1GB - 240 songs? Can only get 75 on.

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
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

  • Reply 1 of 15
    The quote of 240 songs is based on 128kbps AAC and an average 4 minute song length, so yes you would need to reduce the bit rate of your music to fit more songs on (obviously this would reduce quality also). It may also be you have longer songs, such as remixes or live versions which tend to be longer.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spartanswin


    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?



  • Reply 2 of 15
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    don't lower your quality, you're on a good track. up your GB on your player, don't down your music.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    hujibhujib Posts: 117member
    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!
  • Reply 4 of 15
    rhoqrhoq Posts: 190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hujib


    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.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    rhoqrhoq Posts: 190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandau


    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.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rhoq


    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.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    hujibhujib Posts: 117member
    to add to the last post, one of the key factors people ALWAYS leave out is what you're listening to the music on. Daily I listen to music on my car stereo, iPod earbuds, clock radio and $3000 studio monitors - the quality of source file only matters on the studio monitors and car stereo on occasion. I find it hard to believe that someone could tell the difference between AAC 128k and a CD quality 16-bit 44.1 wav file on iPod earbuds. Also, my comment about realtime conversion for iPod use was intended for people who are using the iPod with headphones not plugging it into an external set of speakers... I see it as an option not standard.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    bah, IT GOES TO ELEVEN!



  • Reply 10 of 15
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandau


    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
  • Reply 11 of 15
    That's because the Apple supplied earbuds are relatively lame. Listen to your music on any decent pair of headphones or a hi-fi system and you should be able to pick the difference...the music just doesn't sound as rich or full. This may not matter to you but if you're an audiophile it matters a lot!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hujib View Post


    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!



  • Reply 12 of 15
    I think the point here is that you should choose what bit rate you're satisfied with. If it's 128kbps fair enough...if someone will only listen to Apple Lossless then that's their choice. I find 256kpbs to be a good compromise between quality and size (I do intend to listen to my music through a half-decent sound system as well as an iPod with good quality speakers). I also have some music in Lossless because I make compile CDs a lot and want them to be full quality. I disagree with your last comment however...for me there is nothing more distracting than poor sound quality and it really detracts from the music.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    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.



  • Reply 13 of 15
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hujib View Post


    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
  • Reply 14 of 15
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hujib View Post


    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.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macaddict16 View Post


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.