Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

iRiver H320 vs iPod

 I was really excited to see a device like the iRiver H320. However, upon opening the device the experience turned out to be an extreme disappointment. I believe that iRiver built the Kitchen sink here. This device tries to be too many things to too many people. A hard disk, a USB Host device (International only), an MTP sync device (US only), Photo Viewer etc.

Make sure you read my post iPod Replacement Criteria before reading this review. Remember, I have only one goal, to review this compared to an iPod. I don't care about anything the device offers that does not meet my core criteria.

Lets see how it stacks up.

Other Reviews:

Size: The size is very comparable to the 3G iPod.

  iRiver H320 iPod 3G
Height 4.1 inches 4.1 inches
Width 2.4 inches 2.4 inches
Depth 0.9 inches 0.57 inches
Weight 6.6 ounces 5.6 ounces

So, as you can see it stacks up very nicely.

User Interface: The device has a very readable color screen. However, the interface for browsing files is just a file explorer. What you may ask? That's right, there is no way for the device to build a database of audio allowing you to browse by Artist, Genre, Album etc. It makes you wonder what the point of meta data is if the device makes no use of it.

iRiver does ship an application that you can install in Windows that can manually scan the audio on the device and build the data base file, but it only supports MP3 files. Ridiculous if you ask me.

The good news is that there is an open source .NET application that will do this job as well as many others (like sync audio on your hard drive) called Tag Database Tool (TDT). TDT works very well except for the fact that it barfs on files that are DRM protected (purchased and subscription audio. I made some changes to the application to use newer Windows Media APIs that allow it to do this. If there is enough interested I'll post my changes somewhere so folks can download them.

(Warning) After cataloging the 2,000 or so songs on the device, I found that the database increased the device boot time to over a minute. Unbelievable if you ask me. Since the device "shuts off" when it's not in use, that means that if you want to turn it on and use it you are subjected to a greater than one minute penalty.

However, I still find it inexcusable that iRiver ship a device that only has a file explorer interface. In addition the device User Interface is confusing with many of the buttons overloaded for different tasks. For example, to switch to FM radio you must hold down the Record button. I could not figure this out myself and actually had to resort to reading the manual. I never had to read my iPod manual to figure out how to use it.

Connectivity:  The device has two USB ports. Now why would a device need two USB ports? Well when iRiver created this device they had two goals in mind. 1) A Music Jukebox, 2) A USB On The Go. USB On The Go allows a device to act as a host device for something like a digital camera or card reader allowing you to offload photos from a camera without a computer.

Now, before you get all excited lets look at how this was implemented. On the International version of the device you get one USB port that is USB 2.0 for connecting to a PC and one that is USB 1.1 for connecting to a camera. The USB 2.0 port can act as a charging port if you are not "connected" but the device is powered down. On the US version of the device you get a USB 2.0 port for connecting to a PC similar to the international device and a USB 1.1 port that supports MTP for synchronizing to Windows Media Player. You are limited to USB 1.1 and this port will not charge the device. I suspect that iRiver made this decision because it was the only way to get PlaysForSure support and they figured that most of these music stores are US only so they essentially took a device that had one set of features and repurposed it for the US market. I think it would have been better for them to forgo PlaysForSure support till they could get it right in the product design.

  International US
"Data" port USB 2.0 (charging) USB 2.0 (charging)
"Media" port USB 1.1 for USB On The Go USB 1.1 for MTP

Now, the USB 2.0 port only connects the device as a fixed mountable drive. This essentially means that it is mounted to your PC as a non-removable hard drive. This distinction is important because it PREVENTS Windows Media Player from Synchronization with the device as it's not removable. So, if you purchased this device to be a hard drive you're in luck! If you purchased it as a music player you are stuck with an expensive hard drive.

I emailed iRiver about this limitation and here is what they said:

We have tens of thousands of users who are very happy to manage their music collections independently of an application and prefer to drag and drop files to their player.  We completely understand that your needs and desires may not match theirs.  If syncing your collection via USB 2 is an important feature for you, then I may suggest that this player is not suited for your needs.  We will have a product available later this year will allow for faster transfers through Windows Media Player:

http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/pmc120.aspx

Apparently their user base like to "drag and drop files to their player". Great, I'm not one of them.

Charging: The iRiver comes with a separate DC adapter charger with a proprietary plug for the device. Since you can't really charge the device over USB even though the device supports it (can't charge during sync), you really do need this charger. So, it's another thing to drag around when you are traveling. No thanks.

Sync: This device only supports sync with Windows Media Player 10 using the USB 1.1 port which does not support charging. Syncing 20 GB of audio while transcoding was one of the most pitiful experiences I've had on my PC. I started on Saturday morning and the device finished on Monday evening. Now normally transcoding will take a while as the PC much convert each song from WMA lossless to WMA 128. However, once I reached about 1000 songs, the device would essentially hang or timeout. This required me to unplug the device, plug it back in, and continue synching. I had to do this every 10-20 songs after I got to 1,000. I reported this to iRiver as well and got this response:

Thank for the report. I will pass this to them for further research.

Maybe transfer 1-5 files in the meantime?

Um, yeah. The fact that this device only supports USB 1.1 for MTP sync made this super painful.

Accessories: The device comes with the following accessories:

  • Charger
  • USB cable
  • Line Out cable
  • Carrying Case

Battery Life: iRiver claims 12 hours. I got about 8 hours.

Software: The device comes with a CD that contains a Mass Storage driver if you are an unfortunate soul still running Windows 98 as well as some software I didn't bother installing for creating the device music database. The device also comes with Windows Media Player which is great, but since you can't realistically sync with that software I'm not sure why they include it.

Price: I purchased the device for $320 which is reasonable.

Storage: 20 GB

PlaysForSure: The device supports the following PlaysForSure logos.

  • Basic PlaysForSure support
  • Support for Audio Download
  • Support for Audio Subscription

Kudos to iRiver for supporting Audio Subscription. This makes it one of the few devices that can play subscription audio content (Janus) from music stores such as Napster. This was my favorite feature of the device. Unfortunately since the device isn't SyncsForSure compliant, it's all very useless.

Support: Unfortunately iRiver doesn't have a proven track record for fixing any problems in firmware updates. If you have a few hours to spare (which I did as I tried to make the sync work) you can read all sorts of stuff on the MisticRiver forums.

Web Site: The Website for the iRiver H320 doesn't tell you that the device will only sync with Windows Media Player 10 using USB 1.1 and that the device will not charge via this mechanism. IMHO it's making false claims (or lack of claims about the real capabilities of the device).

Optional Features:

  • Device appears as a hard drive in Windows.
  • Device supports FM Tuning.
  • Device has a color screen.
  • Device supports FM Recording
  • Device supports Audio Recording

Final Rating (see my post on my review criteria to understand what this means).

Lame- fails in some areas. Do not hand over your money for this device.

Seriously, I did not enjoy debugging and trying to fit this device into my lifestyle. I figure the 2 or so hours I spent hacking TDT to support WMA DRM'ed files was well worth it as I learned something new, but if you are looking for a device to replace your iPod or you are on the market for a new device I would wait till iRiver works out the issues above (or some one else ships a comparable device).

Published Sunday, October 24, 2004 8:20 PM by omars
Filed under: ,

Comments

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 24, 2004 3:01 PM by James Hancock
Creative is just as bad with their Nomads. Why the hell can't someone create a device the works the way most people use it?

Here's what I want to see:

1. 20 hours battery life
2. USB 2.0 (IRiver should have put one 2.0 port with USB server support in it)
3. Plug it in and it syncs with WMP 10 automatically with no intervention and gets ALL of the music in my collection automatically (why else would you buy a juke box?)
4. Also shows up as a removable drive like a thumb drive so that I can use it as a removable hard drive if I want.
5. Artist, Album, Track grouping and lookup al-la Creative/IPOD, but do it right so that I can just click somehow on it and tell it to play AND a different click shows me the tracks.
6. No I dont' want a color screen.
7. FM Radio
8. FM broadcast for my car. (No I'm not going to buy a BMW with a stupid interface or a car kit to play it through my tape deck. My Acura lease will go back without the tape deck ever used!)
9. WMA support. (that rules out IPOD)
10. Play/Pause button, forward/reverse (channel scan in FM radio mode), Scroll Wheel al-la Creative that also selects, Off button, lock button, and volume buttons. NOTHING ELSE. Nothing else is needed, and there shouldn't be multiple functions for the buttons.
11. No drivers to install if the computer knows about removable drivers like Me/2000/XP etc. do.

Absolutely nothing else is needed. No software, no nothing.

This is SIMPLE. Why in god's name would you use this device in any other way? I mean, don't even include ANY software with your device. If you must, put WMP 10 on a CD for people that don't have it. Otherwise it should just work in windows automatically.

First company to make one that does everything above with a 40 gig drive or larger will have me as a loyal customer. Everyone else, be ashamed of yourself. Very ashamed. This isn't hard.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:14 PM by Bjoern Graf
The "[...] tens of thousands of users who are very happy to manage their music collections independently of an application and prefer to drag and drop files to their player." might be related to the software iRiver intended to be used for collection management: if I have to choose between drag'n'drop and an unusable, buggy media manager I would be happy to drag my files around :) Another pro for drag'n'drop support request - assuming d'n'd includes file copy support - might be that one could create an alternative file/music manager easily...

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 24, 2004 8:32 PM by DrTim
lol, you just described the iPod apart from the battery and WMA (FM Radio? Why? You are carrying round your 5000 favoutire songs).

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 24, 2004 8:36 PM by James Hancock
BTW:

MS you could make this happen by making most of the above basic requirements. (unlike the mess that is the Iriver player to meet your current standard... this shows that your standards are broken)

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:47 PM by Omar Shahine
I love NPR, so having a Radio for the commute is necessary.

I realize I am looking for something like the iPod, but it needs to play WMA and subscription content.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Monday, October 25, 2004 12:07 AM by Sandro Lange
I personally don't use the DB as it makes the handling a lot more complicated, frankly, I don't like the iPOD for the Database-feature. What I want is a fast drag'n'drop&run-feature, meaning - storing the files in every fashion I want with full filenames etc. etc.

I just navigate trough my directory-structure and find it much to use and play the music the same way I do it on my PC with WinAMP.

Of course a DB is great for searching for artist, genre etc. - but how often are you doing this? I have a directory-structure sorted by genre and artist - I use this structure for years containing over 8000 files and I did never have a problem with it.

Did I mention I love my iRiver IHP120 (now H120) over the iPod. The battery last twice as long as the one from the iPod - no need for additional-Software, no need to use a Database, it features a remote-control with LCD-display which is the only but most important thing I need :) The sound-quality is superb, I found it even louder and clearer than the 3th generation iPOD I tried. The optical in- and out is super - also the recording feature and the FM Radio.

The iPOD is neat and slick but it won't even come close to my iRiver - feature and battery-wise.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Monday, October 25, 2004 12:36 AM by Nick
iPod. Why settle for second best... and why deal with any music store other than iTunes; they all are worse, and they are a puny niche market next to iPod/iTunes...

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Monday, October 25, 2004 6:47 AM by Omar Shahine
1) Because, as I've stated, all my audio is WMA Lossless.
2) Because Apple's iTunes Music Store music doens't play on any device except in iTunes or the iPod. I have a Media Center where I play most of my audio.
3) Because I want choice and think I'm entitled to it.

# Hancock

Monday, October 25, 2004 6:56 AM by Melangell
James Hancock could get all he wanted except for the FM radio/broadcast, and (the abortion that is) WMA by buying an iPod. He's probably one of those who irrationally hate everything APple no matter how superior their products are.. By the way cowboy, it's "iPod" not "IPOD".

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:46 AM by k
ipod is the same thing as IPOD..
very picky there Mel.
h300 rocks anyways, u apple lovers
can go hug ur ipods.
i'll stick to mine.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:35 AM by Carl
No one has forced Apple stuff on me. I have a PowerMac G5 and an iPod because I like the technology and user experience. My Windows box just became too much of a PITA to maintain and cleanse of malware, viruses and other random OS crap outs.

All of my music on my Mac and iPod is in industry standard unprotected MPEG-4 .m4a files using the industry standard AAC codec. While its true that Apple's music store protected tracks (.m4p) are encrypted using their proprietary FairPlay DRM, it is also true that all DRM solutions are proprietary, including Microsoft's WMA. And their codecs are not industry standard.

It is possible to use the open source Hymn program to remove the FairPlay encryption from the .m4p files leaving a nice standard MPEG-4 .m4a file that any decent media player should play. You are *not* locked into any proprietary Apple formats. And, if you like lossless, that is available too in .m4a files as an option when ripping with iTunes.

It would be nice if the iPod played WMA, but I think the real problem is in Microsoft's control over the licensing of their proprietary codecs and DRM.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:49 AM by Omar Shahine
The real problem is that Apple won't do this. The licence terms for playback of DRM are very flexible.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Friday, October 29, 2004 5:47 AM by Valentin
You know, as far as I understand it, Apple did not allow M$ to play Quicktime movies in Windows Media Player.

Although I would love my iPod to play WMA, I don't think it's very fair to expect Microsoft to share technology when another company wouldn't do it in the first place.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Friday, October 29, 2004 10:37 AM by Dr. Phil
I have both the iPod and H320, and to be honest, like the iriver better. both are connected to an iMac running iTunes. The only thing that does stink is the manageability of files by artis, album, etc. however, by creating folders I feel most of my searching issues have been alleviated. The new iPod Photo would have been my first choice of portable media players, but the cost was just too high ($499 for a 40 gig $500 for a 60 gig)

This product, as many minute issues it has in my mind, is far superior to a comparable iPod. I think once all is said and done and you figure out how to navigate using the rudimentry button structure, that is far more complicated to learn than it needs to be, it is a par superior produt to the iPod. Even for Apple users....

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Friday, October 29, 2004 5:24 PM by shortie
iriver kick ipod a$$ hands down

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:50 AM by James Hancock
Valentin:

The iPod right now could play WMA and MS would be more than happy to let them (MS has said so directly)

Apple actively disables the WMA functionality before they leave the factory in the firmware. It's just Apple being stupid as usual.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:21 PM by Rigid
I am extremely happy with my new H320. Navigating took a little while to learn but now it is a snap. The flexibility, extra features, FM radio and the color screen all appealed. iPod was missing quite a lot. Nice interface on iPod but my attitude is that this is a detail. After one day I recomend the H320 without hesitation. Nice sound.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:56 PM by Leo
i jest got me a iriver and i dont like it to much why! so chek it im transfring musick to my iriver from my computer and avre other minet i well git thes canot reed from source or its being yosed buy another application it dose thes to me for avre theng musk pohtos and apps if you know why plz e mail me PLZ @ leohenry77@hotmail.com PS iPod Photo IS KING!!!

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:18 PM by stu
if you are using itunes, it will automatically convert wma's to aac's, which is what i found out.

# re: iRiver H320 vs iPod

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:22 PM by Natalie
i don't have either iriver h320 and ipod but i want the iriver h320. i don't care what anyone else says...

it is compatible with windows ME whereas the ipod is not compatible with windows ME since you need iTunes to transfer all your songs. i wish i had xp but dad says that i can't get it since windows ME is running fine. anyway, if i get xp then i will get ipod but right now, i want iriver :D

# Dinner and a Movie » Omar Shahine’s WebLog : iRiver H320 vs iPod

# Recipes to Know » Omar Shahine’s WebLog : iRiver H320 vs iPod

# Omar Shahine s WebLog iRiver H320 vs iPod | Green Tea Fat Burner

# Omar Shahine s WebLog iRiver H320 vs iPod | debt settlement program

New Comments to this post are disabled
 
Page view tracker