I own a Rio. I have had ZERO problems with all of the MP3s I have thrown at it--even ones with variable bit rate! (Although it is funny watching the timer when playing those VBRs.)
Encoding things at 256 kbps seems like a waste to me. My ears cannot tell the difference between a 160-kbps MP3 and the original CD. Personally, I prefer to use 96 kbps with joint-stereo encoding; it sounds just fine in the kinds of environments a portable player is designed for (walking, driving, etc.).
I just got a Rio, and the documentation implies that it does have some kind of SCMS support in it. I guess the acid test would be to make an MP3 with the "copyright" bit set and the "original" bit reset, and see if a non-Diamond upload utility can stick it on the Rio.
Pardon my naïveté, but is faster necessarily better? Would that not make it more vulnerable to brute-force attacks such as those done by distributed.net?
Slashdot Mirror
Their modems suck ass, too.
'nuff said.
At this writing, the bidding is at $61,300, but it has yet to meet the reserve.
Perhaps it made the Kessel run.
Under 12 parsecs, even.
;-)
http://www.yepp.co.kr/
I own a Rio. I have had ZERO problems with all of the MP3s I have thrown at it--even ones with variable bit rate! (Although it is funny watching the timer when playing those VBRs.)
Encoding things at 256 kbps seems like a waste to me. My ears cannot tell the difference between a 160-kbps MP3 and the original CD. Personally, I prefer to use 96 kbps with joint-stereo encoding; it sounds just fine in the kinds of environments a portable player is designed for (walking, driving, etc.).
I just got a Rio, and the documentation implies that it does have some kind of SCMS support in it. I guess the acid test would be to make an MP3 with the "copyright" bit set and the "original" bit reset, and see if a non-Diamond upload utility can stick it on the Rio.
Pardon my naïveté, but is faster necessarily better? Would that not make it more vulnerable to brute-force attacks such as those done by distributed.net?