Wow, before today I didnt know there was such a thing as an MP3 nerd.
Buy whatever the fuck you want!
Printable View
Wow, before today I didnt know there was such a thing as an MP3 nerd.
Buy whatever the fuck you want!
You're probably refering to my little experiment I did a few months ago - I later found out I was apparently using the most out of date MP3 codec known to man. I've got some time off coming up ( though I have a ton of stuff to do ) and if I get the chance I'll do another TNL audio comparison ( I also have alot more online storage now ). I want to do MP3, AAC, OGG, etc. then re-encode them all to .wav's ( and include a "real" .wav ) and let the "audiophiles" go to town. All I know is the clip will likely be 30 sec. to a minute from Roger Waters' Amused to Death ( my 24k gold 20-bit mastered copy ) - one of the best recorded rock albums ever made ( it's got lows, highs - incredible ambience, and awesome guitar work by Jeff Beck ) that's the reason why I've seen it on the demo rack at a few specialized high-end audio retailers. It's sure to push the limits of any audio codec...........Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi Nappa
As for AAC vs. MP3 - I think the average Mac freak would like to think that AAC is "superior" ( and it very well may be at lower bit rates ) but I'm seeing a consensus among some that a PROPERLY encoded MP3 ( LAME codec, max VBR ) edges it out overall.
http://www.xciv.org/~meta/audio-shootout/
( this site even has clips but without a pure .wav for comparison seems pointless to me )
"If you care about audio quality and listen to a lot of electronic music, avoid MPEG-4 AAC, particularly if you use bit rates below 160kbps. iTunes MP3 at 160kbps is better than AAC at 128kbps if you can afford the extra file size. If you really want CD quality, you'll need to use Ogg Vorbis or LAME MP3 encoding."
http://www.recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtml
"I think there's plenty of comparison between the many formats here that it should be easy to apply the conclusions to other tracks. The only standout format appears to be good old MP3, albeit with the most advanced LAME encoding and Variable Bit Rate. It seems to offer a tangible improvement over the other formats if you want to use ~192 kbps encoding."
[Joe from Family Guy]Bring it on!!!!![/Joe from Family Guy]Quote:
Originally Posted by sphere79
Whoops... it seems that part of the iPod website is wrong. The iPod, indeed, on both Mac and Windows, supports WAV files. It also supports AIFF, and that is where the Mac-only ntoe comes in. So there you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
And as for the problems using it as an external HD, so long as you've formatted your iPod to be a PC iPod, it should be no different than any other MP3 player that can be used as an external HD. That's why I'm thinking it might be a Windows issue. So far as I know, there's no special formatting that the iPod uses for the HD that would cause problems.
Cheaper to buy a non-apple one.
Unless money is no object and status is, thats is.
Well, in my defense, that all I really use - I don't encode things at 320Kbps or anything like that, so I can't discuss such matters. Encoding a fine in 128Kbps AAC sound better to me than a 128Kbps MP3. Most people say that AAC at 96 is equal to MP3 at 128. The highest I've encoded audio at is 160 (as I don't have the storage room to do all of my stuff higher at this point), so I have little experience past that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sphere79
I have done a bit of 320 (or whatever the number) encoding, and I'll be honest, maybe I just suck or maybe it's just the kind of music I listen to, I can't tell any difference between that and the original CD. But, to me, a lot of CDs sound like crap to start with, so...
Well, some people also want a better quality product. My friend purchased an Archos. He got more for less money. But he also got a device that I personally think is a piece of crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
All of the devices that actually reach a level where they can honestly be compared with an iPod are either the same price or not enough less to make a real difference. (Dell's device, for example - if I'm already going to spend a decent amount for an audio device, I'll pay the extra $50 to get something I like far better.)
I understand.
Some people will spend 55,000.00 on a BMW M3, while others will spend 40,000.00 on an Audi S4.
They are comprable and the BMW isn't 15,000.00 better, but it's got that status thing.
I'm sure there are MP3 players comprable to the ipod for less money. To each his own.
Cheaper to buy one new, yes. I was lucky; I got my iPod right when the second-generation was launched, but not yet out in Apple stores. On vacation at the time, I was able to swing by the Buffalo Apple Store and pick one up at $100 discount. For the capacity, function and sheer awesome of the iPod, I definitely got my $200's worth. No other mp3 player at the time could match that.
And really, check out eBay. I know several people who have picked up 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation iPods lightly used or just open-box for much less than it would be new. A lot of them are still under warranty, too. It's a good alternative if you really want an iPod.
techTV recently did some mp3 player tests, too.
Budget players:
http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/pr...566796,00.html
Smallest:
http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/prod...520265,00.html
Somewhere in the past 3 months, they had a lineup of the best high-end mp3 players, but I'm too lazy to look any more. It was a pretty helpful multi-review.
Say I format an iPod to be a "PC iPod"... Would I run into any problems using it as an HD to bring files from a PC to a Mac?Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi