iPod Touch VS Samsung P2 - consumer's/my Point of view

[death__machine]

Originally Posted by FlavioWolff

how were your exams?

They were good . Results will be out within 15 days.

Originally Posted by thekey

Sorry P2 owners, But this is a easy choice, Ipod Touch.

Why?

[CrowdAds]

[The DarkSide]

Originally Posted by death__machine

Why?

Don't ask,.......... PLEASE!!!! Don't ask!!!!

[death__machine]

Okay am serious why is the iPod Touch an easy choice over the Samsung P2.
My friend who owns a nano agrees with me that all iPods suck and Touch is worse in comparison to his nano in quality, which is infact true.
And this guy "thekey" tells me that the iPod Touch is an easy choice over the P2

[The DarkSide]

Oh GAWD !!!!

[Lawrence]

I think the touch is one of the best players out there today, disregaurding the price tag.
the touch is a very good quality player and is not overrated, disregaurding the price tag.

now I'm not just saying that. I normally do not judge until I have owned a player. I've owned 2 iPod classics and a nano. I hated all of those, they had basically standard features and I couldn't see why someone would spend their money on an iPod when there's better things out there. Plus i think the clickwheel was a step down from tactile or linear touch scrolling.

But the touch makes great use of its abilities in order to make an above-ipod-level interface, and i like that. they still don't offer alot of video codecs, but I think the screen looks better on the touch than on the p2.

Now we're just judging the players, not the software or means of syncing media, or else i'd have to pick the p2. Apple took it to themselves to create a system in their newest players to block rockbox, which I just think they should have some kind of warranty-voiding policy instead, therefore users who want to use rockbox can.

[musichound]

But the Touch has been tested to be one of the worse sounding DAPs on the market today. Being the Touch is a DAP, how can you justify that cost?

[Lawrence]

well, the touch's price is ridiculous.

[beteks]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

well, the touch's price is ridiculous.

yeah that's true. Ipods don't have good sound. My friend switched from a Zune 30GB to a Ipod classic what a dork. add he bought a pair of $100
Shures for it add it sounds bad.

He gave the Zune to his sister.

By the way, when is the 16GB P2 coming out?

[The DarkSide]

The 16gb P2 is out, but only in Canada and Europe. The US seems to be on hold for some reason.

[vandread_SS]

blue wave 4 is out check out the updates that i posted about the bluewave 4 beta at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung...rmware_Updates

[beteks]

Originally Posted by nywytboy68

The 16gb P2 is out, but only in Canada and Europe. The US seems to be on hold for some reason.

Saw that too. I really want that model, but i think i'm going to get a Sansa Fuze or Zune.

[madmaxmedia]

Originally Posted by musichound

But the Touch has been tested to be one of the worse sounding DAPs on the market today. Being the Touch is a DAP, how can you justify that cost?

Tested by who? The Touch has gotten pretty good reviews from what I''ve read, and seems pretty well-regarded at Head-fi.org.

To say the Touch has really bad sound is probably like saying the Samsung has a horrible, laggy interface- both are exaggerations that don't actually help anyone trying to make a buying decision.

[The DarkSide]

The Touch DOES have crappy SQ compared to the Zune, Sonys, Samsung playes, the clip and Fuze, and the Cowons. And, this is according to people on Head-Fi also. Don't quote them as a sourceas I'm also 1 of the sources there. I've heard almost all the players I've listed and the ipods score the lowest for sq. If your talking LOD it's another story as that's a plain digital sig that bypasses the DAC. HP out the Touch SUX!!! And it has been tested HP out to sound flat and lifeless!!!

Also, the comment was about SQ - not interface and features. I love how something that has no bearing on the current post gets thrown in for the heck of it.

[madmaxmedia]

Originally Posted by nywytboy68

HP out the Touch SUX!!! And it has been tested HP out to sound flat and lifeless!!!

Also, the comment was about SQ - not interface and features. I love how something that has no bearing on the current post gets thrown in for the heck of it.

Dude, chill out.

I'm glad I amused you with my comment. My point was that I considered the statement that the sound quality of the Touch 'SUX!!!!' was an exaggeration, just as it seems that the statement that the Samsung interface is horribly laggy is also probably an exaggeration.

[The DarkSide]

Originally Posted by madmaxmedia

Dude, chill out.

I'm glad I amused you with my comment. My point was that I considered the statement that the sound quality of the Touch 'SUX!!!!' was an exaggeration, just as it seems that the statement that the Samsung interface is horribly laggy is also probably an exaggeration.

I am chillin' dude. The point is that each has it's merit, and SQ isn't 1 on the touch - the P2 own's in that aspect. As for features, well, the Touch is tha' RULER in that aspect. I'm waiting for the 9th to decide on a Zune 120 or Touch V2. Doesn't matter if people trash the player as I'm the final judge. As for the new Cowon players they may have STELLAR SQ but I'm disappointed w/how they release their products. SOOOO disappointing IMO.

BTW - Have you tried the Touch, classic, 5.5 video, Mini, Nano, sony's, Cowon, Samsung, Creative players? I have, and this is how I base my opinion on SQ. I've owned and own some of the mentioned so I have a slight idea. And, for what it's worth, I've gotten a small amount of grief over the fact that I've stated I like the Touch on this site!

[copeys]

Originally Posted by nywytboy68

BTW - Have you tried the Touch, classic, 5.5 video, Mini, Nano, sony's, Cowon, Samsung, Creative players? I have, and this is how I base my opinion on SQ.

Just throwing in my 2 bobs worth - I have listened to a Touch next to a Creative ZVM - same song - and in my opinion the Touch was quite crackly and did not seem in tune compared to the ZVM. I didn't understand why this was at the time (I immaturely suspected those ipod headphones) but now it sort of makes sense why! . Also, personally, I love the features on the touch. There I said it. lol

[madmaxmedia]

Originally Posted by nywytboy68

I am chillin' dude. The point is that each has it's merit, and SQ isn't 1 on the touch - the P2 own's in that aspect. As for features, well, the Touch is tha' RULER in that aspect. I'm waiting for the 9th to decide on a Zune 120 or Touch V2. Doesn't matter if people trash the player as I'm the final judge. As for the new Cowon players they may have STELLAR SQ but I'm disappointed w/how they release their products. SOOOO disappointing IMO.

BTW - Have you tried the Touch, classic, 5.5 video, Mini, Nano, sony's, Cowon, Samsung, Creative players? I have, and this is how I base my opinion on SQ. I've owned and own some of the mentioned so I have a slight idea. And, for what it's worth, I've gotten a small amount of grief over the fact that I've stated I like the Touch on this site!

Okay.

I won't disagree with anyone who dislikes the sound quality on the Touch, partly because I know there are some objective ways of evaluating sound, and partly because the most important thing is one's subjective experience.

Here are some of the players I have owned/tried over the years, though this was at diffferent times usually with different headphones, etc.- iPod 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Classic, iPod Shuffle 1G, 2G, iPod Touch, iPod Mini 1G, iPod Nano 1G, 2G, Rio Karma, Rio Sport (?), Cowon U3, Sony A816, Samsung Clip (just bought one one Woot!), and probably a couple of others I can't recall.

I really disliked the early iPods. My first iPod was actually a 3G and I sold it one EBay within a week after I bought it, and switched to the Karma. But I've personally found that the current crop of iPods compares a lot more favorably. I would never argue that they have the best sound quality, but I've been pleased by them when mated with good headphones. I know part of this is because I've become used to the sound signature of the iPods. But I do try to be more or less objective, and always consider all players (that's why I like this site, but I also go to ilounge.com a lot.) One of the reasons I typically end gravitating towards iPods is because I have a fair amount of AAC songs (though there are of course a couple of other companies that supports AAC.)

Between the Touch and P2, I haven't heard the P2 so who knows maybe I would like that one a lot better. I would say that the Touch has a lot of great functionality but at the same time you are paying a significant price premium for it. If you primarily want a music player then the P2 would seem like a better choice for that alone.

[The DarkSide]

Functionality wise I agree it's hard to beat the Touch, yes. SQ wise the P2, and a few other Samsungs, have better SQ. I'm somewhat of an iPod lover myself, BUT admit to the so-so SQ on them. As a total package, including the simplicity of them, their kind of hard to beat. But since the sound is so noticeable to me (and most who compare the players I own to them) I stay away to avoid the disappointment.

[musichound]

Originally Posted by copeys

Just throwing in my 2 bobs worth - I have listened to a Touch next to a Creative ZVM - same song - and in my opinion the Touch was quite crackly and did not seem in tune compared to the ZVM. I didn't understand why this was at the time (I immaturely suspected those ipod headphones) but now it sort of makes sense why! . Also, personally, I love the features on the touch. There I said it. lol

But did you listen to both players, with the same headphones, and with no EQ, and at the same volume level?

[The DarkSide]

Originally Posted by musichound

But did you listen to both players, with the same headphones, and with no EQ, and at the same volume level?

TBH, the Touch w/no EQ engaged sounds pretty good (1-10, I'd give it a 7.5 without EQ). But, I like to have my EQ on. Even without it on the sound distorts on an iPod - though the Touch in noticeably cleaner an clearer sounding.