Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1,332 of 1,389 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Before you take the plunge ..., September 20, 2005
I love the iPod. Always have. At home, we have five, including this one: the 4GB iPod nano black.
Before you leap, realize two things: (1) this iPod is extremely fragile compared to other iPods, particularly the tough-as-nails iPod mini (a drop of a couple of feet onto a linoleum floor took out the screen); and (2) the black version gets scratched very easily, and shows scratches far more than any white iPod I've owned (after a day and before dropping the damn thing, it already looked awful from scratching -- and it was treated with kid gloves).
Okay, if you can live with those caveats, and invest in a durable protector (we bought the arm-band holder, which does a lousy job of protecting the iPod nano)--none of which are out yet--then this new iPod is truly an amazing bit of technology. It's tiny (it feels even smaller than the photos suggest), has great sound quality (better, I think, than any other iPod I've owned), and the display is gorgeous (even though tiny).
For me, the mini (now defunct, but bargains still abound) is the better choice given its sturdiness. I'm not up for museum-relic care for my electronics, which would certainly help if you own one of these.
Another beautiful, functional gizmo from Apple. Just know what you're getting. Some websites claim the nano is sturdy. I can tell you, from first hand experience, it isn't. So, you be the judge. (Sure, the thing still played, but replacing the screen will set you back at least $90, and, even on the web sites in question, the screen broke.)
(Oh, and if you see someone taking shots at the iTunes software, don't believe it. It's the best music software out there, and its integration with this--or any--iPod is a joy.)
__________
Follow up ... Apple has admitted a problem with some of the nano screens and is doing the right thing: replacing the units with new ones. BRAVO!
|
|
|
56 of 58 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Hip and cool and fun, but sound quality is secondary, November 4, 2005
I bought a 4GB Nano because I wanted a flash player I could use while exercising, but that's not the only reason. I also was curious about why the iPod in its various permutations has become such a cultural phenomenon. I'm an older guy who can remember when the only "portable player" was a small Japanese transistor radio, so I've seen a lot of changes in audio technology during my lifetime. The original Sony cassette Walkman was revolutionary in its day; the first portable cd players, with their virtually nonexistent antiskip functions, were considered a marvel. We've come a long way, baby.
For years now I've been content to use a good-quality portable cd player for my on-the-go music, along with Etymotic ER-4P canalphones, a tiny, twin earplug-like device that makes the headphones packaged with any commercial portable seem laughable by comparison. In the past few years, however, I have watched as the "iPod revolution" totally transformed the world of tiny audio, to the point where it's now virtually impossible to find a portable cd player with good sound quality. Portable digital players rule!
So I decided, what the hey, I'll give this new technology a try! I bought my Nano, along with a small leatherette case to ward off the apparently inevitable scratches this player suffers if you don't cover it up with something protective. Proving that you can, in fact, teach an old dog new tricks, I quickly learned how to use the iTunes software, and I began loading my cd's onto my computer hard drive and, in turn, into my Nano's flash memory.
Two weeks into this Brave New World of Nano, my verdict is mostly positive, but definitely mixed. First of all, this thing is, indeed, FUN. Having a tiny, card-like device packed with hundreds of songs (or classical "movements") induces a definite feeling of power and control. At your fingertips! The fact that you can create "playlists," add or remove music quickly using the provided USB connection cord, and adjust the EQ with a just a few touches of the "clickwheel," induces near-giddiness sometimes. The battery life is impressive; it's not the 14 hours Apple claims, but it's lengthy enough that one seldom has to worry about the battery running down unexpectedly.
I haven't loaded any digital photos, podcasts or audiobooks, but hey, I feel good knowing that I can!
So indeed, I think I understand why people are so smitten with this little gem of a device. HOWEVER--the news isn't all good, and the most significant "bad news" involves what I consider to be the bottom line for any device that plays music, i.e., the sound quality. Most people "rip" and encode their music either as Mp3 or AAC files. By eliminating what is considered "less important" music information, these compression systems allow digitized versions of musical files to be far smaller than the full versions represented most commonly by WAV files. It's through the use of file compression that one can fit the advertised "1000 songs" on a 4GB Nano.
Although some fans of compressed formats swear that no human being can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed musical formats, don't believe it. The old saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" definitely applies here. Fortunately, you can choose to eschew file compression by navigating into the iTunes software and selecting to encode music using "Apple lossless format." All iPod owners actually should do this at least once, encoding the same song using both AAC and "lossless" technology, so that they can discern whether the difference is significant to them. To me, it is, so for much of my music I have chosen to use the "lossless" format, meaning that I don't get nearly as many minutes of music on my Nano as I would have using AAC.
But the fact is that even using "lossless" format, the sound quality is not quite equal to that exhibited by even a fairly inexpensive portable cd player. I'm probably nitpicking here, but prospective buyers of this device should know that one is, in fact, trading audio quality for small size, convenience, and design "cool." Caveat Emptor.
Two more points regarding sound quality: first, those distinctive white earbuds that are packaged with the player are not bad by "included in the box" standards, but their rendition of sound is mediocre. Anyone who really cares about sound quality should save up to buy a better set of earphones. If you truly care about sound, bite the bullet and buy some Ultimate Ears Super fi 5 Pro in-ear monitors (they apparently were engineered with the iPods in mind) or a pair of the new Shure earbuds that are also excellent. These will seem incredibly expensive, but if you listen to a lot of music, it's an investment that definitely will prove worthwhile over a period of several years.
Second, keep in mind that the software/firmware that drive the iPods has limitations that some users will find irritating. Yes, I'm an Old Guy, but over the years I've developed an affection for certain kinds of electronic, nonstop dj mixes of dance music, the kind in which one song blends seamlessly into another. I also still listen to the Grateful Dead, well known for their ability to segue from one tune to the next. And keep in mind that even some more mainstream "pop" artists, including the Beatles, have utilized the nonstop blending of tracks in their albums.
Well, the iPod can't handle nonstop. It invariably inserts a small gap in between tracks, even if one is not intended. You can minimize this using the "crossover playback" function, but this really is not a satisfactory solution. You also can record cd's as one joined track, but then you lose the iPod's celebrated display of individual track names. In fairness, this is an issue that seems universal among digital players (with the exception of the now-discontinued Rio Karma 20 gb player). But until Apple comes up with a firmware upgrade that addresses this issue, the lack of "gapless playback" will continue to indicate that in some ways the new, hip digital players actually represent a movement backward in sound reproduction technology.
Overall, the victory of tiny digital players over previous formats, including CD, represents the triumph of convenience and cool, with sound quality apparently emerging as a secondary consideration for nearly all buyers. So I confess: there's a part of me that's bothered by the fact that in today's world, style, image, cool, and technology-as-fashion-accessory has become more important than actual sound quality in the marketing success of portable audio devices. I know, I'm a curmudgeon; I can't help it.
To conclude: on balance, I like my Nano, and I use it almost every day. When I want to hear music as it was intended to be heard, however, I use my old iRiver SlimX cd portable (no longer made).
|
|
|
32 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
good but not perfect, November 15, 2005
I received a 4gb black Nano as a gift (from my boss - how cool is that?). I like it a lot, but my disappointment with its flaws would be a lot stronger if I'd shelled out $250 for it.
The good points we all know about: tiny, light, superb UI, good capacity, good sound, "cool factor". And, uh, you can install Linux on it. :D
There are bad points, however, and for me some of them are significant. (I switched over from an iPod Shuffle 1gb and am using the same (Phillips noise-canceling) headphones, which makes for a pretty fair comparison between the two devices.)
First off, I could care less about scratches; it's a music appliance, not jewelry. I keep mine in a pocket without change or lighters and it's fine.
The Shuffle is slightly louder. This won't matter to most people but I work in a datacenter where the ambient noise level is very high, and for some songs that were ripped at low level, maximum volume on the Nano isn't quite enough.
The display screen is great for song info and album art but seems a bit washed out for photos. Perhaps it's the downsampling algorithm the Nano uses when it imports photos. Not terribly important either.
The battery level meter on the Nano display could have been programmed a bit better. From fully charged it drops to the next level within a couple of minutes. Now I know it's not technically "full" anymore, but it's still a bit disconcerting. The battery-level bar also turns red quite early, when there's more than an hour of play left. Again, disconcerting and unnecessary. I much prefer the Shuffle's way, using a single LED that goes from green to yellow to red. You see green until yellow appears with about an hour left, and when you see red you've only got a few minutes. In other words 90% of the time you see "all's well", and when you really need to recharge, it tells you so.
Now, the biggest flaw with the Nano, for me at least: battery life.
Apple advertises 12-16 hours, but that's a sad joke. I use the device heavily, pretty much continuously, at work. The indicator turns red after 4 1/2 hours and the device needs recharging after 6 hours. I've been through this cycle several times now and it is consistent. It recharges relatively fast (plug in when I go to lunch, and it's charged when I get back in an hour), but it's disappointing not to be able to get through a whole shift without a recharge. The Nano also seems to lose juice fairly quickly when idle/turned off. Put it to sleep full, and check it the next day and it's at 75%.
By contrast the iPod Shuffle hardly seems to use the battery at all. I can easily get through a whole (11-hour) shift without even getting to yellow on the indicator. If I don't listen continuously through my shift I can go days before recharging, and the Shuffle has sat idle on a full charge for over two weeks and still been green when I picked it up.
Now I realize (hello!) that the Shuffle doesn't have a display at all, nor a click wheel, nor does it store photos, nor can it hold nearly as much music as the Nano. The Nano is beautiful and a joy to use. But its versatility and utility are hampered by its short battery life. If you want a whole day's music and you're not going to be near a computer, say, hiking or boating or skiing, the Nano is going to disappoint you. If you can make a playlist you enjoy that fits in a gigabyte, for heavy users the Shuffle is a better bet.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
