1GB - 240 songs? Can only get 75 on.
Ok - i'm a new iPod user. I have a 1GB Nano and I'm getting ready to upgrade to a 4 or 8GB but first i want to figure out something...how are you supposed to get 240 songs on a 1GB Nano?? All my music files are mp3 format downloaded at 192kps - do i need to download at a lower quality to get more? or is there a format i can convert them to?
Comments
Ok - i'm a new iPod user. I have a 1GB Nano and I'm getting ready to upgrade to a 4 or 8GB but first i want to figure out something...how are you supposed to get 240 songs on a 1GB Nano?? All my music files are mp3 format downloaded at 192kps - do i need to download at a lower quality to get more? or is there a format i can convert them to?
Perhaps down the road we'll see some realtime conversion so when you dump files to your portable device it'll dumb them down to AAC 128 or similar
God, I hope not. I refuse to listen to anything less than 192kbps. That seems to be my "sweet spot". To me, at 192 compression is barely noticeable, if at all. Any bit rate below that sounds like garbage.
there is a HUGE difference between 128k AAC and 128k MP3. 128k AAC is near CD quality. don't confuse the two. the itunes music is pretty awesome quality, close to 320k MP3 in comparison.
No Way. 128kbps aac is maybe near 160kbps MP3 audio quality, nothing more. What iTunes does have going for it is that it's compression algorithms are some of the best on the market, so in general, iTunes rips sound better than most of it's competitors.
God, I hope not. I refuse to listen to anything less than 192kbps. That seems to be my "sweet spot". To me, at 192 compression is barely noticeable, if at all. Any bit rate below that sounds like garbage.
Whaa? 192 is CD quality and, say, 160 is garbage? How can that be? It seems to me that this is the audio equivalent of the "my dick is bigger" mhz wars of the past 10 years. People made a big deal of 1 ghz vs. 1.2 ghz, when it really didn't matter that much, except as bragging rights. I always say that I like music, not sound. Sure, CD quality is noticeably better than compressed, but it's the music that really counts. If you're listening for sound quality, you're missing the music.
there is a HUGE difference between 128k AAC and 128k MP3. 128k AAC is near CD quality. don't confuse the two. the itunes music is pretty awesome quality, close to 320k MP3 in comparison.
here here this needs to be said to combat dis-information
I can't tell (using the included Apple earbuds) the difference between an AAC 128 file and a 16bit 44.1 wav file. Perhaps down the road we'll see some realtime conversion so when you dump files to your portable device it'll dumb them down to AAC 128 or similar when you sync, keeping your computer based library at higher res. The same idea could be applied to video content as well.. Bring on the powah!
Whaa? 192 is CD quality and, say, 160 is garbage? How can that be? It seems to me that this is the audio equivalent of the "my dick is bigger" mhz wars of the past 10 years. People made a big deal of 1 ghz vs. 1.2 ghz, when it really didn't matter that much, except as bragging rights. I always say that I like music, not sound. Sure, CD quality is noticeably better than compressed, but it's the music that really counts. If you're listening for sound quality, you're missing the music.
Perhaps down the road we'll see some realtime conversion so when you dump files to your portable device it'll dumb them down to AAC 128 or similar when you sync, keeping your computer based library at higher res...
I thought iTunes already did that for the Shuffle. It has been about a year since I used a shuffle, but I thought that was already an option. Maybe they removed the feature? Maybe I am just smoking something I shouldn't be.
Macaddict16
I can't tell (using the included Apple earbuds) the difference between an AAC 128 file and a 16bit 44.1 wav file. Perhaps down the road we'll see some realtime conversion so when you dump files to your portable device it'll dumb them down to AAC 128 or similar when you sync, keeping your computer based library at higher res. The same idea could be applied to video content as well.. Bring on the powah!
That is beacuse your iPod earbuds are so small. Plug your iPod into large high-output speakers and blast it and it will sound awful.
I thought iTunes already did that for the Shuffle. It has been about a year since I used a shuffle, but I thought that was already an option. Maybe they removed the feature? Maybe I am just smoking something I shouldn't be.
Macaddict16
You are quite right about this. And I would guess that putting high bit-rate music on the shuffle is a waste anyway because there is commonly a slight hiss in the background. It's hardly noticable most of the time. But since the sound quality is not perfect anyway... I've heard that the new shuffle is much worse in this respect. By all means, check this option if you want to have a high bit-rate library (for when you're plugged into your home stereo or for syncing to your 5Gen iPod), but still want to put a reasonably sized playlist on your shuffle.