Print 62 comment(s) - last by RjBass.. on Mar 31 at 11:09 AM

A link for the 64GB Zune HD had popped up on Microsoft's website
Microsoft will soon launch a 64GB Zune HD

When Microsoft first announced the Zune HD, one of the things that left many of us scratching our heads was the fact that the portable media device wouldn't launch with a 64GB option. At the time, it was well hypothesized that the third generation iPod touch would ship with such an option -- it did -- leaving Microsoft without an effective counterpunch.

Six months after the Zune HD launch, it now appears that Microsoft is finally getting around to adding a 64GB model to its Zune HD lineup. Engadget got word that a link to the 64GB model has been added to the official Zune website. However, the link is currently not active meaning that Microsoft probably isn't quite ready to make an official announcement.

Current MSRPs for the 16GB and 32GB Zune HDs are $219 and $289 respectively, although retailers like have them listed for a low $169 and $239 respectively. For comparison, Apple's 32GB and 64GB third generation iPod touch models feature MSRPs of $299 ($258) and $399 ($343).

Microsoft's Zune HD features an NVIDIA Tegra HD processor, 480x272 OLED display, 720p video output, and an HD radio receiver.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: .
By nilepez on 3/29/2010 8:08:33 PM , Rating: 3
Well there are lots of audiphole phonies running around claiming MP3 is "lossy" and it doesn't sound as good. That's only true if you are dealing with a very low bitrate file.

It's not a claim. MP3 is a lossy format .
Whether you or I can hear the difference between them is irrelevant. Some people can. There was a time that I could, but my ears are not as good as they were a few years ago.

RE: .
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's very relevant. It's the crux of the entire issue. The "loss" in high bitrate MP3's are sounds completely 100% inaudible to the human ear. That's a fact.

Because here is the deal, FLAC files are huge. A FLAC file is only about 20% smaller than the .WAV file it was converted from. So one must ask the question, if you demand compromised audio quality, why not just use .WAV files ?

RE: .
By sprockkets on 3/29/2010 9:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Because FLAC is usually 45-60% smaller than a wav file, not "20%".

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Related Articles

Latest Headlines

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki