Sansa Sessions 256MB?

[gabe565]

I thought it was 512MB, but at the Sansa sessions website in the terms and conditions, it says

To receive one SanDisk microSD™ Memory Card (256MB) preloaded with Sponsor-specified content (“Memory Card”), purchase a Sansa® Fuze™ 8GB MP3 player from retailers where SanDisk is sold, that contains the promotional offer insert.

[CrowdAds]

[soft_knee]

It's 512MB, I'm looking at mine right now.

[gabe565]

That's weird, I guess I'll figure it out when I get it
Thanks!

[JK98]

I guess the original intention was to have the Sessions as a 256 meg micro SD card. A 256 meg micro SD card can hold over 4 hours of 128 kbps mp3 files. Since the prices of 1 gig micro SD cards have dropped so much, and retail sales of 512 meg micro SD cards are probably so low since most people would buy a 1 gig card instead, my guess is that Sandisk decided to use 512 meg cards for the Sessions to help clear out their inventory of micro SD cards. I guess originally Sandisk wanted to promote micro SD cards as a medium for consumer to to buy music rather than than buying a CD. Imo most consumer would still rather have a CD, unless perhaps the music on the micro SD would be a regular WAV file. Perhaps many wouldn't mind buying music on a card that is 256 kbps mp3, however if it is a lower bitrate or if it is protected WMA then many may not want to buy it in that form since its use wouldn't be possible on some devices, or it would sound much worse in quality than a CD. Many people still play music off CD(at least when they are home). Would Sandisk sell music, or form a partnership with music companies to sell music that can't be played on an ipod(protected WMA)? That would be a gutsy move. I guess the only way that would really work is if it is priced much lower than Apple's store sells music for. I don't see that happening though.

[diik0nn]

Anyone wants one these PM me, you can have my ID.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by JK98

Perhaps many wouldn't mind buying music on a card that is 256 kbps mp3, however if it is a lower bitrate or if it is protected WMA then many may not want to buy it in that form since its use wouldn't be possible on some devices, or it would sound much worse in quality than a CD.

It would sound much worse in quality than a CD when lower than 256 kbps? I do not think so:
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....uiet_listening
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....le=Transparent

[gabe565]

Just got mine and it is 512, that's weird!

[Skinjob]

Originally Posted by Enigmatic

It would sound much worse in quality than a CD when lower than 256 kbps? I do not think so:
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....uiet_listening
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....le=Transparent

A lot of these "transparency test" statistics have to be take with a grain of salt. A lot depends on the playback equipment, the quality and nature of the source recording and whether the person regularly practices critical listening.

The difference between CD/Lossless and 256kbps played back on a fairly decent mid-range stereo is pretty obvious to me. However, played back over typical computer speakers, all-in-one systems or average consumer level headphones, I doubt anyone could tell the difference.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by Skinjob

The difference between CD/Lossless and 256kbps played back on a fairly decent mid-range stereo is pretty obvious to me.

Blind listening with the levels matched? Please give details to the methodology that you used. Specifically, how did you control for biases?