Maximum PC Rhapsody RSS Feed

Haier Rhapsody Ibiza

Michael Brown — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:30:46 -0600

When talk turns to digital media players, Apple’s iPod and Microsoft’s second-generation Zune (with its third-gen firmware) dominate the conversation. But if you’re a Rhapsody-to-Go subscriber ($15 per month), there’s only one media player you should consider: Haier’s Rhapsody Ibiza.

The Ibiza is available in three configurations: flash memory models with 4GB and 8GB capacities (priced at $200 and $230, respectively) and the 30GB hard-drive model ($300) reviewed here. All three play videos and display digital photos as well as play music; they also support Bluetooth headphones.

The Ibiza can connect to 802.11g Wi-Fi networks, which means you can stream and download songs from Rhapsody (and listen to Rhapsody’s Internet radio channels) without plugging the player into your PC. Synchronizing the Ibiza to your PC, on the other hand, requires a hard-wired connection.

This device leverages everything that we like about the Rhapsody service. If you’re online while listening to a song, for instance, a menu displayed next to the album art gives you the choice of downloading the track (or the entire album) to the player, purchasing and downloading the song or album to the player, sampling other tracks from the album, or calling up a biography of the artist. Choose “more by this artist” and the player will open a submenu with choices that include an artist sampler, a list of all the albums the artist has recorded, a “top tracks” list, and a list of similar artists.

The Ibiza’s software is excellent—in stark contrast to Rhapsody’s absolutely dreadful PC software—but we do have one complaint: Drill deep down into its nested menus and the only way to get back to the home screen is to repeatedly stab the back button.

“Tethered” tracks, of course, remain available only as long as you maintain your subscription, but we’re disappointed that the player doesn’t inform you whether the tracks you purchase are infested with DRM (Rhapsody sells both encrypted and DRM-free tracks).

The Ibiza is close to being the perfect portable companion for Rhapsody customers, but there’s very little to recommend to folks outside that circle. Its total lack of support for lossless audio codecs, meanwhile, is a major disappointment.

Would You Buy From a Facebook Music Store?

Andy Salisbury — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:16:24 -0500

Today the New York Post revealed that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg may be looking to follow MySpace’s lead by offering a digital music store. Not through licensing their own content, mind you, but working through a third party that already has the nasty licensing business worked out.

MySpace’s music service currently works as a proprietary service built from the ground up using source licensing, with all their content hosted directly from MySpace. Whereas Facebook is reportedly looking to work with Rhapsody, iLike, Lala and IMEEM as content providers and licensers.

Supposedly, listening to the music itself will be free, and sold through Amazon. Listening to songs on Facebook would prompt on-screen advertising.

“Facebook is a serious challenger to MySpace,” said Phil Leigh, of Inside Digital Media, “and they would certainly want to do anything that record labels would allow them to do with advertising-supported music.”

So what say you, social networking site user? Would you use a Facebook powered music store? Let us know in the comments.

Image Credit: New York Post

Rhapsody Relinquishes DRM Protection

Pulkit Chandna — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:52:29 -0500

Here is a bit of news that might have music lovers rhapsodic. RealNetworks-owned online music service Rhapsody has begun selling MP3 music sans any Digital Rights Management (DRM) protection. This entails that users can do anything with the music they buy. If you thought that piracy fearing labels would never back such an initiative then you were wrong.

Major labels will continue to make their music available through Rhapsody. They perceive DRM protection to be some sort of a sales impediment as it deters many music lovers from buying such music online – scarecrow effect. Rhapsody’s online music store offers a single song download for $.99 and an entire album for $9.99. Rhapsody has certainly taken the attack to iTunes.

Image Credit: Real Networks

Apple Takes a Bite out of DRM

Michael Brown — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:37:56 -0500

Apple's iTunes store—in partnership with EMI—is now hawking DRM-free music at twice the bit rate of its standard fare (256Kb/s vs. 128Kb/s) and charging a $0.30-per-track premium for it. We’re all for DRM-free music, but 256Kb/s still seems like a pretty low bit rate—especially when you’re using a lossy codec.

So we decided to test a random sample of our colleagues to see if they could detect any audible difference between a song ripped from a CD and encoded in Apple’s lossy AAC format at 128K/s, and the same song ripped and encoded in lossy AAC at 256Kb/s.

Our 10 test subjects range in age from 23 to 56. Seven of the 10 are male. Eight are editors by trade; two art directors. Four participants have musical backgrounds (defined as having played an instrument and/or sung in a band). We asked each participant to provide us with a CD containing a track they considered themselves to be intimately familiar with. We used iTunes to rip the tracks and copied them to a fifth-generation 30GB iPod. We were hoping participants would choose a diverse collection of music, and they did: Classical, jazz, electronica, alternative, straight-ahead rock, and pop were all represented; in fact country was the only style not in the mix. (See the chart at the end of the story for details.)

We hypothesized that no one would be able to discern the difference using the inexpensive earbuds (MSRP: $29) that Apple provides with its product, so we also acquired a set of high-end Shure SE420 earphones (MSRP: $400). We were confident that the better phones would make the task much easier, since they would reveal more flaws in the songs encoded at lower bit rates.

METHODOLOGY

We asked each participant to listen with the Apple buds first and to choose between Track A, Track B, or to express no preference. We then tested using the SE420’s and asked the participant to choose between Track C, Track D, or to express no preference. The tests were administered double-blind, meaning that neither the test subject nor the person conducting the test knew which tracks were encoded at which bit rates.

The biggest surprise of the test actually disproved our hypothesis: Eight of the 10 participants expressed a preference for the higher-bit rate songs while listening with the Apple buds, compared to only six who picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Shure’s. Several of the test subjects went so far as to tell they felt more confident expressing a preference while listening to the Apple buds. We theorize that the Apple buds were less capable of reproducing high frequencies and that this weakness amplified the listeners' perception of aliasing in the compressed audio signal. But that’s just a theory.

LEAVE IT TO THE OLD FOGEYS

Age also factored differently than we expected. Our hearing tends to deteriorate as we get older, but all three of our subjects who are over 40 years old (and the oldest listener in the next-oldest bracket) correctly identified the higher bit-rate tracks using both the Apple and the Shure earphones. Three of the four subjects aged between 31 and 40 correctly identified the higher bit-rate tracks with the Apple earbuds, but only two were successful with the Shures. Two of three under-30 subjects picked the higher-quality tracks with the Apples, but only one of them made the right choice with the Shures. All four musicians picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Apples, and three of the four were correct with the Shures.

Despite being less able to detect the bit rate of the songs while listening to the Shure SE420 earphones, eight of 10 subjects expressed a preference for them over the Apple buds. Several people commented on the Shure’s ability to block extraneous noise. While listening to the SE420s, one person remarked “Wow, I’d forgotten that wood-block sound was even in this song.” Another said “The difference between the Shure earphones and the Apple earbuds was more significant than the difference between the song encoded at 128Kb/s and the one recorded at 256Kb/s.” One of the two people who expressed a preference for Apple’s product told us “It seemed like I got better kick from the bass.”

THAT’S A WRAP!

To our subjects’ ears, there wasn’t a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s. None of them were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests. That tells us the value in the Apple’s and EMI’s more expensive tracks lies solely in the fact that they’re free of DRM restriction s.

And as much as we dislike DRM, we just don't think DRM-free tracks alone are worth paying an extra 30 cents a track for. We'd be more excited if Apple increased the bit rate even further, or--even better--if they used a lossless format.

In the end, Apple's move doesn't change our opinion that the best way to acquire digital music remains buying the CD: You can rip and encode it at any bit rate you want, you can transfer it to any device you want, you know you won't have any DRM issues to worry about, and you won't have to pay anything extra for it.

As for buying high-end earphones, eight of our 10 test subjects enjoyed listening to the Shure SE420’s more than they did Apple’s stock buds--an interesting finding since fewer listeners correctly identified the higher bit rate tracks with the Shures than did the Apples. We suspect that the performance of the Shures masked the flaws in the tracks encoded at lower bit rates.

Your audio system is only as strong as its weakest link, and if you're listening to cheap earphones, you're missing out on what your MP3 player is capable of delivering. The SE420's fit tight inside your ear canal, so they isolate your ears from extraneous noise. Many of our listeners found that they could turn the player's volume down significantly because the earphones weren't competing with environmental racket. That not only makes your listening experience more enjoyable, but it can also prevent hearing loss.

Despite what Apple charges for a set of its replacement buds, the earphones that come with 90 percent of the digital media players on the market are throw-away items--they're only in the box so you'll have something to listen to when you bring the player home. Do yourself a huge favor and dump 'em. Spending a few bucks more for something that sounds better, feels better, and will last longer just makes sense; after all, you only get one set of ears in life.

[Editor's note, 6/4/2007: We removed our comment about paying a premium for buying the entire album at the higher bit rate, since iTunes Plus albums, according to Apple's FAQ "are generally available at the same price as DRM-protected versions of the albums." If, on the other hand, you previously bought the entire album at the lower bit rate, an upgrade will cost, again according to Apple's FAQ, "30 percent of the album price."]

Listening Results
ARTIST	ALBUM	TRACK	PICKED HIGH BIT RATE W/APPLES?	PICKED HIGH BIT RATE W/SHURES?
Nine Inch Nails	Year Zero	The Great Destroyer	Yes	No
Tea Leaf Green	Taught to be Proud	If it Wasn't for the Money	No	No
Guns & Roses	Use Your Illusion II	Civil War	Yes	Yes
Husker Du	New Day Rising	Celebrated Summer	Yes	No
Massive Attack	100th Window	Future Proof	Yes	No
Stevie Wonder	Original Musiquarium I Vol. II	Sir Duke	No	Yes
Mingus Big Band	Gunslinging Birds	Jump Monk	Yes	Yes
Sunday's Best	Where Are You Now?	Truest You	Yes	Yes
Andres Segovia	Legendary Andres Segovia in an All-Bach Program	Chaconne (from Violin Partita No. 2)	Yes	Yes
Steely Dan	Aja	Josie	Yes	Yes

Listener Comments
ARTIST	WHY THE LISTENER CHOSE THIS TRACK
Nine Inch Nails	"It has the typical chord progression of a pop song, and then it goes into this crazy, techno solo. I thought the variety would help me identify the differences in the bit rate."
Tea Leaf Green	"This is a CD that I listen to a lot; I'm very familiar with it."
Guns & Roses	"This song is meant to be played loud. Axl Rose's voice and the guitars should help me tell the difference."
Husker Du	"I've been listening to a lot of Husker Du lately. Sometimes you rediscover a band and wonder why you haven't listened to them for so long."
Massive Attack	"I know this song so well. I figured I'd be able to tell if I was hearing everything that should be there."
Stevie Wonder	"I thought I'd be able to hear the difference in the sound of the horn section at the beginning of the song. I think the track with the higher bit rate will sound brighter."
Mingus Big Band	"I'll be listening for dynamic range in the horns. I think I'll perceive differences in the sound of the piano solo and the upright bass."
Sunday's Best	"The drummer in this band is cymbal crazy. I think it will be hard to capture that sound accurately at a low bit rate."
Andres Segovia	"I've listened to this recording 40 billion times. I know every nuance in it."
Steely Dan	"This may be the world's most fanatical band when it comes to recording. One of the things I'll be listening for are the chimes in the opening."

SanDisk Sansa e280R Rhapsody

Michael Brown — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:28:28 -0500

We liked almost everything about SanDisk’s Sansa e260 flash-memory digital media player when we reviewed it in November 2006, but we slapped it with a verdict of 5 because we activated its voice recorder every time we picked the damned thing up. The Sansa e280R fixes that problem and adds two more gigs of memory for good measure.

The e280R also features a special connection to Rhapsody, our favorite music-rental service: The player comes preloaded with Rhapsody channels and playlists, which you can synchronize with your Rhapsody library. If you’re already a Rhapsody To Go subscriber—or if you’re not interested in becoming one—SanDisk’s e280 is the very same device minus the preloaded music.

Rhapsody has two paid subscription models: With the Unlimited plan, you can stream and download as much music as you’d like to up to three PCs for $10 per month. The To Go plan allows you to transfer the tracks to up to three digital media players. DRM strings attached to both plans see to it that your listening rights expire when your subscription ends and prohibit you from burning tracks to CD unless you purchase them. The e260R comes with a free two-month subscription to the To Go plan.

SanDisk fixed the voice-recorder problem by tweaking the player’s firmware to give you the option of having a window pop up that asks you to confirm your intent to record. You can also turn the record feature off altogether. We also noticed, however, that the button on this unit offers much more resistance than the previous model’s, so you might not need to fiddle with these settings at all.

We still don’t like the e280R’s undersized buttons, which are situated too close to the scroll wheel for our not-so-big thumbs, but the audio and video quality is just as good as the e260’s, and the microSD card slot is superhandy. With a street price hovering around $200, the e280R is one of the best flash-based media players on the market.

Sonos Digital Music System: ZP-80 Bundle

Michael Brown — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:03:17 -0500

UPDATE: If you're a Rhapsody subscriber, Version 2.0 of Sonos' software renders both the ZP-80 and the earlier ZP-100 even more attractive, because you no longer need to fire up your PC in order to stream music from Rhapsody--you can do it all right from the exquisite Sonos controller.

If Slim Devices’ Squeezebox is the Volkswagen of audio-streaming devices, Sonos’ Digital Music System is the category’s BMW. But when we consider a high-end product with a price tag more than 3x its competition, we have to ask: Is the luxury worth the price?

We bestowed Sonos’ $1,200 ZP-100 bundle with a 9 Kick Ass verdict in April 2005, so we beamed with anticipation when Sonos told us they designed the new ZP-80 to counter two of our earlier criticisms: They excised the integrated amp (we dismissed it as underpowered and unnecessary), and they added digital outputs (TOSLink and coax).

But we turned incredulous when we heard that a ZP-80 bundle would cost a cool grand—a relatively insignificant price drop. Those negative vibes evaporated, however, after we spent just 10 minutes installing the system. And we grinned the grin of the dyed-in-the-wool geek the instant we used that scrum-diddily-umptious controller: Its magical motion detector activated the moment we picked it up, the touch-sensitive scroll wheel positively jumps, the light sensor illuminated the buttons in the darkened room, and that gorgeous 3.5-inch color LCD sprang to life. Yes, this luxury is worth the price—especially when compared to multi-zone control panels from Crestron and AMX. Besides, the ZP-80 sounds absolutely divine.

Sonos’ systems utilize self-contained, wireless, AES-encrypted, mesh networks. As such, they not only leave no footprint on your wireless LAN, but they also deliver incredible range: If one Zone Player is too far from the one hardwired to your router, those within range will behave like a digital bucket brigade, playing the packets addressed to them and passing along the others until they reach their intended destination.

The drawback to this design is that the first Zone Player you install must be hardwired to your router. Unless you have Ethernet to a stereo, that unit is essentially wasted. (It’ll play your music, but that’s redundant because your PC can do the same thing.) But this shortcoming is mitigated by the fact that the network can expanded to a maximum of 32 zones, using either ZP-80 or ZP-100 players and multiple controllers. Salivate at will.

Month Reviewed: July 2006

Verdict: 9 / Kick Ass

URL: www.sonos.com