But what does that mean from a playback standpoint?
(not a tech-minded audiophile; I seriously don't know what that means)
It would just mean HW inferior wouldn't be able to accurate recreate the audio files accurately. Imagine listening to music through the iPhones mono speaker or some cheap clock radio. That said, it Stephenbw is suggesting that then he'd be wrong as iLounge has detailed the sound quality from the iPods and have found them to be quite good.
I feel like Apple should release some new iPod to replace the classic called something Apple-ish like iPod X to mark the 10th anniversary... They seem to love their X's... It'll be interesting to see what they come up with on Tuesday ala Touch/Nano/Shuffle/Classic and what does get discontinued if any.
That's a good idea. Personally, I really hope they don't drop the Classic. I'm one of those people that likes to have their entire iTunes collection at hand. Especially now since I travel for 4 weeks at a time. Really, I only need about 60-80Gb of space, since I can keep movies and TV on my iPad2.
What I think would be cool...a larger format iPod Nano. Just like the nano with a bigger screen and storage capacity, radio, etc. No apps, just a media device.
Also, the Touch in 128Gb would be nice, but I already have an iPhone, and that would be a pointless purchase for me. All I need is a large capacity Audio device that I can easily operate if it's in my coat pocket on the go, without having to look at it to operate.
They really need to just combine the Shuffle and Nano into a single device and offer a 4Gb for $49.
Ditto. I love my iPhone, it does a lot of fantastic things, but it's not a very good iPod.
I use my Classic everyday. The large capacity and the physical controls are a godsend when on the go. When at work, going for a run, at the gym, cycling, in the car, etc, it's a superior experience. Most of the time, if I'm using an iPod, I'm also doing things that make a touchscreen an annoyance at best, and some times even a hazard. I'm also most likely to be somewhere where cell reception is poor or non existant. On road trips (or any time I'm away from my computer for more than a day), having all of your music with you is fantastic.
The spinning platter itself I'm not married to, but it's still a lot more durable than the iPhone that's made of glass! I've dropped my Classic on pavement more times than I can count and it just keeps on working.
Ideally, what I'd like to see Apple do is resurrect the 5th gen iPod Nano form factor, with 160GB or larger flash storage. Until flash memory prices come down enough to allow such a creature to sell for $300 or less, the current Classic needs to stay. What I definitely don't want, is a larger capacity Touch.
Not to agree with ConrdJoe, but yeah, using an iPod Classic *is* soooo 20th century.
In fact the main reason Apple might want to discontinue it is that beyond the click-wheel, there is literally nothing unique or interesting about the product at all. iPod Classic copies are available almost anywhere for a variety of price points. You could even make your own for less than the Classic costs with off the shelf parts and software, all freely available.
If it bothers you that it's gone, go buy one from any of a hundred other manufacturers, or geek out and make your own. It's just a hard drive. A bit-bucket by another name.
Apple is about the future and not the past.
You're missing one additional point though. Most people can't just go out and buy another Manuf's device because it won't sync to iTunes.
Best case scenario, they drop the Classic but make another hard drive based iPod with an elongated screen like the Zune 120. Last we heard, Toshiba was phasing out the 160GB drives in the current Classic in favour of their new 240GB one, which is compatible with the same hardware. That, at the same price point as the current Classic, would be sweet. Plus things to make it feel like its from 2011, like wifi syncing, maybe bluetooth, etc. My smartphone won't be replacing my Classic until such large capacities of Flash memory are cheap and the battery won't shit out before the day is through due to music listening, so that will be a long time in the coming.
why would they INCREASE the storage? It has enough already. and for those who do need a bigger capacity (I.E. my friend who owns about 5000 CDs)...they'll need at least 2 TB iPod Classic to use one.
But I do like your comment about maybe doing something like the Zune 120. I said kind of the same thing in one of my earlier posts.
It would just mean HW inferior wouldn't be able to accurate recreate the audio files accurately. Imagine listening to music through the iPhones mono speaker or some cheap clock radio. That said, it Stephenbw is suggesting that then he'd be wrong as iLounge has detailed the sound quality from the iPods and have found them to be quite good.
Yes, the sound from my iPod touch is quite good; just not as good as that from my iPod Classic.
And, unlike the Classic, the Touch does not have a graphic equaliser to adapt the sound to suit the speakers.
I thought he was implying the audio HW in the Touch isn't as good as in the Classic.
I thought so as well. That said, i believe the new classic uses cirrus DACs which audiophiles like less than the Wolfson in the latest iPhone and iPod Touch. Apple went the the cirrus when Woflson gave them some pretty poor parts for some previous gen hardware. I'd like a new classic with Wolfsons, k thx.
Edit: like these guys won't do mods on iPods anymore because of the DAC choice in the 6th gen.
Could Apple's new patent for a hybrid mechanical drive with built in NAND be not just for the future of MBPs, but also for an "iPod X" that pairs a full size touchscreen of the Touch with the storage capacity of the Classic.
Surely it wouldn't be as small or as light, but it could be a way for Apple to keep their high capacity customers whilst moving them to the iOS App Store ecosystem. This idea isn't new and has been desired by some very fervently since the Touch was first announced but without a well integrated hybrid drive I don't think it was a good idea for a device running iOS.
Don't most speakers worth their clout have physical controls for that? Not saying that Apple shouldn't add one (they very probably should).
It depends on the speakers one has access to. With my Etymotic earbuds I keep the EQ on Flat, but playing the iPod through a diminutive XMini or a TV in a Greek holiday studio it is much better to have the EQ controls afforded by the Classic
It depends on the speakers one has access to. With my Etymotic earbuds I keep the EQ on Flat, but playing the iPod through a diminutive XMini or a TV in a Greek holiday studio it is much better to have the EQ controls afforded by the Classic
Aren't EQ settings syned with the metadata of each song in your iTunes library?
Aren't EQ settings syned with the metadata of each song in your iTunes library?
I don't understand your point.
I don't need to change the EQ for each song, I just use one of the Classic's EQ presets to control the sound when playing it through media other than my earbuds.
Good. Nobody needs that much storage in a pocketable device.
Apple needs to focus on what makes them the most profits, and iCloud is the way forward.
Wow, I feel so much safer now that it is confirmed you know what I need!! Since the Classic is wrong for me, how am I going to carry my entire collection with me on long trips in the car? I guess I could go back to CDs, but knowing me, I'll crash into a school bus while changing a CD!!! The horror!
There is a reason the Classic has lasted this long. People buy them because they want them. Granted, the Classic is not the latest gee-whiz product, but it serves a very real purpose for many people. Including me, therefore I reject the notion you know what I need.
How long will it take me to upload 143gb to iCloud? Won't Apple want some money for this mass storage? Their new service may make some sense at home or office, but out on the road?
Comments
I thought he was implying the audio HW in the Touch isn't as good as in the Classic.
But what does that mean from a playback standpoint?
(not a tech-minded audiophile; I seriously don't know what that means)
But what does that mean from a playback standpoint?
(not a tech-minded audiophile; I seriously don't know what that means)
It would just mean HW inferior wouldn't be able to accurate recreate the audio files accurately. Imagine listening to music through the iPhones mono speaker or some cheap clock radio. That said, it Stephenbw is suggesting that then he'd be wrong as iLounge has detailed the sound quality from the iPods and have found them to be quite good.
I feel like Apple should release some new iPod to replace the classic called something Apple-ish like iPod X to mark the 10th anniversary... They seem to love their X's... It'll be interesting to see what they come up with on Tuesday ala Touch/Nano/Shuffle/Classic and what does get discontinued if any.
That's a good idea. Personally, I really hope they don't drop the Classic. I'm one of those people that likes to have their entire iTunes collection at hand. Especially now since I travel for 4 weeks at a time. Really, I only need about 60-80Gb of space, since I can keep movies and TV on my iPad2.
What I think would be cool...a larger format iPod Nano. Just like the nano with a bigger screen and storage capacity, radio, etc. No apps, just a media device.
Also, the Touch in 128Gb would be nice, but I already have an iPhone, and that would be a pointless purchase for me. All I need is a large capacity Audio device that I can easily operate if it's in my coat pocket on the go, without having to look at it to operate.
They really need to just combine the Shuffle and Nano into a single device and offer a 4Gb for $49.
Yep, just hook my car up to the cloud and I'm good to go!
yeah, great idea, then ATT and Verizon can soak you for all you are worth!
Ditto. I love my iPhone, it does a lot of fantastic things, but it's not a very good iPod.
I use my Classic everyday. The large capacity and the physical controls are a godsend when on the go. When at work, going for a run, at the gym, cycling, in the car, etc, it's a superior experience. Most of the time, if I'm using an iPod, I'm also doing things that make a touchscreen an annoyance at best, and some times even a hazard. I'm also most likely to be somewhere where cell reception is poor or non existant. On road trips (or any time I'm away from my computer for more than a day), having all of your music with you is fantastic.
The spinning platter itself I'm not married to, but it's still a lot more durable than the iPhone that's made of glass! I've dropped my Classic on pavement more times than I can count and it just keeps on working.
Ideally, what I'd like to see Apple do is resurrect the 5th gen iPod Nano form factor, with 160GB or larger flash storage. Until flash memory prices come down enough to allow such a creature to sell for $300 or less, the current Classic needs to stay. What I definitely don't want, is a larger capacity Touch.
you said it better than I did...I second this!!!
Not to agree with ConrdJoe, but yeah, using an iPod Classic *is* soooo 20th century.
In fact the main reason Apple might want to discontinue it is that beyond the click-wheel, there is literally nothing unique or interesting about the product at all. iPod Classic copies are available almost anywhere for a variety of price points. You could even make your own for less than the Classic costs with off the shelf parts and software, all freely available.
If it bothers you that it's gone, go buy one from any of a hundred other manufacturers, or geek out and make your own. It's just a hard drive. A bit-bucket by another name.
Apple is about the future and not the past.
You're missing one additional point though. Most people can't just go out and buy another Manuf's device because it won't sync to iTunes.
Best case scenario, they drop the Classic but make another hard drive based iPod with an elongated screen like the Zune 120. Last we heard, Toshiba was phasing out the 160GB drives in the current Classic in favour of their new 240GB one, which is compatible with the same hardware. That, at the same price point as the current Classic, would be sweet. Plus things to make it feel like its from 2011, like wifi syncing, maybe bluetooth, etc. My smartphone won't be replacing my Classic until such large capacities of Flash memory are cheap and the battery won't shit out before the day is through due to music listening, so that will be a long time in the coming.
why would they INCREASE the storage? It has enough already. and for those who do need a bigger capacity (I.E. my friend who owns about 5000 CDs)...they'll need at least 2 TB iPod Classic to use one.
But I do like your comment about maybe doing something like the Zune 120. I said kind of the same thing in one of my earlier posts.
It would just mean HW inferior wouldn't be able to accurate recreate the audio files accurately. Imagine listening to music through the iPhones mono speaker or some cheap clock radio. That said, it Stephenbw is suggesting that then he'd be wrong as iLounge has detailed the sound quality from the iPods and have found them to be quite good.
Yes, the sound from my iPod touch is quite good; just not as good as that from my iPod Classic.
And, unlike the Classic, the Touch does not have a graphic equaliser to adapt the sound to suit the speakers.
I thought he was implying the audio HW in the Touch isn't as good as in the Classic.
I thought so as well. That said, i believe the new classic uses cirrus DACs which audiophiles like less than the Wolfson in the latest iPhone and iPod Touch. Apple went the the cirrus when Woflson gave them some pretty poor parts for some previous gen hardware. I'd like a new classic with Wolfsons, k thx.
Edit: like these guys won't do mods on iPods anymore because of the DAC choice in the 6th gen.
And, unlike the Classic, the Touch does not have a graphic equaliser to adapt the sound to suit the speakers.
Don't most speakers worth their clout have physical controls for that? Not saying that Apple shouldn't add one (they very probably should).
Surely it wouldn't be as small or as light, but it could be a way for Apple to keep their high capacity customers whilst moving them to the iOS App Store ecosystem. This idea isn't new and has been desired by some very fervently since the Touch was first announced but without a well integrated hybrid drive I don't think it was a good idea for a device running iOS.
Don't most speakers worth their clout have physical controls for that? Not saying that Apple shouldn't add one (they very probably should).
It depends on the speakers one has access to. With my Etymotic earbuds I keep the EQ on Flat, but playing the iPod through a diminutive XMini or a TV in a Greek holiday studio it is much better to have the EQ controls afforded by the Classic
It depends on the speakers one has access to. With my Etymotic earbuds I keep the EQ on Flat, but playing the iPod through a diminutive XMini or a TV in a Greek holiday studio it is much better to have the EQ controls afforded by the Classic
Aren't EQ settings syned with the metadata of each song in your iTunes library?
Aren't EQ settings syned with the metadata of each song in your iTunes library?
I don't understand your point.
I don't need to change the EQ for each song, I just use one of the Classic's EQ presets to control the sound when playing it through media other than my earbuds.
Good. Nobody needs that much storage in a pocketable device.
Apple needs to focus on what makes them the most profits, and iCloud is the way forward.
Wow, I feel so much safer now that it is confirmed you know what I need!! Since the Classic is wrong for me, how am I going to carry my entire collection with me on long trips in the car? I guess I could go back to CDs, but knowing me, I'll crash into a school bus while changing a CD!!! The horror!
There is a reason the Classic has lasted this long. People buy them because they want them. Granted, the Classic is not the latest gee-whiz product, but it serves a very real purpose for many people. Including me, therefore I reject the notion you know what I need.
How long will it take me to upload 143gb to iCloud? Won't Apple want some money for this mass storage? Their new service may make some sense at home or office, but out on the road?