iPod DOA :(
My sister totally surprised me by getting me a 40 Gig iPod for my birthday. Unfortunately it would not boot up and I had to take it back to the Apple store for a replacement. Anyone know if there have been a lot of problems with the 4G iPods, or was my experience a fluke ?
The replacement is working fine, and now my only problem is trying to decide what bit rate to use for ripping my 400 CDs. I had been using 320 when I ripped them to my powerbook, but I just kept a few CDs on it. If I want to fit all 400 CDs on my iPod I'll have to use a lower bit rate.
I have been told that higher bit rates will drain the battery faster, is that true?
The replacement is working fine, and now my only problem is trying to decide what bit rate to use for ripping my 400 CDs. I had been using 320 when I ripped them to my powerbook, but I just kept a few CDs on it. If I want to fit all 400 CDs on my iPod I'll have to use a lower bit rate.
I have been told that higher bit rates will drain the battery faster, is that true?
Comments
Originally posted by Res
I had been using 320 when I ripped them to my powerbook, but I just kept a few CDs on it.
320 - Overkill - go listen to a CD
192 - If you really want to let your hair down
160 - In the words of Goldilocks "Ah, just right".
Originally posted by crazychester
320 - Overkill - go listen to a CD
192 - If you really want to let your hair down
160 - In the words of Goldilocks "Ah, just right".
224 variable. I have 2,000 songs and only 13 gigs used. I think you're okay with a 40G on space.
Oh, and 160 sucks, anything below 192 is unlistenable; to be fair I have better headphones than the stock ipod ones though, so discrepencies are more noticeable.
Originally posted by Spytap
224 variable. I have 2,000 songs and only 13 gigs used. I think you're okay with a 40G on space.
Oh, and 160 sucks, anything below 192 is unlistenable; to be fair I have better headphones than the stock ipod ones though, so discrepencies are more noticeable.
Yeah? Well I've got better than the stock headphones too and a set of studio monitors and a helluva a lot more than 2000 songs and a fabulous set of tits to boot. And I bet I've got you beat on at least one of those scores.
Wankity wankity wank wank wank......
Yeah? Well I've got better than the stock headphones too and a set of studio monitors and a helluva a lot more than 2000 songs and a fabulous set of tits to boot. And I bet I've got you beat on at least one of those scores.
That's a really funny response
Oh, and 160 sucks, anything below 192 is unlistenable; to be fair I have better headphones than the stock ipod ones though, so discrepencies are more noticeable.
Oh uh Audiophile alert! I probably have tin ears because I have no problems with tracks at 128k. I guess I tend to look at it like this. Even with lossy compression the modern tracks we have access to sound better than CDs a decade ago. Then again I'm not listening to a lot of strings or orchestral music which really is hard for shabby encoders to handle correctly. Mainstream pop music...no sweat it's all compressed and limited to "punch" through the radio waves.
I also must admit that when walking around the city and going to the gym or waiting on a shuttle with all the street noise, I just don't hear any difference between 192 ACC and lossless. I'm sure there is a difference and my ears are far from perfect, but for the average person in living in a noise-filled world, ACC ?128 works just fine. IMHO
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I just mentioned in another thread that apple lossless will really suck you battery dry on the iPod.
yeah, because then the ipod has to cache the whole song, and since the iPod only has a 30 MB buffer, and 1 song with lossless is about 20 MB, you're giving the HD a helluva workout
I just don't hear any difference between 192 ACC and lossless. I'm sure there is a difference and my ears are far from perfect, but for the average person in living in a noise-filled world, ACC ?128 works just fine. IMHO
i used to have to have my cds ripped at at least 192 AAC, but i listen at 128 now, and it sounds just fine
Originally posted by Spytap
Oh, and 160 sucks, anything below 192 is unlistenable;
Not if you're in a car, or on public transportation, or riding a bike, or jogging, or walking down a busy street....
Originally posted by bunge
Not if you're in a car, or on public transportation, or riding a bike, or jogging, or walking down a busy street....
Exactly. I can tell the difference when siting in my studio, but in my car or riding a bus or subway? I can't even tell the difference between cassette tape and CDs under those conditions.
I've been comparing the different rates and will probably go with a mix of 192 and 128. That should let me get all of my music onto the 40Gig iPod.
Originally posted by crazychester
Yeah? Well I've got better than the stock headphones too and a set of studio monitors and a helluva a lot more than 2000 songs and a fabulous set of tits to boot. And I bet I've got you beat on at least one of those scores.
Wankity wankity wank wank wank......
LOL, to each their own
You're using MP3? Why? And 2000 songs is kiddy stuff.
"Unlistenable". And I suppose a 29" television is "unwatchable" and a six cylinder car is "undriveable".
What a spoiled little boy. Boo hoo.
Wow, what crawled up your ass? No need to be a dick about it.
What I said has no bearing on what car I drive or TV I watch, nor does my descision cost more, so I'm not sure where you're getting "spoiled" from unless it's just an excuse to be mad about someting. I wasn't complaining that my Daddy bought me the wrong kind or that Mommy didn't understand that I needed a new powerbok, so STFU. I have a listening preference, especially because most of my listening is done in a quiet office or in a very very quiet car. Disagree all your want, choose to do something else, that's fine. Don't start name-calling at the drop of a hat though, you just look petty and stupid.
Originally posted by tonton
You're using MP3? Why?
I'll answer this, even though it was posed as part of an insult, and not really a question.
Because my iPod is a 2nd gen 20 Gig, and it doesn't support Apple Lossless. I find that 224 Variable is the best way to get the best sound without killing the battery life. If the iPod supported some other standards, I might consider them, but at this juncture, it works out the best for what I use it for. Any problems with that or just feeling the need to disagree?
And 2000 songs is kiddy stuff.
Dude, if you feel the need to whip it out in public, just go for it; at least that'll keep you from needing to "compare things".
I wasn't trying to point out that I had "more MP3s than anyone else, yay!" I was commenting on the space needs of the original poster; you know, the guy who asked a question. I was saying that with 2,000 songs, with the vast majority at 224 variable, I used 13 gigs of space, and he would be fine on space with a higher bitrate with 400 CDs and a 40 Gig.
Jeez, the idiots are out on full force, must be a full-moon again.
Originally posted by bunge
Not if you're in a car, or on public transportation, or riding a bike, or jogging, or walking down a busy street....
I use it mostly for a very quiet office, and a very very quiet car. In my office, it's definitely noticeable, and in my car, having a higher bitrate keeps it from clipping, especially to the subwoofer on the lowest notes.
Originally posted by Spytap
And congratulations on the tits, I've been looking for a nice set myself
You should speak to Powerdoc. He might even do you some kind of AI member discount.
Originally posted by tonton
You're using MP3?
Originally posted by Spytap
Because my iPod is a 2nd gen 20 Gig, and it doesn't support Apple Lossless.
He's asking you why aren't you using AAC (m4a) which your 2G does support and which is better quality and only marginally bigger file sizes.
Originally posted by crazychester
He's asking you why aren't you using AAC (m4a) which your 2G does support and which is better quality and only marginally bigger file sizes.
i was under the assumption that aac was better quality at a smaller file size, or is that only for low bit rate (128 kbs) aacs?
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
i was under the assumption that aac was better quality at a smaller file size, or is that only for low bit rate (128 kbs) aacs?
In the absence of suggestions to the contrary, I would believe mattjohndrow if I were you Spytap as I am old and stupid and the only details I reliably remember re: this sort of stuff, is something along the lines of "Ugh AAC good" "Grunt mp3 not so good". Everything else is like"file size something or other, bit rate blah blah blah". I regularly have to check how to do stuff on computer that I've done thousands of times before. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure AAC is compatible with the 2G iPod. I just have some vague recollection I think it is.
In short, I'm half talking through my arse at any given time.
But you're still a wanker for calling 160 unlistenable.
If you've got the room, why not rip as big as you can?