| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2005 12:28:24 PM · #1 |
It's a slightly larger iPod clone. Not quite as slick and fancy as the iPod. But it has several interesting features. Namely, up to a 100gig capacity. And it functions as a simple "external hard drive".
Will play numerous audio formats (MP3,WMA,WAV,Ogg) and FM tuner. Will record (encode) audio from FM or internal mic. And will display TXT files.
Best of all, the drives are user upgradeable. And use standard 2.5" laptop drives. In fact, they sell a driveless version for $150.
Anyways, i've got a 40gig laptop drive lying around as I just upgraded my laptop to a 100gig for photo storage. This looks like it might do nicely as a double role of MP3 player and photo archive.
Just thought others might be interested in such a storage device, especially if they have an old drive lying around.
Sadly, no "image" display ability. But rumor has it they are working on new models for the future...
CLICK HERE
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:35:26 PM · #2 |
Cool, and fairly reasonably priced. Thanks Saj.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:41:40 PM · #3 |
I've read a lot of reviews. And the main hitches are:
a) size (it's a bit larger, more like a PDA size) but i mostly intend to use mine in the car and at home
b) screen is very basic (think Palm III styling)
c) rudimentary functions ( essentially, it works by a simple folder tree, you organize your music in folders, etc). But for me, this is what i LIKE to do anyways with my music collections.
d) Overall lacks the sophisication and sleekness and style of iPod
But 100gigs is nothing to sneeze at. And the ability to upgrade it more. Soon to be able to drop a 160gig drive. Well gee...that's pretty sweet to me.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:44:05 PM · #4 |
Given everything that it attempts to do, and the fairly low price, I'd be a little concerned with build quality. Obviously it's not going to be as sleek and solid as an iPod, but it's trying to be so much more than an iPod that it's not a fair comparison.
I'd try to talk to people who own one and get as much hands-on experience before you commit. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:44:09 PM · #5 |
Interesting - but it lacks a method for getting photos from camera to hard drive in the field. My Archos AV420 has the advantage of a CF card slot (as do a number of other solutions), though it is only 20GB. I used it constantly at the last wedding I shot - 700+ RAW files exceeded my 3x1GB cards several times over.
Oh and the Archos records video straight from the tv which is useful in peace time, as well as music etc.
The Epson product looks pretty good for this purpose too (at a price) - it plays RAW files as well as JPEGs and has a high res screen (but no tv recorder). Otherwise there are several competing options, including the iPod photo (though this definitiely shows its music roots) and another one that uses laptop hard drives (the X-Drive(?), I think).
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 12:48:00.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:45:41 PM · #6 |
take a look a look at this too
I have the x's drive II but I am planning on upgrading to this as
it can view raw files! |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:50:47 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Given everything that it attempts to do, and the fairly low price, I'd be a little concerned with build quality. Obviously it's not going to be as sleek and solid as an iPod, but it's trying to be so much more than an iPod that it's not a fair comparison. |
I read many reviews. A few minor objections to some movement/jiggle of the buttons. But they stated the over all build quality felt quite high. One stating it passed their squeak test of compressing the case.
Problem with me is that almost all the portable AV units out there feature a 20gig, 40gig tops. iPod's 60gig photo being an exception.
And frankly, I need much more space than that. 40 gig will get me by for now (and I have the drive already). But I know in a year I'll want to pop that drive out and drop 100-160gig unit in.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:53:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
And frankly, I need much more space than that. 40 gig will get me by for now (and I have the drive already). But I know in a year I'll want to pop that drive out and drop 100-160gig unit in. |
That is the problem with a large pirated music collection...
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:58:03 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
And frankly, I need much more space than that. 40 gig will get me by for now (and I have the drive already). But I know in a year I'll want to pop that drive out and drop 100-160gig unit in. |
That is the problem with a large pirated music collection... |
Actually, legalbeagle....
I don't have any pirated music in my collection....
So *pfsssttttt*... :P
(although, I will be violating and braking copyright laws, and thus committing a crime which can get me charge with a felony...hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in jail - because I plan to use said device as a back-up unit for DJ'ing. To carry tracks that are not in my regular rotation but which I might get a request for or see the right moment come up and want to still have on hand.
Yup...after spending probably $10,000 on CDs and another $10,000 on audio equipment - I have to resort to becoming a criminal to use what I have paid damn good money for....
So in fact....for me "that is the problem with a large legal music collection"
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 12:59:02. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:03:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I don't have any pirated music in my collection....
So *pfsssttttt*... :P
(although, I will be violating and braking copyright laws, and thus committing a crime which can get me charge with a felony...hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in jail - because I plan to use said device as a back-up unit for DJ'ing. To carry tracks that are not in my regular rotation but which I might get a request for or see the right moment come up and want to still have on hand.
|
If you own the CDs, you are not breaking any law by turning them into MP3s. Glad to hear that you do not carry through in practice your threats of disregarding copyright law.
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 13:03:48.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:04:31 PM · #11 |
I would still recommend getting a portable hard drive with a CF slot though, so that you can use it for photography as well as music.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:07:44 PM · #12 |
This one comes with a CF reader and allows you to use your own 9.5mm HD:
//www.xs-drive.com/xsdrive2plus/index.htm
and this one does too, with MP3 and videao playback:
//www.xs-drive.com/xsdrivesuper/index.htm
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 13:09:33.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:11:05 PM · #13 |
Or if you have lots of money (and want a huge screen):
//www.archos.com/products/prw_500716.html
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:46:25 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If you own the CDs, you are not breaking any law by turning them into MP3s. Glad to hear that you do not carry through in practice your threats of disregarding copyright law. |
Actually, I am...because the DMCA restricts me from doing so for commercial purposes (I am a Disc Jockey). Before the DMCA DJ's only had to pay performance royalties to BMI/ASCAP/SESAC (and in fact it's the venue who is liable in most cases). After the DMCA went into effect it made the use of a recording in a commercial use a felony. Essentially, it took away what had been hither before a right I had with my property.
So yes, I am putting into practice what I said. I also try to buy many of my albums direct from the band or thru select retailers. Very few of my music is from any of the major record labels. Most of it is independent and underground.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would still recommend getting a portable hard drive with a CF slot though, so that you can use it for photography as well as music.
|
Don't see much point to getting 20gig unit when I have a 4gig card. If they offered one with a 100gig drive I'd be quite interested in it. I do like the idea of upgradeability of the DMC unit. I can upgrade the drive. And then, if they come out with a new model (say one with a memory card reader) I can upgrade to the unit and keep my drive. It sounds like a progressive system.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 01:57:17 PM · #15 |
Wow....that about looks to be what I want. I am curious if it is compatible with Canon cameras and if I could easily download files from my 20D to it.
Right now, I can't quite justify that cost (but I think come next year I am going to pick me up one of those)
I saw their earlier model at 40gig and thought it way too small to support the features.
I will likely use both units, making the DMC Xclef 500 just for MP3s and the Archos for photo & media storage. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:03:01 PM · #16 |
Looks like the soon to be released Archos units don't include a CF slot and rely on USB connection to cameras with mass storage idents - not including Canon cameras. The AV 400 series has a CF slot and a 100GB version.
As for DMCA - it is peculiar to the US, and a facet of the law, rather than its subject. The real risk for you seems to me to be pretty low and inconsequential if you own the music.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:16:33 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As for DMCA - it is peculiar to the US, and a facet of the law, rather than its subject. The real risk for you seems to me to be pretty low and inconsequential if you own the music. |
See I don't give a damn about the risk being inconsequential or not. It's not how I live my life. I am smart enough to shop lift, steal, and other criminal behaviors, etc. with the risks being inconsequential. Just cause I get away with it doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
I choose to do it on my moral views. I used to be pro-copyright. I felt there was an intended balance and so I acknowledged it. Now, I do not believe that balance is being maintained and I no longer see the validity of copyright holders in such cases.
The DMCA was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. Poorly thought out. Probably only exceeded by the legislation they passed that killed online radio. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:36:16 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As for DMCA - it is peculiar to the US, and a facet of the law, rather than its subject. The real risk for you seems to me to be pretty low and inconsequential if you own the music. |
See I don't give a damn about the risk being inconsequential or not. It's not how I live my life. I am smart enough to shop lift, steal, and other criminal behaviors, etc. with the risks being inconsequential. Just cause I get away with it doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
I choose to do it on my moral views. I used to be pro-copyright. I felt there was an intended balance and so I acknowledged it. Now, I do not believe that balance is being maintained and I no longer see the validity of copyright holders in such cases. |
Why confuse one aspect of copyright law in the US (the DMCA) with copyright as a concept in the round? If you do not believe in copyright law, then why not pirate all of the music that you want?
As I understand it, the main criticism of the DMCA is that it is drafted badly. It prohibits the use of any tool that can be used to circumvent copy protection, without using language such as "developed for the primary purpose of..." and failing to focus on unlawful copying.
Do not forget that there are two elements to any law: the legislation and its interpretation. The lawful copying of non-copy protected CDs is, it seems to me, unlikely to be caught by a narrow interpretation of the wording. To the extent that the wording is interpreted broadly, there is a theoretical risk, but no practical risk.
While I wholeheartedly agree that badly drafted legislation ought to be amended appropriately, I do not see this as either effectively criminalising your actions in transferring music you own from one media to another or justifying a general disregard for copyright as a whole.
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 14:36:56.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 05:48:41 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Why confuse one aspect of copyright law in the US (the DMCA) with copyright as a concept in the round? If you do not believe in copyright law, then why not pirate all of the music that you want? |
1. I like to thank artists with my financial support, especially when I know a reasonable portion goes directly to them (as opposed to $0.25 cents)
2. Quality and Fidelity - I need good quality on the the higher digital rippings are of such quality.
3. Time - simply don't have the time and energy to download them all.
4. And perhaps the biggest reason...I'm a collector....and in many ways it's the difference between having that original baseball card or merely having a photocopy of it.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
It prohibits the use of any tool that can be used to circumvent copy protection, without using language such as "developed for the primary purpose of..." and failing to focus on unlawful copying. |
No, it goes much further than that. You see, one used to be able to "reverse engineer" an item. In otherwords, based on the actions & performances of an item one could figure out what it did, what signals it sent, and what actions said signals triggered. Then, you could create your own module to interpret said signals, perform the same responses and return it to said unit. This was essentially made illegal with the DMCA.
You see, people bought an iPod. Real Networks made a hack that allowed expanded functionality of the iPod (namely, the ability to play Real Network tracks as well). There is a big stir going on and Apple claiming Real Networks violated the DMCA and hacked their software.
Correct me if I am not mistaken, but the people using these modifications BOUGHT their iPods. If they choose to modify them (with or without the help of Real Networks) they should be able to.
The DMCA went beyond the idea that "to break an encryption in order to illegally copy content" is illegal. And instead went so far as to make "breaking an encryption" in any case illegal. Thus, one can simply put the mildest of encryptions to prevent alternative uses of one's device. (Take the Xbox and people who've installed Linux on it. And people are claiming doing so violates the DMCA. Excuse me, people paid $$$ for their Xbox's and should be able to use them as they please.)
The other irony, someone wrote a tool that masked file names via encryption. One could argue it was an aid to piracy but it was also a privacy tool and a potential security tool. RIAA broke the encryption on that tool. But were not taken to task for their DMCA violation. So not only is the law unjust, and excessive but it is selectively being enforced.
Furthermore, the DMCA and the DPR actually created "new" royalty rights for RIAA. Rights that never existed and only apply to digital forms of music NOT traditional analog recordings. Essentially, in the guise of battling piracy, RIAA was abled to squeeze in legislation that expanding the role of copyrights and allowed them to collect royalties on uses that they did not have rights to before.
Remember, in the U.S. we have "performance rights" and "recording rights" the first are dealt with by BMI/ASCAP/SESAC/etc and the latter by RIAA.
But in the past 10 yrs I have watched fair-use rights and public domain be decimated....
To me this is a give and take situation. Both sides give or both sides take! |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 06:18:46 PM · #20 |
First it looks nice for the price, but do take issue of its comparison with competetors, Not all of the Zen players require creative software to interface many will work as a logical drive, they also mis repsent other features.
alos look at //www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=210&subcategory=211&product=12985/
this is comming out this month or next has a 640x480 2in display and a CF slot built in and has an accessory that will read most other digicam formats and is set up to pull the full image files off your card to the drive. While it dosent have the storage capicity it has the felxiability, also when these guys do get a color screen they prolly wont have a cf reader built in and the cost will go way up.
Also hate with a passion the term "Ipod Clone" as Ipod was a late commer to the market of Mp3 players, they just had mor publicity because of legal issues in the news over file swappers and were the best at marketing. There are better standards than the Ipod out there
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 18:21:02. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 06:29:07 PM · #21 |
There are numerous brands that offer tons of features....but very few offer capacity.
As for iPod clone...yes...i'll grant you that one. I gave up fighting that battle. I had an original Diamond Rio 300 so yes I know just how late to the game all the other are. I find it funny that Microsoft has put forth a patent claim AFTER iPod came out. When I sit there looking at my Rio and saying "PRIOR ART YOU IDIOT ***** AT THE PATENT OFFICE"
And once again come away hating all the more patents, copyrights, trademarks and the misleading concept of intellectual property. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 06:51:04 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
1. I like to thank artists with my financial support, especially when I know a reasonable portion goes directly to them (as opposed to $0.25 cents) |
I just don't get this argument: the artist agrees his remuneration in return for the release of his music. You don't agree with the agreement between the distributor and the artist, so won't pay either. Who are you to judge?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
It prohibits the use of any tool that can be used to circumvent copy protection, without using language such as "developed for the primary purpose of..." and failing to focus on unlawful copying. |
No, it goes much further than that. You see, one used to be able to "reverse engineer" an item. In otherwords, based on the actions & performances of an item one could figure out what it did, what signals it sent, and what actions said signals triggered. Then, you could create your own module to interpret said signals, perform the same responses and return it to said unit. This was essentially made illegal with the DMCA.
You see, people bought an iPod. Real Networks made a hack that allowed expanded functionality of the iPod (namely, the ability to play Real Network tracks as well). There is a big stir going on and Apple claiming Real Networks violated the DMCA and hacked their software.
Correct me if I am not mistaken, but the people using these modifications BOUGHT their iPods. If they choose to modify them (with or without the help of Real Networks) they should be able to.
The DMCA went beyond the idea that "to break an encryption in order to illegally copy content" is illegal. And instead went so far as to make "breaking an encryption" in any case illegal. Thus, one can simply put the mildest of encryptions to prevent alternative uses of one's device. (Take the Xbox and people who've installed Linux on it. And people are claiming doing so violates the DMCA. Excuse me, people paid $$$ for their Xbox's and should be able to use them as they please.)
The other irony, someone wrote a tool that masked file names via encryption. One could argue it was an aid to piracy but it was also a privacy tool and a potential security tool. RIAA broke the encryption on that tool. But were not taken to task for their DMCA violation. So not only is the law unjust, and excessive but it is selectively being enforced.
Furthermore, the DMCA and the DPR actually created "new" royalty rights for RIAA. Rights that never existed and only apply to digital forms of music NOT traditional analog recordings. Essentially, in the guise of battling piracy, RIAA was abled to squeeze in legislation that expanding the role of copyrights and allowed them to collect royalties on uses that they did not have rights to before.
Remember, in the U.S. we have "performance rights" and "recording rights" the first are dealt with by BMI/ASCAP/SESAC/etc and the latter by RIAA.
But in the past 10 yrs I have watched fair-use rights and public domain be decimated....
To me this is a give and take situation. Both sides give or both sides take! |
None of this has anything to do with you copying your CDs to an MP3 player. You can do it. You won't get prosecuted. You are not a criminal.
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 18:51:28. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:13:56 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
None of this has anything to do with you copying your CDs to an MP3 player. You can do it. You won't get prosecuted. You are not a criminal. |
But I cannot do so and "disc jockey" with such. It is illegal according to the DMCA.
I don't give a damn if they won't prosecute. It's the fact that it exists for prosecution. See this is the difference between you and me. You care about legality. (Hence "legalbeagle") I don't give a crap about legality. I believe a "legal" system is one of the worst things that can exist. I believe in a justice system and not a legal system. I believe in morality and in doing what I believe is moral.
So to tell me, it's illegal but they won't prosecute is not acceptable to me.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I just don't get this argument: the artist agrees his remuneration in return for the release of his music. You don't agree with the agreement between the distributor and the artist, so won't pay either. Who are you to judge? |
I am ME and that gives me every bloody right to judge. First off, RIAA has been shown to fail to make proper payments and most of the major players have use "legalese" and "legal" tricks to cheat almost all of the smaller artists out of money. The courts repeatedly tend to decide in favor of whoever has the $$$ (the more money, the better legal team, the more likely to have a decision in your favor). Case in point. Michael Jackson, sure there may not have been enough evidence and many questions regarding molestation - but there was the Jesus juice and he didn't get any trouble for giving alcohol to little children. Had I done this or a bar served under-age college students there would be fines, etc.
Second, RIAA has been repeatedly (every couple of years) caught, sued and penalized (with extremely soft penalties courtesy of the "legal" system) for stealing, price fixing, mis-appropriating monies due artists. For payola to radio stations. And they have done numerous things to stop or impede independent record labels, online radio stations, etc. They paid much money to create "new" unheard of reasons to charge online radio stations exhorberant fees to put 90% out of business. This because these stations helped create a boom in "independent music". Independent and micro-labels tend to be much more fair in dealing with musicians.
Oh, let's not forget when RIAA tried to confiscate the royalty rights of thousands and thousands of bands by declaring that "they" owned the rights because the works were in fact works for hire. (However, they lost that as most of the bands showed that they were in fact billed for expenses, studio time, etc.)
The crap the audio copyright holders have pulled is a 1,000 times worse than all the downloaders combined. The reason piracy is at an all time high is because RIAA charges as much as $20+ for a CD that costs less that $1 to make. And still has yet to show the breakdown of costs. And this is shocking when you discover most artists are lucky to receive more than a few quarters of proceeds.
Now going back to your statement. I've paid more than you have. By choice, as a collector. However, I've also stated that most of my album purchases have been direct from artist or thru a handful of merchants and labels that work well with the artists.
But no, I am not going to give a damn about RIAA complaining of piracy and artists rights when they have been the biggest thief (from both artists and consumers). |
|
