<strong>Well, I've ripped most of my CDs (less than 40) and I'm about 50% full (I rip at 160 kbps). I suspect the people who really are into music will have 100+ CDs, so a 20 GB iPod would what they will require.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about people REALLY into music, like me. I've been buying CDs for longer than the Mac has existed, and have over 2100.
Crayz you need your ears checked. MP3 is GARBAGE. CRAP. I can tell the difference between dual channel 320kbps and CD.
The main difference so far that I can tell, is percussion sounds tinny, sometimes with a high-pitched whine (only from PC encoded MP3, perhaps that's another issue!) percussion, like in punk, sounds like a sucking swoosh sound. You CAN hear it. I am anal about audio quality though. This is why I bought the iPod. The only thing is, playing AIFF constantly accesses the drive and eats battery. But I like having that available.
DaveGee, that was a great post, by the way. Like I said, Crayz needs to get his hearing checked. It's what I call 'selective hearing.'
The iPod is better. No argument. The interface and the size alone. Plus, can you use any other player as a drive? Especially with USB!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I got $400 out of this as a drive. I use it every single day. I have grown to require it And does anyone else have such a such a durable iPod? I dropped mine, while playing AIFF (accessing) on the pavement twice (actually it wasn't my fault...)! Works flawlessly. Apple = craftsmenship, when they're good, they're good.
What I originally said was clearly in response to your contention that future non-Apple MP3 players will be huge, have poor battery life, and have only USB connections. I never said Apple does not innovate, and in fact in the latter part of my post pointed out that they innovated in some areas while other companies innovated in others.
Your choice to reframe this debate and stuff words into my mouth so you can reply with a canned response about Apple's past glories is pure garbage. You can either respond to the legitimate points I made in my post, or you can shut the hell up. Or, if you wish to continue looking like a blind zealot with a learning disability, you can continue with the current line of argument.
The iPod is better. No argument. The interface and the size alone. Plus, can you use any other player as a drive? Especially with USB!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I got $400 out of this as a drive. I use it every single day. I have grown to require it </strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh I totally forgot about that... I use an iPod all the time at the office. I have it loaded with a subset of songs and oh yea OS 9.2 with all the tools I need to quick fix other Macs. Hmmm when is Rio gonna do that for those wonderful WinXP users? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Crayz you need your ears checked. MP3 is GARBAGE. CRAP. I can tell the difference between dual channel 320kbps and CD. <hr></blockquote>
mp3 depends on what you encode it with. something like audio catalyst sucks balls. there are better encoders on the PC sides than the most popular per se.
iTunes seems decent. there are also audio formats about half the size of .wav that aren't lossy. so you can always go that route. every CD is maxxed out at 375 MB rather than 750.
hopefully apple will allow the iPod software updates to allow it to play other audio formats.
You're either imagining quality problems, or using one ****ty encoder. Humans in double-blind tests cannot tell the difference between high-quality MP3s and CD audio.
You're either imagining quality problems, or using one ****ty encoder. Humans in double-blind tests cannot tell the difference between high-quality MP3s and CD audio.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe for you its ok, but mp3 is garbage, it sounds horrible. Try Shorten (.shn) for true lossless compression.
MP3=just about any level of bandwidth you can mention.
While you could create an MP3 with a bitrate as high as a CD, any track iTunes can spit out in MP3 can be distinguished from CD by many people, inclduing me (with earplugs in).
Toshiba has not released a 20GB drive in the 1.8" format with the same thickness as the 5GB and 10GB drives. As a poster above mentioned, they have released a 1.8" drive with a 20GB size, but it is 3mm thicker and would not fit into the iPod case.
Apple has not lowered their price on the iPod because Toshiba hasn't really lowered theirs either. the 5GB 1.8" drive still retails from Toshiba for $399, the same price it retailed at back in November.
Apple's MP3 hard drive competition provides greater size because they don't use the smaller 1.8" drives.
I really don't think this is a case of Apple stagnating with price.
I see - perhaps this 20 GB 1.8in is three platters instead of two, and uses the new dense data tech used in the two-platter 2.5in 20 GB? Thus it is thicker.
Whichever - I do think that the PDA cum MP3 player is the iPod's destiny/
If anyone is that picky about music, ie. 320 KB/s mp3 is not good enough, even for a portable pocket device, then what the heck are you doing listening to crappy old CDs, anyway? Compared to Vinyl, or SACD, Regular old cds sound like a tin can. If you can't settle for a High quality MP3 stream, maybe you're better off not even listening to music on the go. And 10 GB is plenty enough for the vast majority of people right now. The iPod isn't useless just because it doesn't have a 100 GB HD. It works just fine for its intended purpose. Indeed, more capacity is always welcome, but the iPod stacks up quite favourable against its competitors. But you'll be waiting a long time for an iPod that will hold 2011 losslessly (?) compressed albums at 48 Khz +. Long time. Sorry for the rant.
<strong>Toshiba has not released a 20GB drive in the 1.8" format with the same thickness as the 5GB and 10GB drives. As a poster above mentioned, they have released a 1.8" drive with a 20GB size, but it is 3mm thicker and would not fit into the iPod case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
while this is true, what is stopping apple from expanding the case 3mm to accomodate 10GB more space??? i mean it is an aluminum back..not a big deal IMO... I would buy it...
<strong> [quote]Apple has not lowered their price on the iPod because Toshiba hasn't really lowered theirs either. the 5GB 1.8" drive still retails from Toshiba for $399, the same price it retailed at back in November.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is not true... just because toshiba is selling the drives $400 retail does not mean they are not making them cheaper for resellers... look @ the firefly drive that apple is giving away with "pro" computers... $100 for the drive RETAIL and they are throwing it in for FREE... so I would have to say that the 5GB drive came down in price A LOT... and so should the low end iPod... imagine the 5 giger being $199? it would ROCK and apple would still be making money... IMO it should be:
5gig-$249-$50 rebate w/mac
10gig-$399-$100 rebate w/mac
20gig-$499-$100 rebate w/mac
<strong> [quote]Apple's MP3 hard drive competition provides greater size because they don't use the smaller 1.8" drives.</strong><hr></blockquote> ditto
<strong> [quote]I really don't think this is a case of Apple stagnating with price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Assuming a 128 kbps MP3 rip, the MP3s of that collection would be about 124 gigs. Still too large for any single drive on the common market today.
I wonder if iTunes has an upper limit to its library addressing capabilities.
Of course, you probably don't want to listen to MP3s. I agree - unless you're wearing jogging headphones and you don't expect the sound to be good, MP3s aren't really worth listening to. I'd be fine with vinyl's ability to accurately capture the warmth of a good bass if it didn't STINKING DEGRADE WITH EVERY PLAY! Hmm... Maybe a tougher substance would bein order for recrods....
I haven't heard DVD-Audio myself. Assuming that each DVD holds an hour of super-quality sound, and takes up 4.7 gigs of data space...
your collection if rerecorded on DVDs would be 9451.7 gigabytes. Jeez, nine terabytes.
Hmm ,that Personal Terabyte Project doesn't sound half-bad...
No-no crayz, you can tell the difference, but you have to know what to listen for, and you have to listen on a better approximation of hi-fi than the typical electronic outlet's Japan Inc section.
Re: 20GB 1.8" drive thickness. I really don't think it would be too hard to make the iPod 3mm thicker: they could use the same face and source a slightly deeper rear plate. Simple. If anything, cost is the issue, not size.
An easy backwards compatible rip (to solve the high-frequency problems) would use MP3+/pro. The principle is similar to HDCD. Extra high-frequency info is embedded in the code. It doesn't take any more space than a regular MP3 and will play back in a regular MP3 device, but if used with an MP3+ decoder, you'll get extra sound information. The iPod's programmable decoder should facilitate some even better codecs in the future.
<strong>I bought a 10 GB iPod because I thought it would be more than enough and I didn't think I had much music to rip. Well, I've ripped most of my CDs (less than 40) and I'm about 50% full (I rip at 160 kbps).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. How many songs do you have?
I rip at 160 and my 5 gig has 1065 songs, representing around 100 full albums.
So I would expect your 10 gig unit to be able to hold about 200 albums at 160kbps.
Personally, I'm a minimalist, I'd rather see audio files get smaller and better, than the hard drives get vast ammounts bigger. Sure, more capacity is good for holding more files, but I'd way rather make the most of the space that I have. I wonder if someone could combine lossless and lossy compresson algoriths? So that you could have something the quality of say, a 256 kb MP3, (except use something that has better sound quality, like ogg or Qdesign) and then add a something like .stn on top of that, to cut the file size in half? I really don't know anything about how these codecs work, so maybe that's not even possible. Can anyone shed some light on this subject?
Comments
<strong>Well, I've ripped most of my CDs (less than 40) and I'm about 50% full (I rip at 160 kbps). I suspect the people who really are into music will have 100+ CDs, so a 20 GB iPod would what they will require.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about people REALLY into music, like me. I've been buying CDs for longer than the Mac has existed, and have over 2100.
The main difference so far that I can tell, is percussion sounds tinny, sometimes with a high-pitched whine (only from PC encoded MP3, perhaps that's another issue!) percussion, like in punk, sounds like a sucking swoosh sound. You CAN hear it. I am anal about audio quality though. This is why I bought the iPod. The only thing is, playing AIFF constantly accesses the drive and eats battery. But I like having that available.
DaveGee, that was a great post, by the way. Like I said, Crayz needs to get his hearing checked. It's what I call 'selective hearing.'
The iPod is better. No argument. The interface and the size alone. Plus, can you use any other player as a drive? Especially with USB!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I got $400 out of this as a drive. I use it every single day. I have grown to require it
Now, 20Gb iPod? Yes please
What I originally said was clearly in response to your contention that future non-Apple MP3 players will be huge, have poor battery life, and have only USB connections. I never said Apple does not innovate, and in fact in the latter part of my post pointed out that they innovated in some areas while other companies innovated in others.
Your choice to reframe this debate and stuff words into my mouth so you can reply with a canned response about Apple's past glories is pure garbage. You can either respond to the legitimate points I made in my post, or you can shut the hell up. Or, if you wish to continue looking like a blind zealot with a learning disability, you can continue with the current line of argument.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: crayz ]</p>
<strong>
The iPod is better. No argument. The interface and the size alone. Plus, can you use any other player as a drive? Especially with USB!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I got $400 out of this as a drive. I use it every single day. I have grown to require it
Heh I totally forgot about that... I use an iPod all the time at the office. I have it loaded with a subset of songs and oh yea OS 9.2 with all the tools I need to quick fix other Macs. Hmmm when is Rio gonna do that for those wonderful WinXP users? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave
mp3 depends on what you encode it with. something like audio catalyst sucks balls. there are better encoders on the PC sides than the most popular per se.
iTunes seems decent. there are also audio formats about half the size of .wav that aren't lossy. so you can always go that route. every CD is maxxed out at 375 MB rather than 750.
hopefully apple will allow the iPod software updates to allow it to play other audio formats.
-alcimedes
You're either imagining quality problems, or using one ****ty encoder. Humans in double-blind tests cannot tell the difference between high-quality MP3s and CD audio.
<strong>Aqua go to r3mix.net
You're either imagining quality problems, or using one ****ty encoder. Humans in double-blind tests cannot tell the difference between high-quality MP3s and CD audio.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe for you its ok, but mp3 is garbage, it sounds horrible. Try Shorten (.shn) for true lossless compression.
CD=44.1KHz 16 bit
MP3=just about any level of bandwidth you can mention.
While you could create an MP3 with a bitrate as high as a CD, any track iTunes can spit out in MP3 can be distinguished from CD by many people, inclduing me (with earplugs in).
Apple has not lowered their price on the iPod because Toshiba hasn't really lowered theirs either. the 5GB 1.8" drive still retails from Toshiba for $399, the same price it retailed at back in November.
Apple's MP3 hard drive competition provides greater size because they don't use the smaller 1.8" drives.
I really don't think this is a case of Apple stagnating with price.
Whichever - I do think that the PDA cum MP3 player is the iPod's destiny/
<strong>
What about people REALLY into music, like me. I've been buying CDs for longer than the Mac has existed, and have over 2100.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time for a XXXGB iPod! (holy **** that's a lot of cd's)
You people who think you can tell the difference are fools.
not everyone can hear the exact same range of sounds. 20->20K is the avg.
also, im not sure, but i think that cds are the equiv of around 192k (maybe 200), so ripping an mp3 to hi'r is a waist of tyme.
"hack the planet"
<strong>Toshiba has not released a 20GB drive in the 1.8" format with the same thickness as the 5GB and 10GB drives. As a poster above mentioned, they have released a 1.8" drive with a 20GB size, but it is 3mm thicker and would not fit into the iPod case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
while this is true, what is stopping apple from expanding the case 3mm to accomodate 10GB more space??? i mean it is an aluminum back..not a big deal IMO... I would buy it...
<strong> [quote]Apple has not lowered their price on the iPod because Toshiba hasn't really lowered theirs either. the 5GB 1.8" drive still retails from Toshiba for $399, the same price it retailed at back in November.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is not true... just because toshiba is selling the drives $400 retail does not mean they are not making them cheaper for resellers... look @ the firefly drive that apple is giving away with "pro" computers... $100 for the drive RETAIL and they are throwing it in for FREE... so I would have to say that the 5GB drive came down in price A LOT... and so should the low end iPod... imagine the 5 giger being $199? it would ROCK and apple would still be making money... IMO it should be:
5gig-$249-$50 rebate w/mac
10gig-$399-$100 rebate w/mac
20gig-$499-$100 rebate w/mac
<strong> [quote]Apple's MP3 hard drive competition provides greater size because they don't use the smaller 1.8" drives.</strong><hr></blockquote> ditto
<strong> [quote]I really don't think this is a case of Apple stagnating with price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
see above
1247 gigabytes. Uncompressed of course.
Assuming a 128 kbps MP3 rip, the MP3s of that collection would be about 124 gigs. Still too large for any single drive on the common market today.
I wonder if iTunes has an upper limit to its library addressing capabilities.
Of course, you probably don't want to listen to MP3s. I agree - unless you're wearing jogging headphones and you don't expect the sound to be good, MP3s aren't really worth listening to. I'd be fine with vinyl's ability to accurately capture the warmth of a good bass if it didn't STINKING DEGRADE WITH EVERY PLAY! Hmm... Maybe a tougher substance would bein order for recrods....
I haven't heard DVD-Audio myself. Assuming that each DVD holds an hour of super-quality sound, and takes up 4.7 gigs of data space...
your collection if rerecorded on DVDs would be 9451.7 gigabytes. Jeez, nine terabytes.
Hmm ,that Personal Terabyte Project doesn't sound half-bad...
<drool> Terabyte iPod...
Re: 20GB 1.8" drive thickness. I really don't think it would be too hard to make the iPod 3mm thicker: they could use the same face and source a slightly deeper rear plate. Simple. If anything, cost is the issue, not size.
An easy backwards compatible rip (to solve the high-frequency problems) would use MP3+/pro. The principle is similar to HDCD. Extra high-frequency info is embedded in the code. It doesn't take any more space than a regular MP3 and will play back in a regular MP3 device, but if used with an MP3+ decoder, you'll get extra sound information. The iPod's programmable decoder should facilitate some even better codecs in the future.
<strong>
Time for a XXXGB iPod! (holy **** that's a lot of cd's)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I need a multi-terabyte iPod!!
<strong>I bought a 10 GB iPod because I thought it would be more than enough and I didn't think I had much music to rip. Well, I've ripped most of my CDs (less than 40) and I'm about 50% full (I rip at 160 kbps).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. How many songs do you have?
I rip at 160 and my 5 gig has 1065 songs, representing around 100 full albums.
So I would expect your 10 gig unit to be able to hold about 200 albums at 160kbps.