Any help here would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking into picking one up but I don't know much about them. The obvious name is iPod but that doesn't mean they are the best.
What are you're suggestions? If you don't mind, explain why. Thanks.
Printable View
Any help here would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking into picking one up but I don't know much about them. The obvious name is iPod but that doesn't mean they are the best.
What are you're suggestions? If you don't mind, explain why. Thanks.
iPod. Great interface every step of the way (playing music, interfacing with iTunes, etc.). If you want a bunch of features like FM Radio and shit then obviously go with something else... but those extra features are trash.
I've never gotten into the whole portable music thing so forgive my ignorance but how exactly does iTunes work? What is the pricing like?
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...nes+ipod+apple
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...nes+ipod+apple
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...nes+ipod+apple
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...nes+ipod+apple
The list goes on and on.
I suggest you get an Ipod mini from Amazon. 200 bucks, no tax, free shipping. It has an 18 hour battery life and fits nicely in your pocket.
Wow! A ton of info there thanks. I can't believe how crazy people get about this shit.
iPod is the best choice. I would suggest going with the standard 20 gig or higher models if you have a large collection of music, unless you're on a tighter budget.
okay now the cheerleaders have had thier say...
cons:
Itunes on windows is the anti-christ.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
The latest version of the jog wheel stinks.
The white earbuds will get you mugged. if you get one, change the headphones.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ipod+muggings
I have a 40 gig ipod. Its full. I use it in the car to listen to any music I want.
There are a lot of people here that are very against the ipod. I still don't know why. I'm guessing its because people take their technology too personally. Buying the less known mp3 players w/ a billion unnecessary features makes you leet I suppose.
I'd suggest an ipod. I guess. It works fine for me.
Is there a music rental-based subscription service (ie, 10 bucks a month for all the songs you want) that you can use with the iPod?
There are plenty of free ones. Yarr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
And mp3 files are mp3 files. [insert pay service] mp3s (even if you are paying for them... lol) are still mp3 files, and will work on any player.
That's not true.
Really? lol @ you and everyone else paying for mp3 files.
I agree. $1 a song for a super-compressed file that only sounds decent through shitty little earbuds? Seriously. How did we, the consumer, ever get tricked into thinking it was a good deal and that mp3s are an alternative to compact disc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
EDIT: Oh yeah. iPod all the way.
For 10 dollars a month, you can get all the MP3s you want. That was my point. AFAIK, you can't use the iPod for services like these, but instead only iTunes, which does not have that same kind of payment option.
Edited for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Truth to be told, I have used the iTunes music store on occasion, when I'm desperate to get my hands on a song fast for some reason or another. 99 cents isn't a lot to pay for the convenience, and I've never had a problem justifying it. Can't ever see myself doing it for a whole album, though. For my own library, I'd rather rip my own shit from CDs, or in some cases, grab it on vinyl and download the mp3s for iPod usage. The only thing that'd bar me from buying CDs would be copy protection that actually worked. I've never experienced any that has prevented me from ripping (even the new Foo Fighters) anyway.
Anyway, back to the subject of the thread, another satisfied iPod owner here. I recently came into a free iPod shuffle, and since I picked it up, I haven't even used my 20GB. The size and weight of it are perfect. Obviously, it's not going to fit everything you could possibly want to listen to, but 1GB is a pretty good amount of music. In colder weather it was great to drop into my inside jacket pocket, it was easy to control through the material of the jacket, and the same goes for a pants pocket now that it's warmer. If you don't want or need a ton of music on you at all times, I'd recommend it highly.
You don't have to use the store function in itunes. Moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
Update: You can use different headphones! Holy shit!
you can always take a look at the Sony NW-HD5.
CNET review
:tu:Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Hey, Sony players support mp3 now, there's a pleasant surprise. I see they're still pushing ATRAC3, though. Stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashen Victor
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I don't think you understand what I meant. I meant that you can't use subscription services that aren't iTunes (such as Yahoo music, etc) for iPod. I didn't mean that it's the only way you can transfer songs, etc.
Explain why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Because the hardware is not identical? Because Apple doesn't want you to use your iPod with another service?
Fuck dude. Download the mp3s with your pay service and then use one of the many programs available to put those mp3s on the ipod.
Update:This makes things very easy.
The service is "rental" based....ie, you pay 10 dollars a month to "borrow" the MP3, but you can borrow as many as you want and keep them as long as you pay for the service. It's sort of like DivX (the old divx). Every month, you sync your MP3 player with the PC again to renew your usage.
edit: Forget it. No offense, but this isn't going anywhere
Wow, how do you guys not understand how subscription-based music services work?
Yahoo Music:
$5 a month
Unlimited songs that all expire and have to have the liscenses renewed (even on devices) and they aren't MP3.
MP3 downloads (real, permanent MP3s) for 79 cents each.
Have to use a subscription-compatible device, like the Creative Zen Micro (on par with ipod, easily).
iTunes sucks, iPods would rule if they had a compatible subscription service.
Music piracy is like Linux, its only cheaper is your time is worthless.
This is a terrible service. I can not comprehend why you would pay for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I learned something today. People actually pay for the terrible services I see in advertisments with bright colors and flashing lights. Without you I would have not learned this. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
It's really not that time consuming unless you're looking for something obscure, or not looking in the right place. I've only gone to iTunes once, for an album I was in too much of a rush to find by hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I agree with Grave on the Shuffle. I bought one at release and have done my worst to it: throwing it in a bag with a bunch of other stuff, keeping it in my pocket all the time, using it in the gym, etc. It still works perfectly, and I think it's closer to what the iPod should be...a music player you can have on you at all times.
I do still use my 15G iPod, but mostly for long trips and times where I know I'm going to be spending a long time away from home (library, etc).
Buying CDs and importing them into iTunes > subscription-based 'borrowing.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Paying someone to let you borrow compressed versions of your music, let alone getting into the whole physical product arguement, is a much worse deal, imo. If you're not an audiophile, I guess I can understand the subscription-based idea, but to me it's kind of contradictory because if you love music enough to pay a fee for it every month, I don't understand why the audio quality wouldn't be as important to you.
Oh, and iTunes is awesome.
1) Most people that claim to be audiophiles aren't
2) It's 60 bucks a year, the cost of 4 to 6 CDs (and I get tired of listening to CDs faster than I get tired of playing games)
What does that have to do with anything I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
So then why are you even contributing to this discussion? For that matter, it's $180 for Rhapsody and Napster. Yahoo is the only service that provides it for that price, and that is because Yahoo's service is still in beta, and the price is almost guaranteed to not be staying at what it currently is.Quote:
2) It's 60 bucks a year, the cost of 4 to 6 CDs (and I get tired of listening to CDs faster than I get tired of playing games)
You're contributing what, exactly? Some opinions that not everyone holds? I'm stating factual information.
Next time, why don't you only post on issues that you know a lot about instead of telling people what they can and can't post. Well, see you later, bye bye
Instead of just saying iPod, how about EXPLAINING your position. I doubt all he wanted was a name. No crap, most people have iPods? I'm giving him reasons why he might want to look into something else. Hey look! For people who buy music instead of pirating all of it like a lamer, there's a good reason why you WOULDN'T get an iPod.
A friend of mine got a green IPod mini which he and his wife play through their car radio. One of the best purchases he has ever made he says.
And because he was envious of me he bought a PSP the same month. :p
You are still the worst poster in the history of the internet. You attitude on everything sucks. Please go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust
P.S. When I met you you seemed to be a genuinely nice person. Its too bad you are such a flaming cock hole on TNL. It makes little sense. Are you trying to compensate for something? Were you mothered too much growing up?
I'm offering the opinion of someone who actually loves music and listens to music all the time. And I'm also stating factual information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I am posting on an issue that I know a lot about. And, uh, see you later?Quote:
Next time, why don't you only post on issues that you know a lot about instead of telling people what they can and can't post. Well, see you later, bye bye
Right, about a dozen people go on about how great their iPod is (without saying anything) and put in a nice mention of how they don't pay for music. I think MAYBE someone wants to hear the other side, you know, the side that actually PAYS for all the music they obtain? The fact that iPods don't work with any subscription service is a potentially HUGE deal. There are people who buy other players JUST for this reason.
How is ANYTHING of this factual?Quote:
"Buying CDs and importing them into iTunes > subscription-based 'borrowing.'
Paying someone to let you borrow compressed versions of your music, let alone getting into the whole physical product arguement, is a much worse deal, imo. If you're not an audiophile, I guess I can understand the subscription-based idea, but to me it's kind of contradictory because if you love music enough to pay a fee for it every month, I don't understand why the audio quality wouldn't be as important to you.
Oh, and iTunes is awesome."
Everyone's different. Some people think those services like Yahoo and Napster are good. I think theyre crap (I recommended Napster to Swift in Music Discussion, but thats because he wants to check out a lot of new bands). For some people the iTunes model is better. For some the Napster model is. Thankfully, in our world, both exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I think the best way to get music is used CD stores, btw, but thats just me.
Who are you talking to?Quote:
P.S. When I met you you seemed to be a genuinely nice person. Its too bad you are such a flaming cock hole on TNL. It makes little sense. Are you trying to compensate for something? Were you mothered too much growing up?
To me
No, I'm glad other people prefer whatever. I don't care either way. But I'm not going to just say "iPod, everyone uses them duh". Not only is that a stupid response that doesn't say anything, but it's also something I (and lots of other people) disagree with.
I pay for all my music and love my iPods. A thread like this is for getting names out there. There's about a billion places you can go to find better reviews than any person on TNL's going to give anyway.
I pay for all of the music I obtain, outside of a small folder of singles and music friends send me, and some videogame OSTs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I didn't say everything I said was factual. I said I was offering my opinion, and factual information.Quote:
How is ANYTHING of this factual?
This is factual information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
So it took you several posts to finally say something factual? wow
If you disagree with someone fine, but don't do that "Oh, you're not an audiophile like me, I understand why this is good for you" patronizing garbage that suits Neo Geo collecting nerds. Unless you are one of them, of course, which means you ahve bigger problems.
Are we in a race, or something?
I've had an iPod Photo for a few months now and I really do have zero complaints. I at first was reluctant to use iTunes but it's really not bad at all--I still don't use it as my main player on my computer, but iTunes is great for organizing music (and especially awesome for changing ID3 tags en masse).
I haven't used other players extensively, though, so I can't comment decisively on how they compare to iPod. But from what I have seen, iPod has by far the best interface (and that's pretty key, especially when driving).
I'll race you. I drive my grandmothers Cadillac these days. Think you can handle that shit son? My whip is mad fierce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy
How is the audio quality of a CD better than that of Yahoo Music, Napster or iTunes? I'm actually asking. Somebody please explain.
Also, Yahoo Music rules. They suggest music every day that I will like. I download it instantly. I then take it to the gym to work out. My music shopping takes 10 seconds a day and that is with rating the songs I listened to the day before. I don't know every band that ever existed, or who sings what song I like, so a service that lets me download whatever to see if it is what I like, and having internet radio stations that let me download all the songs I listen to, completely rules. I also like having people that influence me, and being able to influence others. If you haven't tried it yet, you should.
PS: How much of that stuff is in Napster, Rhapsody, iTunes etc.? Thanks for answers in advance.
Yahoo uses 128kbps Windows Media files. Windows Media is a compression algorithm. The algorithm is what turns that 60 meg WAV file (and WAV is what comes off the CD, with nothing taken out) into a 5 meg file you load onto your PDA.Quote:
How is the audio quality of a CD better than that of Yahoo Music, Napster or iTunes? I'm actually asking. Somebody please explain.
You're only 11 but even at your age you should be able to know that you cant turn a 60 meg file into a 5 meg one without some loss of information. This is where the algorithm comes in. It picks and chooses what to keep and what to throw away.
Windows Media is also lossy, which means that this compression throws information away, permanently. If you download a WMA file off Yahoo and decide to burn it onto a CD, the software will turn that WMA file back into a 60 meg WAV file - but information will be missing. If you turn around and then rip that into an mp3, then the mp3 algorithm will cut out different information.
Of course, this probably means nothing to you because youre not the type of hardcore music fan that cares. But for me, this is why I would rather buy used CDs - theyre only $5 or $6 anyway, they come with liner notes and whatever, and they are in a non-lossy format.
NOW, the reason why all those players are compatible with all those music stores but iTunes is out of the loop is because ALL those stores use Microsoft's DRM-encrusted WMA format, while Apple chose not to work with Microsoft, obviously.
When I used Napster it didnt have that type of stuff in depth. iTunes has some pretty in-depth stuff and a much better library than all those other stuff.Quote:
PS: How much of that stuff is in Napster, Rhapsody, iTunes etc.? Thanks for answers in advance.
If you can hear the difference you are a better man than I. Trust me, it is negligable to most. You have effectively ruined the trap I set for Andy.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
You can't burn the subscription WMAs onto a CD. You can burn the MP3s you pay for and download to a CD, so this is a moot point. They are of the same quality of iTunes, almost identical to those found on a CD. As good as 128 can sound anyway.Quote:
Windows Media is also lossy, which means that this compression throws information away, permanently. If you download a WMA file off Yahoo and decide to burn it onto a CD, the software will turn that WMA file back into a 60 meg WAV file - but information will be missing. If you turn around and then rip that into an mp3, then the mp3 algorithm will cut out different information.
Also, it isn't the compression in size that matters as much as the bit-rate change. I don't know a single person that can tell the difference between 192 bitrate MP3 and CD even on the best system, and neither do you. Though I agree, on a really good system, 128 bit-rate versus CD is noticable, but still very minor.
Agreed, but most people who have an iPod (that I speak to anyway) burn all their CDs to MP3 for playing on their iPod anyway. It is hard to tell the difference on the treadmill... or at all for that matter.Quote:
Of course, this probably means nothing to you because youre not the type of hardcore music fan that cares. But for me, this is why I would rather buy used CDs - theyre only $5 or $6 anyway, they come with liner notes and whatever, and they are in a non-lossy format.
Of course I know that. Apple also wants to own the whole thing too.Quote:
NOW, the reason why all those players are compatible with all those music stores but iTunes is out of the loop is because ALL those stores use Microsoft's DRM-encrusted WMA format, while Apple chose not to work with Microsoft, obviously.
Do you have some examples? Yahoo music seems to have a lot of songs listed as "iTunes version" that I don't see on Napster. Maybe I'm missing something, but a lot of stuff is there. Yahoo MP3s also cost 79 cents a peice, and they cost 99 cents everywhere else.Quote:
When I used Napster it didnt have that type of stuff in depth. iTunes has some pretty in-depth stuff and a much better library than all those other stuff.
I don't want to turn this whole thing into a religeous war, as I understand the MP3 vs CD thing, but if iPod supported Yahoo Music, why would anybody use iTunes? That is the only detractor (other than software with some bugs still in it) to Yahoo Music. You need a subscription compatible device.
And theyre on their way, I think they own like 90% of the market.Quote:
Apple also wants to own the whole thing too.
No. I used Napster around the New Year and I remember not seeing quite a few bands I wanted to hear. They were also quite lazy about adding new stuff, I remember the same list of "Newest 1000" rock songs was there the entire two months I used it. I do remember a very sketchy list of metal bands.Quote:
Do you have some examples?
I know that.Quote:
Trust me, it is negligable to most.
Well you can set the quality. Cant with the Yahoo store - its all 128kbps (I think). Probably the equivalent to 160kbps mp3. There's also an Apple lossless codec, which throws away nothing and is like a WAV file.Quote:
Agreed, but most people who have an iPod (that I speak to anyway) burn all their CDs to MP3 for playing on their iPod anyway. It is hard to tell the difference on the treadmill... or at all for that matter.
But whatever. Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I can see why the "pay a monthly charge" model is attractive, but I wasnt crazy about it when I tried it. I much prefer to own my music.
Well stated. I understand your point, and acknowledge that I have different needs.
Approx 95% in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I added this above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Both Chibi Nappa and I were able to tell the difference between WAV audio and a 320 KBPS mp3 the last time this was brought up. I did this on crappy Laptop speakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Don't assume.
You guys are really uptight defending your subscription shit. Most of us don't like it, move on.
I've had an iPod since they came out way back in the day before there were PC versions and no touch-wheel or anything. Loved them since. I'm on my third, but not because of iPods failing me. The first one, yeah, that thing was used and abused for three years and finally had to be set down. I upgraded from my third-gen 15GB to a 40GB because I needed more space. Never had problems. Apple's really good on their iPod warranties, too, for the record. They'll almost always send you a new one (no charge) instead of actually trying to fix one. Yay.
iPod mini's are very awesome, too, if you don't need much capacity. Got one for my stepsister and she's nuts for it, and got Tain a silver one for graduation last month. They're incredibly slick, and tiny which is great for portability (not that the standard ones are too big or anything). I'd go for a regular 20GB one, but if your music collection isn't very big, mini's the way to go.
And I agree with the headphone replacement. Those earbuds are trash.
My ear isnt as tuned as Chibi's or Josh's (who are both serious musicians), but Im sorry, the difference between 128kbps and CD is huge. I can tell the difference on my decidedly average speaker system on my computer, same with 160kbps. Of course, if youve spent the last 6 years listening to 128kbps files instead of CDs you maybe cant hear the differences. If you dont play an instrument maybe you cant hear the differences. But the differences are there.Quote:
Though I agree, on a really good system, 128 bit-rate versus CD is noticable, but still very minor.
The higher the bit rate the larger the file. Though, like I said, a 128k WMA isnt the same as a 128k MP3.Quote:
Also, it isn't the compression in size that matters as much as the bit-rate change.
Hell, I admit to having no musical ear at all; but at oink everything is 192+ and I usually download 256+ and today a 128 song popped onto winamp and I was likeQuote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
"wtf? That quality blows"---even with Guild Wars music dimmed in the background.
Thanks for all the help guys.
Seriously. 128 kbps mp3s = getting your ear fucked by a robot.
Perhaps Master's 11 year old ears haven't developed enough to hear things of this nature.
I still prefer buying my CD's and playing them the old fashioned way.
Noob.
Please, for the love of god, take an MP3 of a song that you have on CD and play them through the same system. Even 192's. Pay careful attention to the hi-hats and cymbals from the drum kit. You will most def notice a very wishy-washy quality to them, hard to notice versus 192's but still there. Also notice the low mids. Guitars on bands like Weezer or most metal music, where the low mids (150-500Hz) are most of the "meat" of the guitars, sound very muddy. I have many friends who have claimed the MP3 "miracle" (uh, dude...I can't tell) and had them A-B, and there is a noticable difference, even to the untrained ear.
If I had the funds, I would live it like this too. I would much rather pick up a CD and play it, perhaps while I check out the cover and insert, than just look at some text on an iPod and play the song. Mind you, I am not knocking iPods, they fucking rock and are handy as hell, but just like an audiophile would rather hold, smell, and hear his vinyl, I would much rather do the same with a CD, finances permitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Actually, the younger you are, the more apt your ears are (mind you I didn't say taste or knowledge) to hear the differences in hi-fidelity audio. Ears are actually at their best at birth and degrade over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I still don't get how people could use all 20 gigs on an ipod. I mean unless you feel like carrying around your ENTIRE music collection at all times it seems pointless, and I mean do you really need every single track you possess accessible to you at all times? I mean heck I have about ~100 albums on this computer and it takes up only 7.5 gigs - what the heck do you need what would be around 300 albums on demand at all times? Hell I don’t even think 300 albums exist that I would want to listen to :chick:
I'm trying to search around for a super cheap player I can use my 512 meg SD card for and even that is going to be more than enough music for me to listen to before I would have access to my computer again. You people are nuts :)
If it makes you feel better, I'm smart, don't talk a lot and actually useful in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Did you think that I wasn't going to say the same thing? :) Diff and I are agreeing for the same reasons, I do not just make shit up when I choose one thing or another. Hell, every album in my digital collection is in the neighborhood of 3-500+ megs, and many are much larger. Certainly, diff posts about music more, and actually plays, but don't assume I am less informed, or wouldn't otherwise notice the qualities that we are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Anyway, like diff was saying, there are different needs for different users. I can absolutely see the pros to using Yahoo's subscription service, and why many would choose it for music. And if it's good for you, then enjoy it.
Indeed. I'm not going to pretend to be as musically inclined as Josh, Chibi, or Diff, but honestly, I don't see how you can't tell, Master. Perhaps when you turn 14 or 15, and start getting into emo. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
new records played on $22,000 record players is the way to go my friend. You can't buy anything short of paying people to play for you live, that sounds better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
Complimenting yourself is one of the lamest things a human being can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
It all depends how you encode it. My iPod was nearly full the day I got it, with just music that I listen to regularly. I could have filled it several times over if I were to throw my collection into iTunes.Quote:
Originally Posted by piku
Liar. :icepick:Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
the opposite must be true too.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
You're a fucking faggit and worthless pile of shit.
It all evens out now.
:tu:Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
The same way people got tricked into paying more for audio tapes and A-Tracks than for LPs, and the same way they tricked you all into buying solid state receivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
Subscription services are cute, but not much more than that. It isn't like a movie where you watch it once and then get rid of it. If you're downloading a lot of music that you aren't going to be keeping for long, you're downloading the wrong music, unless you're simply trying out new stuff.
The iPod is nice because the player is simple yet works really well, the scroll wheel is a great navigation device, and the iPod - iTunes - iTunes Music Store trio makes the entire experience nice and easy, versus using various half-assed applications in tandem. That doesn't mean there aren't other nice players out there, but I've played around with a number of them, and it is amazing how bad some of the interfaces for them are.
Sometimes Apple zealots get too up in arms about how wonderful the iPod is. Other times, people who can't stand to see Apple doing something successful try too hard to say why the iPod and the people who like it are stupid. It really is a nice player, plain and simple. And while the Slashdot crowd likes to bitch about how it doesn't play OGG or have FM radio or line in, the market seems to show that most people out there couldn't give a crap.
The point isn't if I NEED to have my entire collection with me or not - the point is that now we don't have to make those sacrifices anymore. I can have my iPod and (most) of my library with me, and I can suddenly decide that I just need to listen to a certain song, and I can do it. That's nice. Why should I live in the days of cassette tape anymore, where I had to carefully decide what songs I wanted to listen to that day?Quote:
Originally Posted by piku
Plus, you can do more than just that with an iPod / whatever. My iPod has my contacts and calendars, and it has files that I like to take around with me. Also, now that I've got an iPod photo, I can use it to offload pics from my digital camera when I'm out on vacation without needing a computer with me. That's really nice.
Wait, for real? How do you do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
I wasn't talking to you. Slut.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
The opposite would've been saying "I'm a fucking faggot and worthless pile of shit." :bang:Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Took the words right out of my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
http://thewebsage.com/images/Youre_Out.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
Oh yeah, forgot about the new rules.
I think it'll be okay...
Because a decent tube amp costs as much as my college education?Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
How is that trickery?
And you can't play an LP in your car. Well, not while it's moving at least. I mean at a speed that you'd want to go in a car. Ya know? Oh yeah, and don't forget Walkman. Tape Sales + 1 (+/- a million or so)
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by piku
Any amount of compression worth mentioning is noticable when the music is well known to the listener. Take your favorite album ever, encode it at 1021401204kbps and compare. Compression is just to tide us over until we can get a decent sized, reliable, rewritable, cheap, efficient storage system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
1) I'm sure you have a good enough understanding of business to know that if enough people still paid for tube amps each year, the price per tube amp would go down, right? The only reason they cost so much now is becuase there isn't a demand for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
The industry killed vacuum tubes because transistors made them more money. People are willing to give $500 for a $20 transistor radio, instead of $700 for a $350 tube radio.
2) My dad must have been a very smart man for the time. He used to buy records and then make tapes from them. With a few tapes you could have the best sound at home, and have a tape for the car.
If I want to try out new stuff, though, I don't want to pay a monthly fee to do so. I'll just listen to Podcasts, samples or stuff from my buddies. I don't get subscription services.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
OGG is worthless and anybody who wants a feature like FM radio is living in the past.Quote:
And while the Slashdot crowd likes to bitch about how it doesn't play OGG or have FM radio or line in, the market seems to show that most people out there couldn't give a crap.
I do wish there was an FM radio built into the iPods, mostly for sports.
Belkin product, of course. They're expensive and I never hear much anything wonderful about them, but if you don't have a computer handy for a trip or something I could see it being useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
http://www.apple.com/store/
Under "iPod Accessories," on the left hand side, click on "Extras." The Apple iPod Camera Connector. I'd give a direct link, but WebObjects likes to expire them fairly quickly.
...Isn't lossless ~700?Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
A CD is like 1400 kbps.
No, the opposite of talking about yourself, is talking about others. The opposite of being nice, is being mean. You weren't very good at matching things when you were a kid, were you?Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
Nope.
It's true. He sucked at it.
i was just making conversation. Cuntbag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Lossless is ~700, cunt. I don't care about the original wave files, which are 1411.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
I just checked---FLAC is 705.6
I win.
Go with the one Mike posted, the Apple Camera Connector, not this one. The problem with this is that I've heard it can be much slower in transfer rate than the Apple one, and I believe it is more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomi
Edit: Who broke this thread and made everything italic? Six...
I just wanted to reply to a few people at once with cut a paste :cry:
Just saying that any amount of compression, err, I mean lossless compression but that's only half the bitrate (so it may be free but it's not really lossless, right?) is still less than the original. And therefore sucks. Hell, even CDs are showing their age. We need a new format. And a deal from the record companies to get the new stuff at cost if we own the old CD. As if.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Did you get a prize, Rich? :p
Lossless compression doesn't get rid of any content--it's the equivalent of zipping up a file with winzip or winrar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
Just the term LOSSLESS (think of it, LOSS LESS) should clue you in to the fact that it doesnt throw info out. You can turn it back into a WAV and burn it onto a CD and it will sound exactly the same as the CD does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
The CD format has its flaws, yes, but thats not relevant to the discussion.
Damn you, and I was going to point that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
-1 for IronPlant getting a chance to talk about something he actually knows about.
I recently picked up a Creative Zen Touch 40 gb player and I love it, it was $330 at best buy. I looked at the Creative Zen Xtra also, it's identical aside from the touch strip and you can get the 60 gb model for under 300 bucks! Definately the way to go.
Not it's not. My HDD just crashed. Piece of shit. I'm selling mine after I get it fixed (thank god for 3year warranty) in favor for a delphi)Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
DVD audio. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
We will all have 6.1 systems in our cars. The future is hot and sexy.
Yes, and for anyone that hasn't experienced DVD audio (96/24) or higher resolutions (Pro-Tools HD and other high-end recording rigs go up to 192/32 bit floating point) it's just awesome. It really is a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Shoulda got the Zen Touch you fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Zen Touch is the way to go.
I would never buy a Creative Labs product. They really are a flaming pile of shit.