i suppose they’ll improve the ui, and the looks is ok with me, but:
4+16 G is too low to expect us to use flac or wma at 320 kbps or mp3 at 320 kbps, with low storage (and the need to carry a lot of songs) you have to use low bit rates, and for that it is recomended to use he-aac -many codec comparisons show it-, (nokia suggest 48 kbps, i use 50-70 kbps).
i don’t want to reconvert my music (nor i have ‘master’ copies at high rate to do it) so to atract customers that already have their music in he-aac, the ones that have aac from itunes, etc., the player needs to support that. this is for PORTABLE uses (and even at home i don’t have a silent environment).
also, the player ir supposed to be forgiving of low bit rates (or the radio, or whatever is put on the line-in ).
for same, it’ll be good if they put a noise cancelling function.
i suppose they’ll improve the ui, and the looks is ok with me, but:
4+16 G is too low to expect us to use flac or wma at 320 kbps or mp3 at 320 kbps, with low storage (and the need to carry a lot of songs) you have to use low bit rates, and for that it is recomended to use he-aac -many codec comparisons show it-, (nokia suggest 48 kbps, i use 50-70 kbps).
i don’t want to reconvert my music (nor i have ‘master’ copies at high rate to do it) so to atract customers that already have their music in he-aac, the ones that have aac from itunes, etc., the player needs to support that. this is for PORTABLE uses (and even at home i don’t have a silent environment).
also, the player ir supposed to be forgiving of low bit rates (or the radio, or whatever is put on the line-in ).
for same, it’ll be good if they put a noise cancelling function.
I agree for the He-AAC. Also, I need WMA-PRO10 support for some 64 kbps files.
At high bitrates there’s little difference between codecs, but at 48 kbps He-AAC is the best.