N is for Napster N is for NUTS!!!!



  • Reply 41 of 44

    Originally posted by e1618978

    Also, if you use lossless compression, it does not take very many CDs to fill up an ipod - my iPod mini holds between 80 and 90 songs using AIFF.

    That's why you use Apple Lossless Encoding. Never tried it on the iPod, though.

    Of course, the difference between lossless and AAC 192 is probably blurred by imperfections in the headphones and the fact that digital audio filtering (to turn it into analog signals) adds a bit of harmonic noise no matter how you slice it. Last I checked, no audio device on the market was using spline-based filters yet. It should happen soon, though.

    Anyway, there's really no point to have your end format be lossless when AAC 192 is as close as the ear can tell.
  • Reply 42 of 44
    *cheesey smile* and now with poisoned, i don't pay a damn thing. The latest rap track with some hard core bondage movies on the side? Not a problem.
  • Reply 43 of 44
    meecesmeeces Posts: 160member
    What struck me about that ad was just the design of the units. On the napster side were these machines that didn't look nearly as easy/elegant as the iPod. I'm looking at that and thinking, I want the iPod, even if I weren't an apple fan.
  • Reply 44 of 44
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    I think they really skirted the line of truth-in-advertising, and the sad thing was that their obfuscation probably impressed a lot of non-techy iPod owners. Which is most of them, after all. Someone at my SB gathering, who's just starting to shop at iTMS, said "I can download as much as I want for 15 bucks a month? That would rock!" I explained the catches briefly, and they were like "Oh. That sucks." But how many millions of people don't have one of us to explain that Napster is a bunch of lying bastards?
Sign In or Register to comment.