Talk:Digital audio player

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digital audio player article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Don't remove comments from Talk pages, please

I have just returned the above "John Doe" comment to this page after it was removed. With few exceptions, material should never be removed from Talk pages, no matter how goofy or useless it might seem. These pages are supposed to be a historical record of how an article grew over time, so material should be left. - DavidWBrooks 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Did you know the PMP300 and the first Creative Models were actually licensed from Saehan. I personally saw those models first on the Saehan site in 1997 and they were open contacts on the site for licensing. I'm not sure but I think the PMP300 was the Saehan MPman30/50 or so. I wish I had a screenshot now but this was almost 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years ago.

[edit] Usability section

Why this usability section was cut down? I see a big hype and lots of problems in quality, interoperability... --Gerfriedc 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

May 25, 2005 Added new category: "Audio Acquisition." mp3 players rock

Just wondering: would it be possible to add a ratio of different players in the market? I believe iPods control up to 70% but have no solid facts. It would be a good thing to have. -John Doe

For the Western world (USA market, Western Europe), the iPod family is by far the market leader. In emerging markets (esepcially Southeast Asia), it's not, due to its higher selling price. -- hmmm. In the US, Apple's iPod sales have had the effect of raising the ASP (average selling price) of MP3-players. Basically, Apple expanded the (disk-based) market upward, at the same time as it took away marketshare from the lower-end (flash-based) MP3-player market. Considering that the ASP of virtually all other consumer electronics declines over time, this accomplishment is impressive.
(Now we'll have to wait and see whether cellphone handsets start cannibalizing the core-market of MP3-players. Perhaps a reason Apple recently announced the iPhone.)

[edit] DRM

I'm changing the paragraph about DRM. Restrictions are not due to the complexity of DRM, but due to the very nature of DRM. I also listed the main proprietary formats in use today. Perhaps there should be more details, but then we would just be duplicating the article on DRM. Putte 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Shouldn't CD players be considered as Digital Audio Players? CD is NOT an analog format.

The history section seems to have gone. Was this a deliberate move on someone's part? --Andynormancx 09:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: MP3 CD players are digital MP3 files burned onto a CD. That's the big differences. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it jumps from the first jukebox player to the iPod, no mention of the first popular gigabyte player being the creative nomad (http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/nomadreview.html) 83.71.197.13 16:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The iPod is the first commercially successful player to hit it to the mainstream, and that's not really opinion when you look at sales. (And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy. XD) --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAP term explained?

is there any explanation to why the term DAP is applied to some digital audio players but not to others? for one thing at first i figured it was players that used compressed digital audio instead of uncompressed digital audio (and also were portable), explainign why CDs dont count. but then i learned that minidiscs are not considered DAPs, so then i thought maybe the player had to have its own data storage. but then i come to wikipedia and see that CD players with MP3 decoding are considered DAPs... so now not only does the term not really apply (for example the term mentions nothing about being portable), but its not even consistant. and then, ive heard from several people that the term DAP came from players starting to play more formats than just MP3 formats...so why then, is a minidisc not considered a DAP but an MP3 CD player is? seems like playing MP3s is a requirement for being considered a DAP, so why change the term from MP3 Player to DAP? i think there should be an explanation of the term, or atleast a guidline as to the requirements of being called a DAP... E60deluxe 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely it should be as accurately defined as possible. If you are aware of a mini-disc player that plays digital audio *files* (which seems to be the current definition as I understand the article), then that MD player falls under the definition of DAP ... guyzero | talk 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I arrived at this article because I noticed that someone removed MP101 from Category:Digital audio players. Could someone provide a reference that the terms "digital audio player" and "MP3 player" have taken on more restricted definitions than their literal sense would imply, i.e. that "digital audio player, a.k.a. MP3 player := "portable" "digital" "audio" "player"? What references say that these terms now definitively exclude something like the MP101 (which incidentally has been lauded in reviews for its portability, though not in the sense of being battery-operated and self-contained)? The text at Category:Digital audio players provides still another dubious definition of the term. —Fleminra (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I changed the description. Now, I was checking every article tagged to this category yesterday. As a result, a new category has been made. For some of the others, they definitely weren't consumer electronic portable devices that are capable of digital audio playback. For that reason, I had to remove MP101 (a receiver) and Streamit (a company selling internet receivers). Those articles that are directly related to DAPs, like FM transmitters (built-in feature in many players, and also a separate accesory), or Rockbox (an example of a third-party firmware, used by many players) are an exception. In a nutshell, individual products that aren't DAPs (more specifically, the description I've already given), nope. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|21-13-4 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many?

there is so many "major players" too many needing clean up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.210.123 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DIY DAP

Some people make their own digital audio player. This allows them to make it much cheaper. Besides those hobbyists, it would also allow the a majority of people in less-developed countries to make their own digital audio player, bringing both western and local music, and knowledge to these people.

Please insert the info of this, to the Digital Audio Player article.

Cheers,

That's a good site, but this article is mainly states information for commercialized DAPs. I mean, you wouldn't really find a section about custom PCs in the Desktop Computers article. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First MP3 Player

Well, I know that Pontis was one of the first companies to make an MP3 player, if not the first. They had the technology up and running in 1995 in the lab (MMC plus MP3 decoder in a portable device, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3-Player) and filed for a patent in 1997 (DE000019741503A1, "Audio-Player und Verfahren zur Steuerung von Audio-Daten durch den Audio-Player"). Alas, I don't know when they came to market with their SP-503.

Incidentally Pontis went bankrupt in the summer of 2001, just months before the introduction of the iPod by Apple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.144.42.78 (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The main pictures

Isn't it strange having both iPods representing all of 'digital audio players' with the captions 'the iPod (blank), the most popular (blank)-type mp3 player' on each photo respectively? Most people are quite well aware of the iPod, but may be seeking more information about digital audio players / mp3 players by coming to Wikipedia. I thought the previous pictures were quite fine. The new pictures seem almost like advertisements. What's 'popular'? Why do we need yet another picture of the iPod? I know so many older people who use the word 'iPod' and 'mp3 player' interchangeably. People ought to know there are other ones out there.

edit: and we also have the 5th gen iPod making yet ANOTHER appearance down at the bottom under the list of important mp3 players. this is getting ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.88.28 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

That's why a not-well-known player like the Zen Vision:M is a good example for a embedded hard drive player. Anyone wants to remove the iPod pic down at the Major Brands section, it's ok by me. I just placed it there instead as it fit the 'Major' part. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 10:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
People seem to know what an iPod is, whereas people generally cannot comprehend the concept of an Mp3 player, by putting the iPod picture at the top with the caption stating it is actually an Mp3 player, it is easier to understand, but I do agree that one iPod picture is enough. Also, the picture should be the very recognizable 5th Generation iPod, instead of the recently revised model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citikiwi (talk • contribs) 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow...

Within years, Flash-based media is expected to surpass the capacity of Hard Drive-based Players, and inevitably render them obsolete.

Needs to be changed/cited/made slightly less psychotic. Any suggestions?

Yeah, it will. Soon. When flash memory exceeds 8GB. Otherwise it won't. Simple. Flash, fast. Hard-drive, like a computer. Simple. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree but you still need a citation. --Gbleem 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, that's crystalballing. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

I made a number of changes that were recently reverted. Could someone please explain why each change was reverted? --Gbleem 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CD is digital!

This article says the CD player is not considered a digital audio player. The CD is in every way digital. The words "Digital Audio" even appear in the CD logo. 65.188.253.13 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"MP3 CD Players - Devices that play CDs. This includes both audio CDs and home-made data CDs containing MP3 or other digital audio files."

Does the term MP3 CD Players include regular CD players? --Gbleem 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term digital audio player was created to differentiate the new devices from audio (redbook) CD players a great deal of time after CD players were introduced. Using the literal definition of the term I could see how both CD players and MP3 CD players might be included however I don't think we are dealing with the literal definition of the term. Using the literal definition would include a 1990's rack mounted DAT drive and my pc. --Gbleem 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two kinds of CD players: one that play AUDIO CDs (including CDs with digital audio BURNED as analog audio)
And another that play MP3s (that means they are BURNED as MP3 files) --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the audio CD format is digitally based, not analog. It is as uncompressed as a Windows WAV audio file, but both are stored digitally, as opposed to vinyl records and audio tapes, which are truly analog. However, we should make the distinction between CD players that only play standard audio tracks, and CD players that also read data CDs with mp3 files, wma files, etc. --205.201.141.146 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not portable audio player?

I noticed that iriver calls them DAPs (and this seems to be the standard) but I think it would be better to call them portable audio players or portable digital audio players (PDAP). A digital audio player could be referring to a computer. I am not trying to get the page renamed since this seems to be the correct term. --Noerrorsfound 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DAP-plays audio. PMP-plays media (audio, photo, video) PMP is a DAP. Audio-only DAP is not a PMP. PMP ususlly refer to players with big screens (screen is at least three quarters of the player, so iPhone counts). PMP with screen that covers half, or less than half of the player is a DAP contempoary (iPod nano evolved from iPod mini, an audio-only DAP that had a monochromic screen). --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extending & Elaborating

Mp3 players are becoming particularly prominent (especially in western countries) and I think that we could write a significantly longer article on these devices, the page about the iPod is about three times longer than the one about Digital audio players, and that's just for one brand. I think this page particularly needs elaborating on the availability, technology, market, significance, internet music marketplaces, brands and variations of the devices and the relationship between DAPs and media pircay. This article seems to be written for someone who already has a good understanding of this device and definitely needs some more detail and elaboration. Citikiwi 07:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flash player size

Flash players are now available at 32 GB (The Creative ZEN) I've editted the first paragraph about flash to state this.

Ziggyzach4 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ziggyzach4

...would be great to have a line or two about the actual market for digital audio players and its size. Anyone..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.33.235 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's a recent, documented source. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|24-15-4 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1.8 drives by Toshiba

these drive were not NOT LAPTOP drives. Toshiba invented them and they were stuck with them, and someone at apple picked up Toshiba didn't know what to do with them. and thus the HDD based ipod was pretty much created Markthemac (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPod in the history section

Is the first generation iPod notable in the history of DAPs? The Fourth generation iPod was the first where sales were decent. 171.71.37.203 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why people don't understand the reason MP3 players might replace music radio

Personally, I am under the impression that MP3 plaers are a promising replacement to music radio. Shuffle mode alone is why this rationale is so. How come every time theres statements in this article or others that suggests that DAPs are promising replacements to radio, it always get reverted?

Also, lots of popular songs have been largely depreciated by radio DJs, this case is especially true for me, as the songs I personally like are so underplayed, I resort to usage of an MP3 player in shuffle. Not even satellite radio qualifies to solve the problems of FM radio.

Anyway, I don't understand people continuing to like radio with limited genre selection and less desirable randomization. We need more documentation on MP3 players' tendencies to be a replacement to radio, and the issues poor marketing decisions on radio have caused. Because anti-radio comment sprawl has occured as a result of this ordeal. --Roadstaa (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the popularity of older, inferior concepts can branwash people in a way that prevents them from fully adapting to the newer concepts. --Roadstaa (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements should not be added to Wikipedia unless they are supported by reliable sources, which do not include blogs or forums. Personal experiences do not count as reliable sources either. You are entitled to your opinion but you should not post it to articles per the neutral point of view policy. Radio stations give such services as news, weather, and traffic updates, which are useful to many people. Graham87 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, to my personal experience, people mostly use it to listen to music, therefore defeating the purpose of listening to it. --Roadstaa (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it straight and in a nutshell... it's your opinion. Not others. It's not the general consensus. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thank you for reading. --Jw21/PenaltyKillahCANUCKLEHEAD? 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes is more relaxing to listen to what others can offer you to listen, rather then rearranging your own playlist. Radio will never die because people has to learn what other people are listening to and to compare their taste in music with something. You always need other people to make your own taste. Tuloc (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)