Sandisk may not be perfect, but are leaps ahead of many of it’s competitors.
They probably are, but unfortunately not (yet) in one of the two main buy/don’t buy criteria for me (excellent sound quality and the capacity to store all my Ogg Vorbis collection). I’ve been using DAPs for years and have never encountered a file limit which prevented me from utilising all the capacity of a player with files ripped at commonly used rates. As you say, hopefully soon a moot point (or, more accurately, less of an issue as there will still be a limit and 32GB cards are on the way) but I still feel strongly that the limit is significant and unusual enought that it should be detailed in the manufacturers published specification. That it still isn’t and the manufacturer is aware that it is an issue with customers, concerns me.
Message Edited by Fifer on 01-13-2009 03:51 PM
There is often no free lunch. One of Sandisk’s competitor’s does a similar thing by making either the SD slot or the internal memory available at any one given time…but not both ; effectively reducing it’s overall capacity as advertised as well. The difference? Sandisk is aware of the issue and is working on it; the competitor just ignores any inquiries about the behavior…basically taking a “take it or leave it” attitude.
In my mind, there is a world of difference between the two.
Note: The behavior of Sandisk’s competior’s player memory management scheme is also NOT noted in their specs.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 01-13-2009 09:09 AM
I agree you are not the only one. But Its not an issue of advantage but rather of “Why?” Why should they if this issue effects less than 1% of their clients?
Why? It would have saved me (and others) from spending £90 on a player and card which doesn’t do what I reasonably expect it to do based on the manufacturer’s spec. It’s important enough an issue to be raised on these forums for months and an important enough issue for Sandisk to (I presume) spend hours of firmware development and validation time fixing, but not important enough to take the 20 minutes to insert a single sentence into the on-line spec?
If I were you and I had this issue, I would go buy another card. I have 2 x 2 gig cards, for my 2 gig fuze (I like to hear all of my music on a regular rotation). This is not such a radical concept either.
If you were me, you wouldn’t do that. It doesn’t meet my requirement. Why would I want to carry an extra card the size of a nail-clipping to lose?
Sandisk may not be perfect, but are leaps ahead of many of it’s competitors.
They probably are, but unfortunately not (yet) in one of the two main buy/don’t buy criteria for me (excellent sound quality and the capacity to store all my Ogg Vorbis collection). I’ve been using DAPs for years and have never encountered a file limit which prevented me from utilising all the capacity of a player with files ripped at commonly used rates. As you say, hopefully soon a moot point (or, more accurately, less of an issue as there will still be a limit and 32GB cards are on the way) but I still feel strongly that the limit is significant and unusual enought that it should be detailed in the manufacturers published specification. That it still isn’t and the manufacturer is aware that it is an issue with customers, concerns me.
Message Edited by Fifer on 01-13-2009 03:51 PM
There is often no free lunch. One of Sandisk’s competitor’s does a similar thing by making either the SD slot or the internal memory available at any one given time…but not both ; effectively reducing it’s overall capacity as advertised as well. The difference? Sandisk is aware of the issue and is working on it; the competitor just ignores any inquiries about the behavior…basically taking a “take it or leave it” attitude.
In my mind, there is a world of difference between the two.
Note: The behavior of Sandisk’s competior’s player memory management scheme is also NOT noted in their specs.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 01-13-2009 09:09 AM
A free luch isn’t free if it costs £90. That one of SanDisks competitors does something similar is equally (or more) deplorable. But that’s irrelevant. The only reasons I can think of for Sansa not publishing the limitation are laziness, disregard for its customers or a desire to maximise sales by misleading customers. I believe and hope it’s the first of those.
