Talk:Digital audio player

Before you post a topic...

There are message boards on the Internet for general discussion, troubleshooting advice, and miscellaneous on DAPs/MP3 players: DAPreview forum, or CNET's forums (1, 2). Remember, Wikipedia's discussion pages are here for users to talk about the article's development and maintenance, not the article's subject. --PenaltyKillah^Jw21 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

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)

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)

History section is misleading. Archos is not mentioned until after the first iPod. I was on my second Archos mp3 player by October 2001 Nick O'Siris (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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/PenaltyKillah^{CANUCKLEHEAD?} 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)

The correct capacity of MPMan

The MPMan article (and for example [this page]) says it was a 32 MB device. How come it's 16 MB in this article? I'll go ahead and edit, revert me if I'm wrong about something here. 88.114.146.184 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite 3 now broken

MP3playerlimelight.com has expired. Link no longer functions. I can't get at the reflist to alter that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.68 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Audible MobilePlayer

This is a digital music player that shipped in 1997, possibly predating the MPMan. It played Audible's proprietary .aa format, and was used only for spoken audio, not music. http://www.chi-athenaeum.org/gdesign/winners98.htm http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/discover/donald-katz http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.08/dl_timeline.html Feels like this needs to be written back into this history somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.196.242 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. jonkerz♠ 05:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Digital audio player → MP3 player — As admitted in the lead, a DAP is "usually referred to as an MP3 player". Per WP:COMMONNAME, then, that's what the title of this article should be. Powers ^T 14:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Since DAPs don't only play MP3s, and they seem to predate the MP3 standard, the current title is fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • But everyone calls 'em MP3 players anyway. Powers ^T 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many DAPs play MP4 and AAC also. Why, even iPod Shuffle and iPod Nano can be termed as DAPs, and they don't always play Mp3s. JimCarlton (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's beside the point. People call them MP3 players anyway. Powers ^T 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

slt comment va tu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.217.154.62 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)