Digital Noise: Music and Tech

Music-tech entrepreneur Aviv Eyal, who's behind the excellent Livekick concert-tracking site, has a new project: a DJ app for the iPhone and iPod Touch called DJ Mixer Pro. (It was formerly known as DJ Player Pro, but the name has changed to avoid a conflict with another app.)

DJ Mixer Pro lets you manually adjust the BPM on each channel, or sync them automatically with one touch of a button.

The concept is similar to Touch DJ, an Amidio app that I wrote about last month. While the iPhone naturally restricts you to playing one song at a time, these apps function like a virtual DJ booth, letting you play two tracks simultaneously, jump to any point in either track with a touch of your finger, crossfade between them, match beats, adjust tempos, and add various effects.

I was impressed by Touch DJ's technical capabilities, but DJ Mixer Pro is even more extensive. Amateurs like me will love the sync button: as you're playing one track, the sync button will adjust the speed of the second track and place the downbeats in the right place so they're synchronized. You can also adjust beats per minute (BPM), and DJ Mixer can change tempo without changing pitch, so your sped-up tracks don't sound like the Chipmunks. (If you want the Chipmunks, you can turn the pitch correction off.) The loop function is easier to use as well--you can select a specific number of beats in the song, rather than having to start and stop the loop with finger touches. This made it really easy for me to create a couple different loops of the gunshot chorus in MIA's "Paper Planes" (four and eight beats long). You can also do some interesting things bouncing between tracks--I created two separate loops of Nirvana's "All Apologies" and played them over each other. Finally, DJ Mixer offers more indicators about each track, including volume levels and colored bars to match each drumbeat. This video shows you more. Best of all, it's only half the price of Touch DJ--$9.99.

But there's one nagging usability issue: uploading music to the app is complicated. Apple currently does not allow other apps to access the iTunes playback app, and tracks need to be electronically manipulated before you can mix them. This means that users have to upload their music separately into DJ Mixer. This was also the case with Touch DJ, but where that app used a piece of desktop software to accomplish the task, DJ Mixer uses a Web server.

And therein lies the problem. According to Eyal, when DJ Mixer launched in late November (as DJ Player), the company's servers were inundated with users trying to upload songs to pirated versions of the app--he estimates that between 90 percent and 99 percent of the uploads were from users who didn't pay for the app. This created a lot of load on the servers, and hampered legitimate users.

So now, to upload your music to DJ Mixer, first you need to e-mail customer support with a copy of your receipt from the iTunes store or a screenshot showing your purchase history with the DJ Mixer app on it. Then you must go through a Web interface to perform the uploads. The company e-mails you back for each upload as it becomes ready, after which you have to open the app, hit "downloads," and enter your personal numeric code. Finally, you have to wait as the app downloads each song from the Web server and performs the necessary conversion--a process that takes about 15 or 20 seconds per song.

It's a pain, but the app is good enough that it's probably worth going through this process. You'll only have to do it once, and then you'll be set up for some pretty serious DJ'ing.

The economy took its toll on digital audio in 2009, with CD sales continuing to decline (even as vinyl makes a resurgence), digital start-ups going bankrupt or disappearing after takeovers, and labels expressing dissatisfaction with would-be digital saviors like MySpace Music. Even so, there was actually quite a lot to cheer this year. The following five products aren't necessarily the best, but to me, they did the most to move the state of digital audio forward in 2009.

Outside the tech press, the Zune HD didn't get the love it deserved in 2009.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Windows 7. Microsoft appears to have recovered from Vista with a new OS that runs efficiently, looks good, and satisfies users. Released on October 22, the latest version of Windows also includes some important new features for digital audio lovers. I was pleasantly surprised by Microsoft's decision to support for Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), which is the default format used by Apple's iTunes. With this simple move (along with native H.264 video support), Microsoft has finally acknowledged that Windows Media isn't taking over the world any time soon, and will hopefully move to the much more sensible strategy of making Windows a sort of "Swiss Army knife" of digital media. In addition, the new Remote Media Streaming feature lets you access the media library on your hard drive from any PC over the Internet, reducing the need for third-party solutions like JukeFly or online music lockers like Lala. Plus, for professional audio recording, Windows 7 is much more stable than Vista was at launch. Love it or hate it, Windows is still the OS used on more than 95 percent of computers worldwide, and Windows 7 is probably going to be around for a long time--like XP was--so these advances, however overdue, are major news.

Spotify and Rhapsody on iPhone. Music fans have been waiting for the celestial jukebox--the ability to listen to millions of songs on demand from anywhere--for years. In 2009, the music industry finally started coming around to the idea that on-demand access to millions of songs could be the digital business model that saves it. Nowhere was this clearer than in Apple's decision to approve iPhone apps from Spotify in August and Rhapsody in September. These two subscription services--Rhapsody in the U.S., Spotify in Europe--give iPhone users access to millions of songs, on demand, for a few bucks a month. Single-song downloads have been great for Apple, helping iTunes become the top music retailer in the U.S. starting in 2008, but the company may be coming around to the idea that subscriptions--or at least on-demand streaming--represents the future, as evidenced by its acquisition of Lala earlier this month. When Apple finally takes the plunge, Rhapsody and Spotify subscribers can be smug, knowing that they've been able to stream songs to their iPhones since 2009.

Sonos S5. I've been singing the praises of Sonos's multiroom home-audio system for a couple years now. There's no other equivalent system that offers such easy set-up, solid sound, reliable streaming (thanks to its dedicated wireless network), and slick user interface--including an iPhone controller. The only drawback has been its relatively high price of entry, especially compared with cheaper competitors like Logitech. The release of the Sonos S5 this November (read the CNET review) is a major step forward in affordability, giving you single $399 device--receiver, amplifier, and speaker, all in one--that lets you get started down the Sonos path. You'll still need a $99 bridge if you have a wireless home network and want your S5 to be in a different room than your router, but the S5 is Sonos's most affordable product to date, and a move in the right direction for multiroom digital audio.

iConcertCal for iPhone. For live music fans, nothing's more frustrating than missing a show because you happened to miss the listing in your weekly paper. This year saw the release of several iPhone and iPod Touch apps for finding and tracking local gigs, but my favorite remains iConcertCal, released in July for $2.99. (It was briefly removed from the iTunes Store earlier this month to fix a bug, but it's back now and working fine.) Unlike other gig-finding apps, iConcertCal doesn't require you to enter a list of artists you want to track--instead, it grabs all the artists whose music you have on your iPhone. If you want an even bigger selection, you can download the free iConcertCal desktop add-in for iTunes (useful in its own right), link it to your iPhone with a user name and password combination, and the iPhone app will then track every single artist you list in iTunes. You can also use it to see all local shows happening in the next couple of days.

Zune HD. At last! The latest version of Microsoft's portable music player, released in October, has everything its predecessors lacked. Classy industrial design. Touch screen. Gorgeous on-screen interface that makes it easy to find favorite songs or music you've recently added and scrolls through images of artists as you play their songs. Well-designed PC client software that does everything you've come to expect from iTunes and looks way better doing it. It's not perfect--the browser and lack of app store are kind of weak, and I'm still bothered by what sounds like a bass roll-off and lack of oomph in the midrange--but the Zune HD has so many features that iPods still lack, like wireless sync, a built-in subscription music service (with 10 permanent monthly downloads to boot), and the ability to add songs to a currently playing playlist, that it makes my iPods seem a bit out of date. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the Zune brand is still tarnished by its initial weak launch, and outside the tech press, the Zune HD didn't get the love it deserved. Perhaps when (if?) Microsoft moves these features into the next version of Windows Mobile, we'll finally see Microsoft considered as a viable competitor to Apple's mobile music juggernaut.

Tomorrow, I'll follow up with the five least welcome digital music products in 2009.

Last week, a music site called BlueBeat made headlines by offering Beatles songs as free streams and 25 cent downloads. The Beatles are known for not making their songs legally available on iTunes or any other online forum, so observers rightly asked "how are they doing this legally?"

EMI, the record label that owns The Beatles' recordings, has a simple response: they're not doing this legally. But here's where the story gets very strange.

The legal reasoning in this case is straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."

(Credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain illustration))

BlueBeat is owned by a company called Media Rights Technologies, which specializes in digital rights management technology. DRM is supposed to be used to prevent copyright infringement. But according to a 2007 blog post on HuffingtonPost.com by the company's founder, Hank Risan, MRT backed into this business after being--get this--targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement.

As Risan explains in his post, he and a partner had posted a bunch of streaming-audio files to a Web site about the history of music. The RIAA issued a takedown notice, and the site took the streams down.

The streams had been protected by Windows Media DRM, but according to Risan, an update to the Media Player broke the DRM. In response to this flaw, Risan created MRT and built his own DRM system, which he claimed would be far more robust than the systems on the market at that time. Then, in 2007, MRT sent cease-and-desist letters to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and RealNetworks, ordering them to use MRT's DRM technology instead of their own, on threat of legal action.

The legal reasoning was twisted--basically, MRT argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should force these companies to use the most robust DRM technology available, even if that technology was created by somebody else. Predictably, nothing ever came of this demand.

MRT's legal reasoning is equally funny this time around, as Ars Technica reports. According to the report, MRT claims that it didn't post the exact Beatles recordings. Instead, it posted "psychoacoustic simulations," then added simple video content to them. This constitutes a new audiovisual work, and isn't covered by the existing copyrights, MRT argues. In fact, MRT even went so far as to apply for copyrights on the "new" works!

Perhaps this is all some kind of metacommentary on the frustrating inconsistency of U.S. copyright law, but I predict that MRT is going to be laughed out of court. In the meantime, if you want your Beatles music online, it's still available on BlueBeat as of the time I posted this. I didn't want to give the company a credit card to test the whether the downloads work, but the streams sound pretty close to perfect...especially considering that they're only psychoacoustic simulations.

Apple outstripped Wall Street's expectations for the quarter ended September 30, and while the blowout quarter was mostly thanks to higher-than-expected Mac sales, the company also sold a record 7.4 million iPhones. But a lot of commentators think that the iPhone is finally going to meet its match with Droid.

You don't need an instruction manual to figure out how to get music onto your iPhone.

Announced this weekend by Verizon in a cheeky TV commercial, the Droid is a Motorola phone running Google's Android 2.0 operating system. The advertisement notes that the Droid will do things that the iPhone won't, like take pictures in the dark and run simultaneous apps (apparently playing music in the background, as the iPhone can do, doesn't count), and touts its open development process (a head-scratcher for non-techies, but it could mean more apps than the iPhone, someday). The first preview I've seen, from Boy Genius Report, was also positive. People are excited, and for good reason--competition drives innovation, which is good for consumers.

But here's the thing: one reason for the runaway success of the iPhone--and one of the reasons why Apple still continues to sell more than 10 million iPods per quarter--is iTunes. Not so much the store, although that's an important component, but the software. Of course there are plenty of other applications out there that help you rip CDs and organize your digital music collection. And there are plenty of other sources for online music. But the real strength of iTunes is in the sync process--you plug your iPhone in, iTunes opens up automatically and recognizes it. Hit the large "Sync" button and it automatically loads your music (and video, and apps, and anything else you choose) onto it. (With some devices, depending on your settings, you don't even need to hit "Sync.") That's the simple, consumer-friendly, end-to-end experience that Apple figured out first.

Contrast that with the multi-step process required to transfer music from a Windows PC to the first Android phone that was available in the U.S., last year's G1. Amazon provided over-the-air MP3 downloads for that phone, giving it a rough equivalent to the over-the-air version of the iTunes store, but let's face it: most digital music is not purchased, but is ripped from a CD or comes from some other source (legal or not).

Verizon, Motorola, and Google haven't said much about music for the Droid. Maybe they still have a musical trick or two up their collective sleeves. But without some sort of equivalent to the iTunes desktop application, the Droid may be a great phone, but it won't be a great music phone.

The more time I spend with my Zune HD, the more I like it. Sound quality aside--and I know opinions differ dramatically here, but I'm stuck with my ears and my preferences--there are a bunch of features that make Apple's products seem like they've fallen behind the curve. Here are five things in particular that I miss when I use my iPhone or one of my iPods:

Zune Pass Apple has long maintained that people want to own rather than rent their music. I counter that a subscription-based music service, combined with a state-of-the-art player, is one of those features that you have to try before you realize how fantastic it is. It reminds me of the first time I beta-tested the Xbox Live gaming service back in 2002--I didn't understand how addictive online console gaming could be until I spent eight hours playing Moto GP without even looking at the clock.

Here are a couple of real-world examples from yesterday. First, a friend came over for brunch and we began talking about Gram Parsons, one of those towering influences whose music is sorely lacking in my collection. In the past, we might have talked for a minute, maybe gone online to hunt down some ancient YouTube videos, and then forgotten about it. But with the Zune Pass, we were able to walk over to the Zune HD (which I have plugged into a first-generation AV dock and connected to a Bose Wave player in my living room), connect to the Marketplace through my home Wi-Fi network, and sample a bunch of Gram Parsons songs while we ate.

A Zune Pass makes the Smart DJ function into a great music-discovery tool.

Later, I ripped the nervously funky Can LP "Ege Bamyasi" to my hard drive. Curious to discover some similar music, I used the Zune software's Smart DJ function, then listened as it drew music from the Marketplace that I don't know very well, like Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Gong, and my favorite discovery, Faust. Trying the same thing with iTunes' Genius function suggested plenty of new music from the iTunes Store but to hear it, I'd have to buy each song as a download. (Note: you can't create a Smart DJ playlist on the Zune HD device itself, although I expect that feature to be added later. Instead, you have to use the Zune software, then save it as a playlist.)

These are the kinds of music-discovery features that make the Zune Pass a great deal at $14.99 a month. And on top of that, each month you get 10 MP3 downloads to keep.

Quickplay This feature lets you "pin" favorite songs, albums, playlists, or other types of content to the front menu of the Zune HD. It also has a "New" section that automatically displays the six items you've most recently added to your collection, a "History" section that displays the last six things you've played, and a spot to access any currently playing song that you've paused. I miss this instant gratification, particularly quick access to recently added music, on the iPod.

Background art Remember how cool it seemed when you could first look at album covers as you played songs on your MP3 player? The Zune HD makes this seem hopelessly obsolete--instead, it scrolls through album art and pictures of the artist as each song plays. No purchase is required--it works even with the LPs I ripped. It's similar to how the Zune software (and iTunes) can populate your music collection with album art from a database in the cloud, only more sophisticated. (You can see this feature in action starting around 2:00 into this video demo.)

Wireless sync This feature has been part of the Zune experience since 2007, and once you get used to it, you'll hate dragging your iPod to your computer every time you want to load new music. Microsoft seems to have improved the sync experience in the Zune HD and Zune 4.0 software--all you have to do is leave the Zune HD's wireless connection on, and it will periodically sync automatically with your PC, even if you don't have the Zune app open.

See what my friends are playing Zune's social-networking functions haven't been very useful because of the relatively small number of people who own a Zune. I'm hoping this changes with the Zune HD. Already, the Gram Parsons fan says he's going to buy one. Once we connect to one another, I'll be able to see his playlists as he runs through Gram Parsons, the Flying Burrito Brothers, and all their musical neighbors. With a Zune Pass, I'll even be able to play any song that he's played, immediately, on my device, as long as it's available in the Marketplace. Again, this is an absolutely amazing tool for music discovery.

Apple's still riding high with the iPod, particularly the Touch, but the Zune HD is clearly moving ahead in terms of innovation. Now if Microsoft can open the Marketplace to third-party apps and fix the browser, Apple might have reason to worry.

Zune HD

(Credit: Microsoft)

I find it hard to evaluate an MP3 player until I've lived with it for a little while. Specifications, demos, and even quick hands-on tests don't tell you the most important thing: how does it sound? Can you listen to it for an hour? A week? The rest of your life?

On Tuesday, I spent a few hours with the 32GB versions of Microsoft's new Zune HD and Apple's latest-generation iPod Touch. To me, these are the top-of-the-line competitors in the MP3 player market--if you're a serious music listener with nearly $300 to spend, these are your two choices.

On a straight specifications basis, each of them has clear advantages.

The iPod Touch excels as a portable multifunction computer, with tens of thousands of available applications, and it's the only choice for Mac users. The Zune HD has superior music-discovery features, particularly when used with a Zune Pass subscription. Plus, it has an HD Radio and a sophisticated desktop PC client that makes iTunes look stale.

On industrial design, I think they're about even--a commendable feat for Microsoft given how far behind the previous Zunes were. On user interface, the iPod Touch may be more intuitive at first, but the Zune HD is way cooler--I love the way artist images and words scroll across the background as you play a song--and gives you far more customization over the music-playing experience. (I'm amazed that the iPod Touch still doesn't have an easy way to add songs to a now-playing queue, for instance.)

But what about the actual sound? To try them out, I ran them into the audio input jack in my car, which is how I most often listen to portable music. I turned each device up to just below maximum volume (I've heard my iPhone distort at its max), and made sure the EQ settings were completely flat.

iPod Touch

(Credit: CNET)

The Zune HD sounded very crisp and clean, with clear separation in the bass, but the midrange--guitar, vocals--didn't seem full or loud enough. When I turned it up to try and get a fuller sound, the treble became overwhelming.

The iPod Touch was noticeably louder at the same volume setting on the car stereo. The trebly parts--cymbals, high-hat, the squeak of a saxophone reed--were still distinct, but the bass sounded rounder and warmer, and the midrange (the most important spectrum when choosing audio gear) shone through. It made me realize how much sound was missing when I listened to the Zune HD.

The difference became most obvious when I took a couple songs--Radiohead's "How to Disappear Completely" and Mr. Bungle's NSFW funk-bizarro song "Squeeze Me Macaroni"--and listened to them back to back on each player. On the Zune HD, the acoustic guitar in the Radiohead song sounded clinky and thin, and the percussion in the Bungle song was unbearably high-pitched. On the iPod Touch, the guitar sounded like guitar and the percussion was complementary rather than overwhelming.

A few hours later, I tried a similar test through the relatively cheap headphones that come with the Zune HD. Here, the Zune fared a bit better--it sounded louder, so I didn't need to turn it up so much that the over-boosted treble hurt my ears--but there simply wasn't as much audio information coming through, especially at the low end.

Hearing is subjective--apparently younger listeners are beginning to prefer the "sizzle" of highly compressed MP3s, and one listener's "crisp" is another's "harsh." And I'm an analog fan, with far more records than CDs in my home collection. But to me, the Zune HD sounded pretty good, while the new iPod Touch is the best-sounding MP3 player I've ever heard, comparing favorably with a decent CD player.

Your lesson? Don't just read the specs and look at the interface before you buy an MP3 player. Spend some serious time listening to it, at volume.

Microsoft is making a selling point of the fact that the new Zune HD and associated software update are optimized for Windows 7, which is due out on October 22. I've got a copy of the final release code of Windows 7 on my work PC, and there is some useful synchronization between the two. For instance, the Quickplay menu in the Zune software--which lets you get immediately to music you've recently added, your Smart DJ stations, and any other favorites you want to "pin" to the list--is propagated into the Windows 7 Start menu. So even if you don't have the Zune software open, you can simply navigate to the Zune icon in the Start menu and all your Quickplay selections will show up.

The Zune software adds Quickplay selections to the Windows 7 Start menu.

Of course, Microsoft's had access to final Windows 7 code for a long time. But what about Apple? The company kindly sent me a new-model iPod Touch and Nano to test out, and I noticed that the boxes say they're compatible with Windows XP and Vista (and Mac OS X 10.4.11). Windows 7 isn't mentioned. I downloaded and installed iTunes 9 on my Windows 7 PC anyway, and I'm now happily syncing my music library. I haven't noticed any bugs or errors. (Your mileage may vary--this isn't a review, just my personal experience.) But this underscores my general impression of Windows 7 as a solid upgrade to Vista--not a fundamentally new OS, like Vista was to XP. As Microsoft has said, if your apps work with Vista, they'll almost surely work with 7.

Reverse-sync, one of my favorite features of the Zune software.

The more interesting question is how did I get my music library onto my work computer in the first place? Simple--the Zune software has, from the very beginning, had a reverse-sync feature. You simply drag all the songs from the Zune icon to the PC icon, and they go happily traversing your USB cable down into your PC. iTunes has no such reverse-sync, and in fact is pretty strict about only allowing you to sync with one library at a time, although there are plenty of third-party apps that can do it for you.

This post has been updated. See details below.

I was excited to try out the new Home Sharing feature in iTunes 9. The feature isn't as new as some reports suggest--it's been possible to share iTunes libraries among computers in a home network for years now, but the experience was pretty limited.

You couldn't play DRM-protected songs in a shared library, couldn't create playlists from a shared library, and most importantly, couldn't physically transfer songs from a library on one computer to a library on another. Home Sharing promises to change all this, so I gleefully updated iTunes on my Windows XP PC and my MacBook (which my wife has adopted), and enabled Home Sharing on both.

For a brief shining moment, my Mac (which is almost music-free) was able to see the 3,500 songs stored in iTunes on my PC. The transfer button was just sitting there, waiting for me to start moving as much of my music as I wanted over to my Mac.

Now you see it...

But instead of moving ahead, I had to mess around. Long story short, my wife and I have separate user accounts on the PC. There are some songs by some artists (like Journey) that are in my wife's iTunes library on the PC but which I've made sure never show up in mine (I can't stand Journey). So I decided to try to share her library with the Mac.

I closed iTunes on the PC, logged off, logged onto my wife's user account, opened iTunes, and tried to set up Home Sharing. It let me authorize with iTunes--which is necessary for turning Home Sharing on--but as soon as I authorized, the Home Sharing icon in the left-hand column disappeared.

OK. So I logged off my wife's account, logged back on to the PC as myself, and went back to my iTunes library. Now I couldn't see Home Sharing at all. I used the Advanced menu item to turn Home Sharing off and back on--no luck. I went to the Mac and turned it off and back on--no luck, and that made Home Sharing disappear on that copy of iTunes as well! I rebooted both machines multiple times--no luck.

Now every single time I want to turn Home Sharing on, it lets me authorize, then as soon as I hit the "Done" button, the Home Sharing icon disappears. My guess is that it has something to do with trying to authorize two libraries on the same PC with the same iTunes account, but there's no online support for iTunes 9 yet, so I can't tell. (And before you ask, yes, I have both the "Share my local library on the network" and "Look for shared libraries" boxes checked on iTunes on both computers.)

Now you don't.

Lesson: if it's working, don't touch it! Transfer that library, and get the heck out. And if anybody else has had this bug and knows how to fix it, please let me know in comments below.

Update, September 11: I turned on my Mac and PC this morning, started up iTunes, and the Sharing folder and Matt Rosoff's Library icon appeared on both. I haven't changed any settings in iTunes or in my firewall software. I'm not sure what happened, but my advice to those of you who are seeing this apparent bug--and judging from the comment stream, it's not uncommon--is to shut everything down, start up again, and make sure that iTunes is open on both computers.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Today's Apple event contained a number of newsworthy announcements--a new digital-album format, precut ringtones at $1.29--but what's more striking is the way that the company really focused the improvements on the iPod Nano.

The Nano was the only Apple device that got a significant overhaul, with a video camera, FM radio, voice recorder, and pedometer. Somewhat surprisingly, the more expensive and higher-end iPod Touch isn't getting a refresh this time around. It still lacks a video camera and built-in FM radio.

It's what's in back that counts.

(Credit: Apple)

Strategically, this makes sense: on stage, Steve Jobs claimed that the Nano has sold more than 100 million units, making it the most popular MP3 player in the world. It occupies the sweet spot in price, between $100 and $200 (the new 8GB version will be $149, while the new 16GB version will cost $179).

Last year, Apple hardly updated the Nano at all, besides introducing a few new colors. So to keep its firm hold on the midmarket, Apple was smart to add a few checklist features, particularly the video camera, which suddenly makes the Flip look overpriced.

At the low end, the Shuffle got a price cut to $59 for the 2GB version or $79 for the 4GB version, but this seems expensive, compared with SanDisk's Sansa Clip+, which costs $40 for a 2GB or $50 for 4GB, and includes an FM radio, small screen for navigating menus, and expandable memory via a microSD slot. Here, Apple seems to be relying on the iPod brand to carry it.

At the high end, the iPod Touch remains one of the most exciting devices on the market--it's basically redefining portable computing, thanks to its Wi-Fi connection and Apple's massive App Store. But as a pure MP3 player, I still think that there's room for competition.

Microsoft's forthcoming Zune HD might grab some hard-core music fanatics, thanks to its built-in HD radio (more stations), all-you-can-play subscription service, and (in my opinion) better navigation scheme that lets you get to more of your music more quickly. The Zune HD also looks like a better deal on a straight-memory basis--the 16GB version will cost $220 (only $21 more than an 8GB iPod Touch), and the 32GB will cost $290, which is $9 less than the equivalent iPod Touch.

If I were shopping for an MP3 player today and had less than $100 to spend, I'd buy a Clip+. If I had between $100 and $200, the iPod Nano is the obvious choice. If I had more than that, I'd have to weigh whether I'm more interested in a broad range of apps (iPod Touch) or music (which might sway me to the Zune HD).