Apple's 3G iPod shuffle reviewed: a step too far?

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 128
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shunnabunich View Post


    because that is the direction they're actively pursuing here. It already feels like morse code, they just haven't gone all the way yet. If anything, the reviewer was being just a little too apologetic, but thankfully nowhere near the distasteful depths of igroveling dan dilger stooped to in his recent article on the shuffle.



    . -..- .- --. --. . .-. .- - . -- ..- -.-. .... ..--..



  • Reply 42 of 128
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    . . .
  • Reply 43 of 128
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    First of all, Lossless doesn't indicate the quality of the audio, only that the codec used has not reduced the quality when it was encoded. Your assertion that you can't tell the difference on the Shuffle between 128kbps audio and Lossless files from CDs while using good headphones is laughable. I can hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps AAC on my 2G shuffle.



    But you won't be hearing lossless sound at it's optimum with those headphones. Why not listen to stereo via a tin can then ? You'll be able to hear a difference on that as well. My point is lossless deserves better if your going to have it. But these headphones have not an received audio review up to snuff to even deserve lossless.



    Quote:

    The real plus of having Apple Lossless on the 3G Shuffle is that I can go back to having a single music library and not have to use manage separate libraries using lower bitrate lossy audio because the player cannot handle the load. The Shuffle has always (and still has) an option to convert to 128kbps. If I get tired of the duplicates I may just get the new Shuffle.



    Is it that hard to make a dedicated playlist called shuffle with just 256 kkbps in it?





    Quote:

    No, I'm talking about the in-line controller on the headphones that come with the Shuffle and iPhone.



    And if your left handed? Anyway it doesn't matter because it's on a cord that jiggles.
  • Reply 44 of 128
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    . . .



    Hey- how did you manage a blank page?
  • Reply 45 of 128
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Hey- how did you manage a blank page?



    If you look at the code, it is light blue on light gray. And the periods are tiny, so they're hard to see.



    testing
  • Reply 46 of 128
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    If you look at the code, it is light blue on light gray. And the periods are tiny, so they're hard to see.



    testing



    Ooh, thanks for the trick for retraction.
  • Reply 47 of 128
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    But you won't be hearing lossless sound at it's optimum with those headphones.



    The quality of the original audio that it was encoded with is moot point as I clearly stated that having multiple tracks of the same songs for different players is not pleasant for organization. If your statement that Lossless files copied from HQ audio will not shine on the Shuffle then that argument will hold for all iPods and pretty much every PMP available.



    But I didn't copy my audio from HW audio sources, I copied them from CDs I owned as i wanted to have a master copy that did not remove any data from the files. I own better than average headphones and can't hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and Apple Lossless copied from CDs. Should I be copying all my audio over to 256kbps AAC because that is the now? Perhaps in the future I'll get a better player or better headphones or be given Calculon's ears by the Robot Devil. It's best to have a quality master copy and since I don't put all my music on my PMPs I can easily store the ~1Mbps files.



    Note: If you take a bunch of audio files of the exact same song in different lossy codecs and bitrates, then convert each one to lossless the size will be about the same regardless of the lossy quality or codec used. It will be about 1Mb per second of audio. For this reason it's not good to refer to the audio of a lossless track as being higher quality as it doesn't dictate the originating audio quality. It's only preserving the original audio but it's also not going to make your audio any higher quality than it was when encoded it. Why would anyone convert low quality audio to lossless? it surely wouldn't make any sense to, but the point is that seeing a lossless file doesn't not mean that it's high quality audio, only that the file has not lost audio data when it was encoded.



    Quote:

    Why not listen to stereo via a tin can then ? You'll be able to hear a difference on that as well. My point is lossless deserves better if your going to have it. But these headphones have not an received audio review up to snuff to even deserve lossless.



    First of all, any credibility as a poster goes out the with hyperbolic statements equating the Shuffle with a tin can. Secondly, I guarantee that will hear the difference between Apple Loss and 128kbps, the level in which it will automatically convert audio, on the device. Finally, I've already made mention that I have in-ear phones for my iphone with in-line controls. Ones that sound good for $79, albeit low on bass.



    Quote:

    Is it that hard to make a dedicated playlist called shuffle with just 256 kkbps in it?



    Hard? No, but I've explained twice now why I don't want to have multiple codecs and bitrates in my library.



    Quote:

    And if your left handed? Anyway it doesn't matter because it's on a cord that jiggles.



    I'm right handed and wish the controls were on the left-hand side. it would be easier to grab that side with my right hand as I'd have to crock my hand in a little less (I just tested this). But the difference is very minimal and certainly easier than reaching across your body to your sleeve or going to your hip while jogging.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Hey- how did you manage a blank page?



    I didn't. I put in 3 dots seperated by spaces which is the 5 character minimum for this forum. I then changed the font colour to light blue so it mostly matchs the background.
  • Reply 48 of 128
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Ooh, thanks for the trick for retraction.



    You'll still have to go advance to uncheck Show your signature. I assume that vBulletin has a delete feature, I wonder why they don't use it.
  • Reply 49 of 128
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Has the reviewer ever actually ran?

    Nothing bounces or jiggles more than headphone wires. A player snapped to your waistband doesn't move at all and the 2G controls were entirely intuitive unlike this shuffle.



    Yea, maybe at your waistband, but not anywhere else. Obviously, one's arms and legs are always moving when running. At least an earphone remote always floats in front of your shoulder. You can grab it without interrupting your movement (except for one hand of course).



    Not that I really love this new design. 3/5 seems like a reasonable score. Maybe they should have kept the buttons, but made the remote headphones standard. Or, made two different versions available. I might pick one up anyway for working out - I only need something small, durable, able to do the occasional track skip, etc. I'm just afraid I might accidentally swallow this new version when exercising.
  • Reply 50 of 128
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post


    Or, made two different versions available.



    As you wish...
  • Reply 51 of 128
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frugality View Post


    It's a silly design. Now that even the controls have been taken off of the unit, and the unit is so small, Apple might has well have done an all-in-the-headphones design. One of those over-the-ear things, with the controls on one earpiece. Having this little Chicklet stick that you have to clip somewhere doesn't make much sense. Just get rid of the cords altogether, except for one going behind the head to connect the 2 earpieces.



    I prefer my previous-generation Shuffle. The voice-over is cool, though, as is the multiple playlists. But the physical design of this new Shuffle is silly.



    I bet the new shuffle is no more heavier than its headphone. Sometimes you need the weight and size to justify your presence. If extremely small, why not just go straight invisible. So this is not a step too far but a step not that far enough. But I don't think Apple would ever make a complicated headphone with all controls in it. It is just not Apple.
  • Reply 52 of 128
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rasnet View Post


    I am reminded of this strip from the webcomic Bob & George



    How about the Mactini - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noe3kR8KqJc



    sound familiar?
  • Reply 53 of 128
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    I think the new Shuffle is a step backwards. Adding more storage doesn't help when it's still difficult to navigate through the music. The bottom line is that you need a visual guide to navigate a lot of music tracks just like you need two physical buttons on a mouse to reliably interact with a computer. Apple's workarounds just don't cut it.



    Putting the controls on the headphones is stupid because as someone mentioned, unless you're a woman without a bra on or a fat guy without a corset, the headphone cable jiggles around the most when jogging. The ipod itself is always fastened securely in a known position.



    Even assuming they wanted to go with the in-line controls, why didn't they add a 3.5mm jack to the top of the control box so that you could use any headphones?



    For the price the Shuffle is, they should have come up with something better. Even a single line OLED screen or a mini gesture pad like you get on the laptops where you click to play/stop. Swipe up/down for volume, left/right to change track, 2 finger swipe to change playlist etc. There wouldn't have to be a button really, as you could tap the side to start playing. 2-finger tap could read the current song out.



    Also, having an audible battery indicator would be nice too. One of my relatives has the 2G model and they say it just dies. The light changes color but only after it's dead.
  • Reply 54 of 128
    cesjrcesjr Posts: 23member
    Frankly I hate reviews that have such a personal bent. Obviously people feel differently about this shuffle. Some people really like it (I do). Your job as a reviewer is write for a general audience, including people that might like the choices and tradeoffs apple made. Not justify your own strong opinions. I also hate it when reviews have an air of "objectivity" but they really aren't. Some people simply can't be objective - their own personal wants and desires just always carry the day. Seems like this writer is one of those. If you want to see how a real pro does it - always keeping his audience in mind - read Walt Mossberg. He's the best there is in my book, even if occasionally he gets it wrong (just occasionally mind you). He gave the new shuffle a good review by the way.
  • Reply 55 of 128
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    How about the Mactini - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noe3kR8KqJc



    sound familiar?



    very funny- added to my favs
  • Reply 56 of 128
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mason2046 View Post


    I bet the new shuffle is no more heavier than its headphone. Sometimes you need the weight and size to justify your presence. If extremely small, why not just go straight invisible. So this is not a step too far but a step not that far enough. But I don't think Apple would ever make a complicated headphone with all controls in it. It is just not Apple.



    Actually it's too heavy, so off to the gym.

    Wait, I'll need this new shuffle to tell me at the gym "one more Rep! Come on - you can do it!"

    OMG-I'm in a Catch22: I want it; I don't want it. What should I do??

    Too much coffee.
  • Reply 57 of 128
    zeasarzeasar Posts: 91member
    Seriously to those who complains about the new controls, have you guys ever used the iphone's in-line controls? I have and I love it, and I only have to skip once or twice during my trip to work everyday.



    How many of you have the need to skip songs on a regular basis? If you dont like certain songs, dont put it in the playlist in the first place!



    Oh and I must say most people (not pulling random numbers out of my arse like 99% shit) that I come across uses the apple ear phone, infact one of my friend wont even consider a 3rd party earphone when her store ones broke.
  • Reply 58 of 128
    bill_fbill_f Posts: 6member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I think the new Shuffle is a step backwards. Adding more storage doesn't help when it's still difficult to navigate through the music. The bottom line is that you need a visual guide to navigate a lot of music tracks just like you need two physical buttons on a mouse to reliably interact with a computer. Apple's workarounds just don't cut it.



    We are obviously going to disagree, but how on earth do you control which songs you listen too on the old 2G shuffle containing 400 songs? On the 3G shuffle navigation is easy (and easier when you are on the move than walking in front of cars while gazing at a list on the nano. Once manufacturers have an adaptor so you can plug it into your car it will be much safer than looking at visual playlists plus all new ipods since September 2008 will be able to use this feature). You might have 10 playlists of songs you might choose by mood, situation etc and its easy to swap between them with the audible prompts. Choose a song in a playlist? - just pause the song, double click for next song audible prompt, double click if thats not the one you want etc.



    Of course to find 1 song in 400 is difficult if its not on a particular playlist but at least it is better than the old shuffle where the only real control you used are play/pause, shuffle and volume.
  • Reply 59 of 128
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member
    I think it was absolutely great that they removed that tacky wheel. You now controll the whole thing with three buttons, right? That's fine with me. What they should have done is to make the whole iPod a 3-button controller, with pressure sensitive areas similar to the mighty mouse. Top, bottom and middle, and designed it so that you could feel with your fingertips where you were squeezing the iPod while not looking at it. This way the whole thing could be operated without a peripheral, but still have the exact same functionality.
  • Reply 60 of 128
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zeasar View Post


    Seriously to those who complains about the new controls, have you guys ever used the iphone's in-line controls? I have and I love it, and I only have to skip once or twice during my trip to work everyday.



    How many of you have the need to skip songs on a regular basis? If you dont like certain songs, dont put it in the playlist in the first place!



    There are some flaws with argument the last line. For one, iTunes can "autofill" the Shuffle. The user might not be aware of what goes onto it at dock time, not without reading line by line what made it into the device. Another is that a song good for one mood might not be suitable for another.
Sign In or Register to comment.