Digital Noise: Music and Tech

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.

After a few hours on Tuesday of playing with the Zune HD that Microsoft sent me, I found a lot of things I like about it--the slim size, the Quickplay user interface feature that gives you immediate access to recently added and favorite songs, the big on-screen volume controls, and the Zune Pass, for example. But the Web browser seems like an afterthought.

CNET's Donald Bell had better luck with the on-screen keyboard than I did.

(Credit: Donald Bell/CNET)

I know that mobile Web browsing isn't the same as PC browsing, but I've used Safari on the iPhone for more than a year, and it's great--I actually read articles, for work and fun, on my bus commute to work. It's so good, I've been taking it for granted. Not anymore.

Microsoft says the Zune HD's browser is based on the mobile version of Internet Explorer, but it doesn't look like any version of IE I've ever seen. The address bar is hidden--you have to pull up on the gray bar at the bottom of the screen to get to it. The other alternative is to click on a small magnifying glass to conduct a search on the mobile version of Bing, which I found difficult to use. (No slam against the full browser-based version of Microsoft's search engine, which I like.) For instance, when I conduct a search on my employer's name, "Directions on Microsoft," Bing Mobile assumes I want news stories that cite the company, when in fact I just want our home page. There's a link on the Bing Mobile site that says "web," which I assume is supposed bring me general search results from around the Web, but when I clicked it repeatedly, nothing happened. There's also no auto-suggest or auto-complete for search queries--each time you want to search for "Chinese restaurants," you have to type the whole query in.

Regardless of how you're trying to navigate, the on-screen keyboard seems to require more finger accuracy than the fault-tolerant keyboard on the iPhone (probably because of the smaller screen). The back button is hard to hit--I kept selecting the favorites menu by mistake. Sites are also considerably slower to load, and the resolution doesn't seem to be nearly as good as the iPhone or iPod Touch, with a noticeable flicker on pages with white backgrounds.

Maybe it's just me--Donald Bell thought the browser was great--but I can't imagine using this browser for any length of time.

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.

We've known the specs for the Zune HD since May, and I've even gotten a couple brief hands-on demonstrations, but I discovered a few more surprises in the run-up to the retail release Tuesday.

(Credit: Microsoft)

My favorite surprise on the device was a new feature called Quickplay. It solves one of the greatest problems with an MP3 player: as you add more music, it gets harder to find and immediately start playing the songs you're most excited about. Quickplay basically adds an alternate menu on the Zune home screen--it appears as collection of small album covers, offset slightly to the left of the main start menu--which automatically displays songs you've most recently played, as well as songs you've most recently added. You can also manually "pin" songs and albums to the menu. I also liked the way images (such as artist photos) drawn from the Zune Marketplace and cached to your device gradually scroll across the screen as you play a particular song, giving you more to look at than a static album cover.

Within the Zune PC software, my favorite surprise was the Smart DJ feature, which sets up an endlessly rotating playlist based on a particular song or artist. Like a lot of other Zune features, it works best if you've got a Zune Pass (which costs $14.99 a month)--in this case, it'll rotate not only through songs in your collection but also through the millions of songs in the Zune Marketplace, delivering the same kinds of surprises that Pandora fans have grown to love. If you don't have the Zune Pass, it simply draws songs from your collection, similar to how iTunes Genius works (in this case, Marketplace songs are greyed out but clickable if you want to buy them).

Zune's Smart DJ feature put together this playlist based on The Pixies. Here, it's playing a song from the Zune Marketplace--a cover of Jimi Hendrix's "Stone Free" by the group Belly.

There were also a couple of mild unfortunate surprises. First, Microsoft has removed the "squirting" feature, which let you send songs directly from one Zune to another. This feature was supposed to be a big selling point of the first Zune but was crippled by unreasonable rights restrictions that let you play songs only three times or within three days (whichever came first). Microsoft and content owners gradually loosened those restrictions, but the feature never made much difference--mainly because there were so few Zune users out there to exchange songs with. (The "first man with a telephone" problem.) Now it's gone. You can still share songs with your friends through the Zune's social-networking features--if you have a Zune Pass, then any song in any of your Zune contacts' library will be immediately playable on your machine--but that requires an active wireless connection and isn't quite as spontaneous as the Zune-to-Zune sharing. That said, I only used it a handful of times in the three years since I've had a Zune.

The other disappointment is the complete lack of a competitor to Apple's App Store for the iPhone and iPod Touch. There will be applications, including games, but Microsoft will release them directly to users through the Zune Marketplace or within software updates. There are no public APIs for developers, no distribution model, and more surprisingly, no immediate plans to connect to the Windows Marketplace for Mobile, Microsoft's app store for Windows Mobile phones, which launches on October 6. Why? Because Microsoft wants to build only one app store, and it can't be sure that apps built for Windows Mobile will work on the Zune HD.

There's plenty of other great stuff about the Zune HD, including a built-in HD Radio, bright touch screen, high-definition video output, and all the great wireless and social-networking features introduced in previous versions. It's the best Microsoft MP3 player yet and the first to pose a credible competitor to the iPod Touch, although it's still focused on digital audio and video, while the Touch (and iPhone) is more of a portable computer.

Be sure to check back later this week for the full updated review from CNET's Donald Bell, and we'll both be posting more personal impressions of the new device as we live and work with it throughout the coming weeks.

Online radio service Last.fm has always seemed to occupy an awkward middle ground between on-demand streaming music services that let you pick and play any song--like free services Imeem and Grooveshark, and Rhapsody, which charges for its service--and the radio-to-your-taste service pioneered by Pandora. (Disclaimer: Last.fm is owned by CBS, which is the parent company of CNET News.)

In my opinion, this is partly because of some flaws with the service itself. The radio service has a lot of powerful features for serious music fans who are willing to do a little work, as CNET's Donald Bell recently explained, but it doesn't work very well as an on-demand service. How do you add songs to a now-playing queue? Why hasn't Last.fm secured on-demand rights for huge artists like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin?

But there's also a bit of a branding gap. Compared with the organic buzz I hear about Pandora and Rhapsody, for instance, Last.fm hardly comes up. Now it looks like CBS is trying to address that issue. In an effort to increase brand awareness, CBS Radio will devote four broadcast HD Radio stations to Last.fm. The playlist will be drawn from listeners' favorites--Last.fm does such a fantastic job of tracking usage, I've referred to it for non-scientific measurements of artist popularity--as well as live performances in Last.fm's New York studio. The stations will make the cutover on October 5, and include KITS-FM (105.3 HD3) in San Francisco, WWFS-FM (102.7 HD2) in New York, KCBS-FM (93.1 HD2) in Los Angeles, and WXRT-FM (93.1 HD3) in Chicago. All four stations will play the same playlist.

HD Radio itself is still in a niche phase. Although it's available in more than 90 percent of major U.S. markets, the receivers are still fairly rare. That might change tomorrow with the launch of the Zune HD, the first MP3 player with a built-in HD Radio receiver. If nothing else, it shows that HD Radio technology is getting small enough and cheap enough to begin building it into a variety of consumer electronics devices--imagine when it starts becoming a feature in smartphones, for instance.

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).

As first reported by Paul Thurott of SuperSite for Windows, Microsoft is discontinuing the current generation of Zunes.

So long, Zune 8, we hardly knew you.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Leaving aside all the easy insults--yes, we all know Microsoft never sold many of the things--and the possibility that your candy-apple red Zune 80 may someday be a collector's item, this means Microsoft has basically ceded the low end of the MP3 player market.

While the current Zunes start at $80, the Zune HD, which becomes available on September 15, will run you at least $220. This is great news for competitors such as SanDisk, whose Sansa Clip+ suddenly looks like the best deal around for folks on limited budgets.

On the other end, eliminating the 80GB and 120GB models means that folks with huge digital collections and no interest in touch screens will probably just stick with the iPod Classic, which is pretty much what was happening anyway.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

I got a few minutes of hands-on time with Microsoft's forthcoming Zune HD at a Microsoft event on Thursday, and I came away thinking that Microsoft might finally have a contender.

Of course, it inherits all the benefits of the current Zune--a more visually interesting (if not always more useful) PC client than iTunes, and the ability to subscribe to all-you-can-eat music plus 10 permanent downloads for only $14.99 a month via the Zune Pass. New features like HD Radio and high-def video output also sounded attractive when they were first revealed.

Could this be a contender?

(Credit: Microsoft)

But it's one thing to read about it, and another to actually use it. I was surprised and pretty impressed with its small size--without measuring, I'd guess it's maybe two-thirds the size of an iPod Touch, and quite a bit thinner. In my hands, it felt more like an iPod Nano or perhaps one of the flash-based Zunes, although it's obviously not that small. The OLED screen offered excellent color and brightness--great for album covers, anyway--although I honestly didn't think it was a quantum leap above the iPod Touch. Then again, I was using it in a fairly dim-lit room, not in sunlight.

But the real innovation seems to be going on in user interface--how do you make a touch screen workable on such a small device? Here, Microsoft has done a solid job, taking the mixture of horizontal and vertical menus used on the current Zunes and adding particular tweaks for the touch screen. You can scroll horizontally or vertically simply by swiping your finger along, and there are multiple "ways in" to and "ways out" of the various menus and screens, which encourages exploration. When a song's playing, you control the volume by touching the screen and hitting a little plus or minus button; numbers show you absolute volume. Clearly marked "exit" buttons are usually available to get you back to the previous menu, and a physical button below the screen (you can see the black trapezoid shape on the screenshots here) takes you back to the home menu page. There was a bit of a learning curve, but after a couple minutes I was impressed by how much functionality Microsoft was able to pack into such a small screen.

There was no public Wi-Fi when I tested it, so I didn't have a chance to test the browser, but based on what I've seen demonstrated for Windows Mobile 6.5, as well as some other very well-placed rumors, I think users will be impressed and surprised at some of its features. It's a solid addition to what's still essentially a music player--not a super-device.

The timeframe for the Zune HD is still this fall. I expect it to be priced quite a bit cheaper than the iPod Touch, as CNET's Donald Bell suggested in his preview a couple months ago, but Microsoft hasn't confirmed anything on that front. Whether you end up buying one or not, at least there will be something interesting to check out in Microsoft's upcoming retail stores.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

When I tried Spotify, the free on-demand music-streaming service currently available only in Europe, I was impressed by its iTunes-like user interface and how fast the songs loaded. So when I saw Monday's news that Spotify has submitted an iPhone app to Apple for consideration, I got excited.

(Credit: Spotify)

Then I read more closely: to use the mobile version of Spotify, you'll need a premium subscription. The service isn't available in the United States yet, but a premium subscription in the United Kingdom costs 10 pounds a month, which translates to about $16.50 at today's exchange rate.

That's in line with prices for other portable subscription music services, such as the Zune Pass or Rhapsody to Go. Those services aren't available for the iPod or iPhone, but Spotify's not doing anything groundbreaking here; it appears to be trying to fill a gap that Apple has left open by refusing to introduce its own subscription service.

The video demonstration also makes it look like users have to side-load playlists from their computer before accessing them on the device. I want what you get with the Zune Pass--the ability to stream songs on demand from any location with a Wi-Fi connection.

Corrected at 3:45 p.m.: This story mischaracterized a demonstration video for the application. It does show the ability to search Spotify for any song wirelessly. I got confused because it started with the caveat "playlists you've already created." It wasn't clear whether the search results were coming from those playlists, but they're not. My bad.