Myoclonic Jerk
Member
thats good news .. I hope PSP bombs so I won't have to buy it ..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Edge this month has some interesting PSP news.
- Thread starter Pug
- Start date
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Apple chooses not to point out what there specific quality level is too. Any comparison to Apple's numbers will automatically be misleading simply because Apple's advertised numbers are misleading to begin with. There's nothing more deliberate about Sony's actions in comparison to Apple's. In fact, this practice of half-truth related to music capacities is pretty widespread amongst all digital audio player manufacturers. I don't see any point to holding Sony more culpable or singling them out regarding this practice."
Um, Sony are SPECIFICALLY saying "in comparison to the ipod 40gig version, our unit can hold 13,000 compared to 10,000" - that's deliberately decieving the public on two counts.
As Apple pointed out - for the 40 gig drive to store 10,000 , that figure is for 128 Kbps encoding - for Sonys figures, they used 48 Kbps. That's a big factor to miss out , yet Joe Casual Uninformed on the street will just see the "Oh stores more than the Ipod!!!!!".
It's shitty tactics from Sony, and i'm glad they were picked up on it.
Um, Sony are SPECIFICALLY saying "in comparison to the ipod 40gig version, our unit can hold 13,000 compared to 10,000" - that's deliberately decieving the public on two counts.
As Apple pointed out - for the 40 gig drive to store 10,000 , that figure is for 128 Kbps encoding - for Sonys figures, they used 48 Kbps. That's a big factor to miss out , yet Joe Casual Uninformed on the street will just see the "Oh stores more than the Ipod!!!!!".
It's shitty tactics from Sony, and i'm glad they were picked up on it.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
lol! That's been the case for a minute now. Developers know that too, hence Sony's dominance. I'd like Sony to impress me for once (in a good way) when it comes to hardware.
All i want from the PSP is a iPod/GBA killer. That's it.
kaching said:
Bzzt. Thanks for playing.
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html
See footnote:
"1. Capacity based on 4 minutes per song and 128-Kbps AAC encoding."
Regards,
Cabel
Bluemercury
Member
P90 said:
Exactly, and how much will the umd movies cost?and considering there will probably be no extras because of the format size limit why buy it for a system that will only play it on a small screen?
sounds like the sony rep is just spinning a confirmation that they've changed the screen spec since E3. what if the viewing angle on this new cheaper screen just happens to be wider?
still not worth the 2-300$. will be the standard sony rich kid toy until they can bring the manufacturing costs down (which i have no doubt they'll do successfully)
still not worth the 2-300$. will be the standard sony rich kid toy until they can bring the manufacturing costs down (which i have no doubt they'll do successfully)
DCharlie said:
DC, I've got to ask, where is Sony making a direct comparison to iPod 40 gig capacity? It's not in the Yahoo News article you linked to and, while I can't read Japanese, there doesn't appear to be a reference to anything about comparisons between 40 gig iPods and the NW-HD1 on their sony.jp site. The babelfished press release found here doesn't mention the iPod. The actual NW-HD1 site doesn't appear to mention the iPod either, but it does feature a page specifically labeled "Capacity" that does happen to provide a large print, concise table that gives song capacity at different bitrates. Something not so prominently displayed on Apple's iPod site. I could see the point to going off about Sony's "shitty tactics" if they actually made a direct comparison of the type you suggested to the iPod without qualifying that comparison, but all I see on Sony's site is the same approach used by just about every other digital audio player maker out there.
So is Apple trying to claim that there's supposed to be some sort of standard to the compression rate you use to calculate song capacity, across different compression schemes? Makers of WMA audio players like Creative and iRiver often use the 64 kbps bitrate for their calculations. Where's the standard and why should Apple be the one to dictate that across compression formats? Its only Apple who seems to want to force a comparison but I don't see them accounting for differences in how each compression scheme works.
So, again, why are we singling Sony out here?
And thanks for following the entire conversation before interrupting. In my post before the one you quoted, I did ackowledge that Apple provides this info on their specs page.cabel said:
kaching said:
Apple's numbers - and I'm trying to remember back to November or so when I was researching a pile of mp3 players - come from a few standard assumptions:
1) You're using iTunes to encode at 128kbps/44.1KHz in M4A format (Which will give you pretty sharp results through headphones.)
2) The average length of the stuff you listen to *isn't* as long as the full-length version of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida."
Their specific estimates break down like this:
15GB iPod - ~3,700 songs
20GB iPod - ~5,000 songs
40GB iPod - ~10,000 songs
You too, xsarien? Seriously, keep reading. I go on to point out in that same post where all the information is that you just paraphrased.
My point was: it's not the first thing you see on Apple's iPod site, unless you somehow link directly to their tech specs page, and this is no different from anyone else.
My point was: it's not the first thing you see on Apple's iPod site, unless you somehow link directly to their tech specs page, and this is no different from anyone else.
kaching said:
Eh, throttle it back there chief. It's nearly 4am, I'm pushing 24 hours of being awake, and - to be honest - the average, mainstream consumer generally doesn't *care* how any given player stores its music, so long as it works and doesn't sound like garbage through the free headphones they're inevitably going to use because they don't know any better.
No extras? Let's see...Bluemercury said:
DVD
2 channel audio, usually with additional streams
720x480 resolution
MPEG-2 encoding
UMD
2 channel audio
480 x 272 resolution
MPEG-4 encoding
Granted, we don't know what bitrate the video will be, but the PSP has several advantages. A DVD is displaying 345,600 pixels, versus 130,560 on the PSP. PSP wins because it's displaying nearly a third of the DVD's pixels. i didn't take into account the resolution of a 16:9 movie (since the PSP has a 16:9 screen), which would be around 853x480, because i don't know if this is the actual resolution on disc. MPEG-4 allows for greater compression than MPEG-2. i don't even know how it compares, just that it's much better though it requires more processor power. And on a small screen like the PSP's, compression artifacts will be harder to spot. i have a Clie with a 480x320 resolution, and when i play DVDs i've converted to MPEG-4 at 256kbps (which is far lower than a DVD), they look great. Easily "DVD" quality.
The audio is a big unknown. i'd assume they'd stick with MPEG-4 audio instead of using ATRAC3+. It'll likely be a much lower bitrate han on DVDs, due both to better audio codecs and the fact that you won't need DVD-quality audio (and the power drain) in a portable. It'll definitely be stereo only as opposed to 5.1 seeing as how the PSP doesn't support surround sound. Sony may decide to skimp out on additional audio tracks (ie. language, director's commentary), which would drop the storage requirements even more.
The only issue i see is with the disc -- the UMD is a single-sided, double layer disc that holds 1.8GB of data, compared to a single-sided, double layer DVD that holds 8.5GB. i'm too lazy to look at my DVDs to see what the majority are on, so i'll just end it here.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"kaching, let it go...even if Sony never did directly compare to the iPod 40GB capacity it wouldn't change a thing for DC...they killed his puppy"
of course they did.
Although when they pissed on it`s corpse i thought that was taking it a bit far
For me, my life will be incomplete until Sony are destroyed. Seriously, as a gamer, nothing would please me more that the removal of the biggest influence on Japanese gaming since Nintendo.
Please, Father Christmas, ruin gaming by letting Sony fuck up badly. And i promise i`ll go to Church EVERY SUNDAY from now on.
of course they did.
Although when they pissed on it`s corpse i thought that was taking it a bit far
For me, my life will be incomplete until Sony are destroyed. Seriously, as a gamer, nothing would please me more that the removal of the biggest influence on Japanese gaming since Nintendo.
Please, Father Christmas, ruin gaming by letting Sony fuck up badly. And i promise i`ll go to Church EVERY SUNDAY from now on.
SolidSnakex
Member
P90 said:
That's a pretty bad comparison.
Okay, xsarien - it's just that Cabel made basically the same mistake already and since we were now on the second misread of what I said, I figured it was worth a small attempt to clarify. I'd hardly call what I said to you anything more than gentle chiding.
Gattsu - Thanks for the advice, but I don't mind doing what I'm doing. If you don't already know by now, I don't exactly shrink from debates like this. As for DC, go easy on him.
Gattsu - Thanks for the advice, but I don't mind doing what I'm doing. If you don't already know by now, I don't exactly shrink from debates like this. As for DC, go easy on him.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
is what xsarien saying wrong? Am i missing something obvious (serious) ?
Sony comparison - you know, i must apologize, there are about 3-4 articles where it looks like Sony are being quoted as making the comparison, and a lot of articles where the writers are making the comparison themselves.
Given that the "quotes" from sony all seem to be written along the lines of "Although the Ipod can store 10000 songsm Sony say that their unit can store 13000 in comparison" which does not say that Sony said what they said, although you`d have to think that the circulation of this data is to get people to think capacity is greater on the sony unit.
Anyways, this one does seem to perport to be a sony comparison :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=7&u=/nf/25684
and this one
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116768,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
I found this quote interesting (it crops up in a few articles) :
"Sony says that in practice, it's the music quality that counts and that as ATRAC3 is more efficient at compression, it can get away with using a lower bit rate to deliver an equivalent quality."
... i find the use of 48kpps vs 128kpps interesting. Sony are defending the comparison that they apparently aren`t making with comparitive information about the encoding that they would of used in case you were to make such a comparions.... Interesting huh? Also the assertion by Sony reps that their 48kpps ATRAC encoding is up to 128kpps standards - i think ATRAC3 is a damned good encoder, but at 48kpps vs 128kpps they say they get the same results? I guess if you are using shitty headphones or whatever, perhaps you wouldn`t know the difference. But unless sony really have come up with an ultra amazing bit of compression that i`m unaware of i simply don`t believe this news.
Sony comparison - you know, i must apologize, there are about 3-4 articles where it looks like Sony are being quoted as making the comparison, and a lot of articles where the writers are making the comparison themselves.
Given that the "quotes" from sony all seem to be written along the lines of "Although the Ipod can store 10000 songsm Sony say that their unit can store 13000 in comparison" which does not say that Sony said what they said, although you`d have to think that the circulation of this data is to get people to think capacity is greater on the sony unit.
Anyways, this one does seem to perport to be a sony comparison :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&e=7&u=/nf/25684
and this one
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116768,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
I found this quote interesting (it crops up in a few articles) :
"Sony says that in practice, it's the music quality that counts and that as ATRAC3 is more efficient at compression, it can get away with using a lower bit rate to deliver an equivalent quality."
... i find the use of 48kpps vs 128kpps interesting. Sony are defending the comparison that they apparently aren`t making with comparitive information about the encoding that they would of used in case you were to make such a comparions.... Interesting huh? Also the assertion by Sony reps that their 48kpps ATRAC encoding is up to 128kpps standards - i think ATRAC3 is a damned good encoder, but at 48kpps vs 128kpps they say they get the same results? I guess if you are using shitty headphones or whatever, perhaps you wouldn`t know the difference. But unless sony really have come up with an ultra amazing bit of compression that i`m unaware of i simply don`t believe this news.
AndreasNystrom
Member
seems wierd that i can buy a flatscreen lcd for my computer for less then 350, and that
the psp-screen that is smaller would cost more?.
the psp-screen that is smaller would cost more?.
DCX said:
Considering I can buy a Lilliput 7" TFT LCD monitor manufactured by Sharp for under 150 and it's resolution is sky high compared to the Sony's PSP relatively low res (even lower than their clie screens) TFT screen.. I will call that 350 lb, dollar.. whatever figure rumor by it's true name.. BULLSHIT.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled bitch fest.
No, not at all. Nothing wrong with what he said, just that it was redundant.DCharlie said:
Well, I think the vague nature of all these quotes simply being attributed to "Sony says," rather than a specific event or person leads me to believe they're pulling their information from the press release and turning it into Sony's argument against the iPod on the fly. The only time that a Sony spokesperson is actually quoted in either article has nothing to do with the alleged iPod comparison. There's been quite a bit of anticipation/speculation among press outlets over the past six months about the hope that Sony would provide some rivalry to Apple's iPod. They've been yearning for this grudge match so its not all that surprising that they want to play it up.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Well, I think the vague nature of all these quotes simply being attributed to "Sony says,"...."
fair enough.
All though it's interesting for them to release an "Ipod killer" that doesn't match up to the 40 gig ipod in it's same class.
so , in a side by side comparison (same bit rate etc) :
* it costs a little less
* stores under half the number of songs
* can only play one format (although if you can deal with an extra conversion process, then this might not be an issue)
* looks more stylish (i prefer it's looks to the ipod, but i'm sure others are the other way round).
I dunno - as an ipod killer, it seems to fall down in most categories under comparison.
(actually - i don't know why they compared to the 40 gig Ipod. Compared to the 20 gig hard drive, the sony then loses it's cost advantage as well....)
fair enough.
All though it's interesting for them to release an "Ipod killer" that doesn't match up to the 40 gig ipod in it's same class.
so , in a side by side comparison (same bit rate etc) :
* it costs a little less
* stores under half the number of songs
* can only play one format (although if you can deal with an extra conversion process, then this might not be an issue)
* looks more stylish (i prefer it's looks to the ipod, but i'm sure others are the other way round).
I dunno - as an ipod killer, it seems to fall down in most categories under comparison.
(actually - i don't know why they compared to the 40 gig Ipod. Compared to the 20 gig hard drive, the sony then loses it's cost advantage as well....)
You're still getting all tangled regarding who's actually trying to actually call it an iPod killer, but I agree that Sony's pricing for this unit will probably be its biggest downfall. I've yet to see a full breakdown of the tech specs in well-translated English so I don't know what it has other than battery life to justify the premium.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked