best choices for Mp3 Mp4 portable players

[hakzaw1]

Just bought 110 Razormaid mixes- files came with two versions- LOSSLESS- vinyl-MP4-- & I have that converted to Mp3 also on my PC.

only a few players seem have LOSSLESS-
any FB on the ZTE SPEED (BOOST Moblie)new gen?? not LOSSLESS but a ton of features and w/ sim in place a phone too.-- greedbay new/sealed ~$30-- :shhh: cheap!!
the apple has it all and then some but spendy.:undecided:

& there is a feature-short cheap one that IS LOSSLESS-
????

 

[Benm]

What do you need these things for?

Realistically i guess virtually everyone already has a smartphone that can play back lossless or lossy ecoded music files.

Not to say a standalone player would have no application at all, the realistic questions is what feature you want from it that is not available on the cheapest android phone you can find.

 

[hakzaw1]

good points-- my 14$ PHONE needs to go.
Boost Mobile has the ZTE SPEED new Gen. that does a lot, & cheap
TY for the help.

 

[Rivem]

I second that a new decent quality phone is all you likely need. If you're wanting amazing digital audio quality, portable systems won't cut it without being a lot more expensive.

Any situation where you'd need immense quality would allow you to use a PC with a nice high quality sound card.

 

[hakzaw1]

I know...
my cell budget was $125 ... per year.. it has been more like a 'beeper' (look that up if you need--lol)-- cant give up landline and 11$ netzero...

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

What would be the primary way you actually listen to music? A basic MP3 player is really only a good option if you want to minimize space, and don't want to drag along a phone.

If however, you don't mind having a phone... it's really the best option. Looking at the ZTE Speed, it will certainly work as an MP3 player, but it's a really crappy smartphone.

Will cover the basics with a lot of patience, but you would be better served to spend more.

Personally I recommend a used or refurbished galaxy S5. You don't need to buy it from boost, or any carrier, you can grab one off of ebay or amazon easily. The added benefit is you will also have a very nice camera, and a serviceable, if at this point tad dated smartphone, that has literally a ton of accessories for just about anything you can think of.

As far as loss-less formats are concerned, compare a few tracks in different formats, and see how much of a difference you notice via your primary listening method. For myself, yes, I can hear a difference, when listening on a good pair of headphones. When listening on a $25 bluetooth headset, the difference is not really there.

Edit: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...words=samsung+galaxy+s5+sprint&condition=used

It may be slightly over $125, but there are lots of decent used options. Personally I don't see any harm in getting a used/refurn phone. Just do a factory reset on receipt, and try out all functions to be satisfied that it works properly.

Netzero... now there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. I remember using a cracked version of it when I was in high school, that eliminated the banner from view.

 

[Dr_Evil]

What are you willing to spend? I got a Cowon J3 about 4 years ago that plays FLAC. I think most, if not all, of their current products do. I haven't had good luck with their customer service though. I never bothered to look online to see if others had a similar experience.

There is this for $100. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NS3MRKC/ref=psdc_1264866011_t1_B00NJG61D2

I primarily use mine with a pair of Sennheiser headphones when traveling. I would like something better that supports a high capacity mSD card. I can't fit everything on my J3. It comes with 32gb internal and I put a 64gb mSD in it. My current music library is 112gb and is around 10,000 songs.

 

[Benm]

Budget cellphones need not be bad, even if bought new.

Most people i know spend quite a lot of money on smartphones, but i generally go for inexpensive ones as i travel a lot and the things simply get roughed up, broken or perhaps even stolen, so i don't want something i would worry about losing from a financial standpoint.

I bought a (2nd gen) moto E a year and half ago for 99 euros (including 21% VAT), and still use it every day. The camera on it isn't very good which i don't mind (i take a proper one when i want to actually take photos), only thing it really lacks for me is a magnetic compass. SD card slot is there so storage of music and such is no issue.

As far as music playback goes: I tend to use it for that on long flights and it works fine with mp3s. I also plays flac files but i never really use those.


Before the smartphones i had a meizu M6 audio player, and that actually still works. I think storage is only 8 GB and it doesnt have a touchscreen - just a capacitive pad-thing like the early ipods. It cost as much as the moto E when i got it (possibly a bit more) and lasted me for years.

Upside of that player is that is is very small. Also i must have it for 10 years or so, flewn around the world with it a couple of times, and it still works, although it has a dead column of pixels now (no idea how/when that happened). You can have it if you promise to fly around the world using it.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

It's not that budget cellphones are bad, it's more a question how they are to be used. If it's just to text, call, listen to MP3's and check email... plenty of phones under $100 will work well.

If you need more capabilities though, an older used or refurbished top of the line phone will usually end up working better, vs a new modern, cheap phone.

 

[hakzaw1]

well you all certainly gave me some homework to do...thanks..

MY T-Moblie 14$ fone is very popular at prisons.. ergonomic design and all ...I hear..
guess you set it for vibrate..oooh!.. Im getting a call.

I don't need one to pour champange on (Lil Wayne)
Don't expect much from ZTE Speed at only $30..

but I would like a small player to hook up to OPs sound systems and be able to see on it's screen whats playing- those are so cheap--why not?

but ATM no smartfone $$ til I get my car fixed(again)

ty again..
I may take one of you up on your offer..hak

wasup with all the spam in my threads..???

 

[Benm]

It's not that budget cellphones are bad, it's more a question how they are to be used. If it's just to text, call, listen to MP3's and check email... plenty of phones under $100 will work well.

If you need more capabilities though, an older used or refurbished top of the line phone will usually end up working better, vs a new modern, cheap phone.

Yeah, simple phones for simple tasks. A bit of normal browsing, using google maps and stuff like that will also run smoothly on a budget phone.

A refurbished higher end model might be attractive if you need any feature on that, such as its better camera, graphics performance for things like games, or perhaps an o-led display which can help with battery life and/or under bright conditions.

If your demands are that it makes calls, sends texts, and plays back audio files well, any cheap smarthpone will do, as will any refurb or last-years entry model really.


Buying just an mp3 player is fine too of course, but i will be of little use to you if you buy a smartphone somewhere in the near future. Considering the price of a decent mp3 player with display etc is about half that of a cheap smartphone i'd think about that.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

In general I think last year's or 2 years back top model, even refurbished/used is a better bet vs a new(er) budget phone for the same price. Any bugs are long since worked out, and most truly defective units are out circulation. At the same time the camera on an S5 for example, is FAR superior imo to say the HTC M8 that came a year later.

It does seem the prices of decent MP3 players are kind of high. I remember my first was a creative, that was basically a flashdrive and could only hold 120mb of either songs or data. About 12-16 songs. Also had iRiver and Rio mp3 players. The iRiver stopped working only last year.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

So I couldn't quite sleep last night and ended up taking out my old HTC One M7, Verizon version. I was fairly happy with the phone when I originally got it, but with time it had slowed down quite a bit. The update from android 4 to 5 seemed to make it crawl, which was what finally pushed me to get an S5 instead.

After about an hour or so of tinkering with all settings, mainly disabling a ton of apps one by one, and uninstalling a bunch. It actually makes for a decently usable phone. I won't ever go back to it, but it would do just fine as a backup.

The thing that to me stands out about the HTC phones are the speakers... they make for decent enough standalone MP3 players. Granted won't ever compete with any kind of an actual speaker, but for listening to a book, or in a quiet environment, it works well.

The reason I bring this up, is IMO, this 3 year old model phone, which can now be had for $63, would make for an excellent MP3 player and backup phone. Mine is going into the glove compartment.

My only remaining complaint about it, remains the fairly weak (compared to similar phones) camera. It's useful, and it works, but it makes for grainy washed out photos especially in low light settings.

 

[Benm]

I would not worry too much about the camera really.

Cellphone camera's are all inherity limited by the very small size of their lenses and sensors. There is no way around that if you want a slim form factor. Obviously their performace under bright light can differ vastly, but that's not usually where you have problems.

In low light there is a limitation to what a camera can do, it only catches so many photons, related to the lens area size primarily. At dusk when you need to start increasing the ISO any cheap compact camera will outperform the camera on a smartphone.

Chances are that you could get a better shot using a $100-$200 compact camera over the one in the most expensive phone under low light conditions. Bring on a 10 year old DSLR with a prime lens and that'll win from both without any effort too though.

It's often a bit of a 80/20 rule though: 80% of your typical holiday photos could have been captured well on a cell phone camera. Of the remainder 80% would still have been okay on a compact camera, and off the remaining 4% you would have gotten a usable result 80% of the time using a DSLR. And that remaining 1%: stop trying to take photos when it's pitch black, photography requires light.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Cellphone cameras have actually come remarkably far over the last few years, and the manufacturers know that the camera does go into consideration for many people. They especially put in a lot of extra effort into their flagship devices that they simply do not into budget product lines.

Yes they are limited by the lens size, but the quality of the lenses, and more so the sensors have increased to an incredible degree. Not to where they will ever compete with almost any, even basic point and shoot cameras, but enough to make point and shoot cameras mostly unneeded.

What IMO makes the phone camera a crucial aspect to consider is that the phone is always with us. I have a couple of older point and shoot cameras... I know where one is, and I have a general idea of where the other is, but even going on vacation, they don't come with me.

Lowlight is especially challenging I agree... but again, sensors have gotten a lot better, and in general I find pictures from galaxy S5 and newer phones from that line to be acceptable. Prior to that I wasn't thrilled with results at all.

 

[Benm]

They have gotten remarkably good for their size.

I guess it's also fair to compare the cameras in top end cellphones to something a bit beyond the cheapest compact cameras - perhaps to something more in the $200-$300 range.

As for having it always in you: that's exactly the niche phone cameras should service. They take pretty nice snapshots during daytime really, but stand no chance under more difficult conditions.

I use a canon S120 compact camera for example, which is about the size of a pack of cigs, not idiotically expensive, but does feature a nice sensor with good sized pixels (and hence only 12 million of them).

A camera like that can take usable images under light conditions where the latest iphone or galaxy has long given up on even attempting to focus. I'd say the canon is about 5 stops more usable than any smartphone camera on widely used models right now, and will produce far better results even if lighting condition are good - despite a very modest 12 megapixel count.