53,347 here. Takes up half of my MBP's 1TB SSD. Still waiting for iTunes Match to allow me to pay for it.
I have a collection of 20540 songs (from 1471 albums) all in ALAC from direct CD rips aside from a few AAC purchased albums. My library consumes 529,65 GB. All-in-All I think a 512GB storage option would be most fantastic. Of course, I have also considered moving my ALAC files to AAC 256, because there is a certain level of pain with having this large of a library.
I still have my iPod Classic. I love it! it has all of my CDs, old Albums, etc. on it. Great for when i am in areas that have weak/or no WiFi. I have a Sonos system at home and i can listen to all my music through there as well. It is great....
I use the Classic for ALAC capacity...likely we'll see 256 and 512gb versions of the Touch...seems inevitable, and thus the demise of the Classic will not mean much in the grand scheme things.
....my 10 year old iPod Photo (60GB) finally died. I still have the custom interface for it in my car that I had put in about 8 years ago - and it (naturally) plugs into the old interface cable.
It was the greatest car jukebox ever IMO - I left it in there summer, winter, etc. There is a semblance of control on the car stereo, but I mostly controlled it with the click wheel - starting a list and just letting it run (occasionally skipping a song or replaying one).
So I'm wondering if I pick up a used or refurbed Classic, will it likely work with that old interface?? Even if just to play through the speakers and charge from the car battery?
I've tried to research the pinouts and I have a feeling it might, since a number of key pins never changed. But I don't know enough to be sure.
Any informed (or semi-informed) knowledge or logical speculation would be appreciated, thanks...
Apple make new 128GB iPod touches and people won't feel sad anymore.
Of course sales are down, you're neglecting the line. I know a few people who have been waiting for a new iPod for years. One is an android user.
I know Apple doesn't wanna upstage the iPhone with a different product but a 256GB iPod touch would have fans buying one alongside their iPads and iPhones.
Still a place for the iPod. Classic can die , just upgrade the touch to A7 then A8. Make it 128gb While their use had declined kids still use them as do people who don't want to full their phones with music our drain the battery listening or watching. There is no great expense in updating the iPod touch as the r&d costs are mostly born by the iPhone and iPad which the iPod would share 90% of its components with. I understand dumping the classic but not the refusal to upgrade the chip and capacity of the touch.
The Compact Disk, which was invented in the late '70 or early 80's (over 30 years ago) has a bit rate of 16 and a sampling rate of 47khz. That technology is ancient. To make things worse, MP3 is a watered down version that is compressed and reduced to an even lower level of quality. Modern high-rez is 28bit and studios use 32bit. Often it is at a sampling rate of 192khz. The difference is more like watching a 1080p plazma TV today, and a 1980 27 CRT TV. That aligns the time frame correctly. Sony is placing a big bet on high rez audio but is not leading in the high rez pocket player segment.
I can understand your comment if you are used to listening on the standard ear buds that come with phones, but you need to know that with quality equipment ($300+ headphones) the difference in sound quality is very readily apparent. As an example, listen to John Mayer Blu Ray "Where the Light Is" which has PCM (uncompressed) Stereo (96 kHz/24 bit) not even that high rez. Listen to it on a high end 5.1 system with a Blu Ray player that can properly play the PCM file. then you'll know what you are obviously missing.
The market is speaking. Several manufactures are cropping up to cover this market with high price, high margin pocket players. New music stores are opening up online to cater to this segment. Acoustic Sounds and HD Tracks are growing like gangbusters. It just may not be the kind of volume of business that Apple wants now. Too bad.
Cloud sucks. The quality sucks. If you are in an airplane or out in the woods it won't work. And why would someone spend $400-1,000 on headphones and play music from the cloud? That is like buying a Ferrari and putting Honda Civic wheels on it to save a few bucks. Really it is the dumbest thing I've heard of lately.
i think the answer is that you're not supposed to own media anymore. just subscribe for a monthly fee, and they'll stream it for you. software, movies, music, books - it seems like it's all going this way, and when you stop paying, it's gone. no need for an ipod, or high capacity devices, you can just access it for $XX/month.
unfortunately, i agree with steve, i like to own.
You say that as though it's the supplier forcing it on the buyer. The market moved without the supplier forcing the issue even before subscription took off in a big way - it says at the following site that Jimmy Iovine spent 3 years trying to convince Steve Jobs to take on streaming so that was at least as far back as 2008, just 1 year after the iPhone launched:
Ownership and rental both have their advantages. Rental takes away the paywall barrier to discoverability but it also creates dependence where ownership doesn't. Some people listen to very limited libraries of music over and over, others are always looking for new music. Ownership works better for the former, streaming works better for the latter.
I doubt they'll remove the ownership option for music.
Up to 128GB with normal firmware and higher with custom firmware. There's really no reason for Apple to need a higher capacity HDD anyway. Apple's own SSDs could fit into the classic if they wanted to or just solder in the memory chips like with the iPhones. The fact is, nobody is buying them any more. Total iPod sales are 2.9m per quarter and over half are iPod Touches. Adding new parts or a new design to the Classic would be wasted effort.
53,347 here. Takes up half of my MBP's 1TB SSD. Still waiting for iTunes Match to allow me to pay for it.
Originally Posted by malax
I don't get it. Pay for what?
I think he means that iTunes Match is limited to 25,000 songs, so he cannot use it without breaking his library down to less than 25,000 songs. I know, since I have over 30,000 songs and cannot use iTunes Match.
I was hoping for a bigger iPod Classic than my 160 GB, but now I guess I am lucky to have mine. I know many of you complain about those with "too many" songs, but why should you care? Many of us like having our music available at all times, especially when streaming is not available (traveling abroad, in isolated areas like the mountains, desert, sea, or air, etc.). Why should we waste our time and break down our libraries in bite-sized pieces? It is not like the technology doesn't exist.
I%u2019ve been putting mSATAs in iPods (Video 5G, 5.5G). I have a couple with 500GB capacity. I have an older one with a 1.8%u201D SSD (256 GB). I save my music as ALAC, so I needed the space.
The mSATAs also make them lighter and less sensitive to shock. I do run into battery issues once in a awhile, as the mSATAs must suck up a lot of juice at start up.
I have an 80 GB iPod Classic somewhere that%u2019s been upgraded to 128 GB using a CF card (max for this iPod).
Without a bigger iPod Classic, you have to roll your own.
Do you have a link or something that describes this process? I might be interested in upgrading on of my iPod Classics. Thanks.
I’ve tried the Transcend 512 GB, but it didn’t work in the iPod Video (5G, 5.5G), only in the iPod Classic (6G - 80GB), but that classic can only read 128 GB, so that didn’t work out for me.
It’s possible to upgrade the 6G iPod Classic, but I think it needs a different ZIF connector. The 7G is supposed to be upgradeable as it is, but I’ve never played with one.
Finally, here is the Super Talent 1.8” SSD (256 GB). This is actually the most compatible, as it is a drop in replacement for the hard drive. It’s just more expensive, and it’s limited to 256 GB.
With so many idiots now ear-tuned to data reduction (thanks to Apple iTunes store and general availability of on-line music) consumers have now got so used to mediocre sound reproduction it matters little to the vast majority that there no longer exists an iPod capable of AIFF/Lossless playback.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
With so many idiots now ear-tuned to data reduction (thanks to Apple iTunes store and general availability of on-line music) consumers have now got so used to mediocre sound reproduction it matters little to the vast majority that there no longer exists an iPod capable of AIFF/Lossless playback.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
Comments
53,347 here. Takes up half of my MBP's 1TB SSD. Still waiting for iTunes Match to allow me to pay for it.
I have a collection of 20540 songs (from 1471 albums) all in ALAC from direct CD rips aside from a few AAC purchased albums. My library consumes 529,65 GB. All-in-All I think a 512GB storage option would be most fantastic. Of course, I have also considered moving my ALAC files to AAC 256, because there is a certain level of pain with having this large of a library.
WRONG.
There is a HUGE difference between iTunes quality music and DolbyTrueHD or any of the lossless formats.
Of course, but that's not what he was talking about.
"High def" usually refers to extreme bit depths or sample rates that can capture sound outside the range of human hearing, such as 16 bit 96 kHz.
Whatever! I do have a 64 gig iphone 6 Plus and 2 iPod classics btw.
I still have my iPod Classic. I love it! it has all of my CDs, old Albums, etc. on it. Great for when i am in areas that have weak/or no WiFi. I have a Sonos system at home and i can listen to all my music through there as well. It is great....
Read up on dithering, anti-aliasing, and noise floors, and get back to us.
Read up on dithering, anti-aliasing, and noise floors, and get back to us.
Done. What do you want to know?
Just tossing out a question...
....my 10 year old iPod Photo (60GB) finally died. I still have the custom interface for it in my car that I had put in about 8 years ago - and it (naturally) plugs into the old interface cable.
It was the greatest car jukebox ever IMO - I left it in there summer, winter, etc. There is a semblance of control on the car stereo, but I mostly controlled it with the click wheel - starting a list and just letting it run (occasionally skipping a song or replaying one).
So I'm wondering if I pick up a used or refurbed Classic, will it likely work with that old interface?? Even if just to play through the speakers and charge from the car battery?
I've tried to research the pinouts and I have a feeling it might, since a number of key pins never changed. But I don't know enough to be sure.
Any informed (or semi-informed) knowledge or logical speculation would be appreciated, thanks...
Of course sales are down, you're neglecting the line. I know a few people who have been waiting for a new iPod for years. One is an android user.
I know Apple doesn't wanna upstage the iPhone with a different product but a 256GB iPod touch would have fans buying one alongside their iPads and iPhones.
The Compact Disk, which was invented in the late '70 or early 80's (over 30 years ago) has a bit rate of 16 and a sampling rate of 47khz. That technology is ancient. To make things worse, MP3 is a watered down version that is compressed and reduced to an even lower level of quality. Modern high-rez is 28bit and studios use 32bit. Often it is at a sampling rate of 192khz. The difference is more like watching a 1080p plazma TV today, and a 1980 27 CRT TV. That aligns the time frame correctly. Sony is placing a big bet on high rez audio but is not leading in the high rez pocket player segment.
I can understand your comment if you are used to listening on the standard ear buds that come with phones, but you need to know that with quality equipment ($300+ headphones) the difference in sound quality is very readily apparent. As an example, listen to John Mayer Blu Ray "Where the Light Is" which has PCM (uncompressed) Stereo (96 kHz/24 bit) not even that high rez. Listen to it on a high end 5.1 system with a Blu Ray player that can properly play the PCM file. then you'll know what you are obviously missing.
The market is speaking. Several manufactures are cropping up to cover this market with high price, high margin pocket players. New music stores are opening up online to cater to this segment. Acoustic Sounds and HD Tracks are growing like gangbusters. It just may not be the kind of volume of business that Apple wants now. Too bad.
Cloud sucks. The quality sucks. If you are in an airplane or out in the woods it won't work. And why would someone spend $400-1,000 on headphones and play music from the cloud? That is like buying a Ferrari and putting Honda Civic wheels on it to save a few bucks. Really it is the dumbest thing I've heard of lately.
You say that as though it's the supplier forcing it on the buyer. The market moved without the supplier forcing the issue even before subscription took off in a big way - it says at the following site that Jimmy Iovine spent 3 years trying to convince Steve Jobs to take on streaming so that was at least as far back as 2008, just 1 year after the iPhone launched:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/11/3864506/beats-ceo-spent-three-years-convincing-steve-jobs-streaming-music
Ownership and rental both have their advantages. Rental takes away the paywall barrier to discoverability but it also creates dependence where ownership doesn't. Some people listen to very limited libraries of music over and over, others are always looking for new music. Ownership works better for the former, streaming works better for the latter.
I doubt they'll remove the ownership option for music.
Someone here used an adaptor:
[VIDEO]
http://www.tarkan.info/store
Up to 128GB with normal firmware and higher with custom firmware. There's really no reason for Apple to need a higher capacity HDD anyway. Apple's own SSDs could fit into the classic if they wanted to or just solder in the memory chips like with the iPhones. The fact is, nobody is buying them any more. Total iPod sales are 2.9m per quarter and over half are iPod Touches. Adding new parts or a new design to the Classic would be wasted effort.
Quote:
53,347 here. Takes up half of my MBP's 1TB SSD. Still waiting for iTunes Match to allow me to pay for it.
Originally Posted by malax
I don't get it. Pay for what?
I think he means that iTunes Match is limited to 25,000 songs, so he cannot use it without breaking his library down to less than 25,000 songs. I know, since I have over 30,000 songs and cannot use iTunes Match.
I was hoping for a bigger iPod Classic than my 160 GB, but now I guess I am lucky to have mine. I know many of you complain about those with "too many" songs, but why should you care? Many of us like having our music available at all times, especially when streaming is not available (traveling abroad, in isolated areas like the mountains, desert, sea, or air, etc.). Why should we waste our time and break down our libraries in bite-sized pieces? It is not like the technology doesn't exist.
I%u2019ve been putting mSATAs in iPods (Video 5G, 5.5G). I have a couple with 500GB capacity. I have an older one with a 1.8%u201D SSD (256 GB). I save my music as ALAC, so I needed the space.
The mSATAs also make them lighter and less sensitive to shock. I do run into battery issues once in a awhile, as the mSATAs must suck up a lot of juice at start up.
I have an 80 GB iPod Classic somewhere that%u2019s been upgraded to 128 GB using a CF card (max for this iPod).
Without a bigger iPod Classic, you have to roll your own.
Do you have a link or something that describes this process? I might be interested in upgrading on of my iPod Classics. Thanks.
He stole the music.
Well, I started over at headfi.org. It’s a long thread, but it’s probably the most complete place to look.
Someone above posted the http://www.tarkan.info/store link, which is another good resource.
I bought the following adapters from Amazon:
ZIF to CF card adapter
ZIF to mSATA adapter
For mSATAs, I’ve tried both the Crucial M550 (512 GB) and Samsung EVO 840 (500 GB) in an iPod Video.
I’ve tried the Transcend 512 GB, but it didn’t work in the iPod Video (5G, 5.5G), only in the iPod Classic (6G - 80GB), but that classic can only read 128 GB, so that didn’t work out for me.
It’s possible to upgrade the 6G iPod Classic, but I think it needs a different ZIF connector. The 7G is supposed to be upgradeable as it is, but I’ve never played with one.
Finally, here is the Super Talent 1.8” SSD (256 GB). This is actually the most compatible, as it is a drop in replacement for the hard drive. It’s just more expensive, and it’s limited to 256 GB.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.
So, what's to stop Apple using SSD's with larger capacity? They wouldn't need to re-engineer the Classic, just replace the HDD with an 1.8" "ZIF" SSD of 256GB. As I did with my three Classics a year ago. They are much, much faster at access and the battery lasts months before requiring a recharge.
The truth. Apple have ditched quality for quantity in the music dept.