run into "difficulty" when someone won't believe their ears, but they think having the highest spec somehow raises their stature. There's this funny little plug for the NPR show "Wait..Wait, don't tell me--the NPR News Quiz". At the end of it he says, "It'll be the most fun you've had since bragging about your S.A.T. scores." I know--doesn't seem relevant, but it just popped into my head.

Nice--it looks like a great deal...and so much the better that the transaction can take place between people in person. Good luck, people. Make sure you PM the OP in case he didn't subscribe to this topic.