| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ipod :)ipod :)Posted Nov 28, 2005 18:35 UTC (Mon) by astrophoenix (guest, #13528)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to music managers
have you used an ipod? it is proprietary, but it is also very, very, very
(Log in to post comments)
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:19 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Some of us care about sound quality. iPods consistently rate near the bottom in blind comparisons.
Of course, most people can't tell the difference, and deserve what they get.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:50 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] >> iPods consistently rate near the bottom in blind comparisons.
my readings on this indicate that the ipods have competitive if not high quality:
http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index.html
http://home.comcast.net./~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm
(linked from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1777890,00.asp)
cruising google for links on this topic does not indicate a glaring deficiency in ipod sound quality.
can you provide a link?
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:54 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] I think the results of the these tests depends more on the quality of the music files and the headphones used...
The iPod got better ratings a few yars ago, so I suspect that either has the sound quality sunk on the new iPods, or the competition has caught up.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:00 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] the machrone comparison is quite recent. and i have not yet seen definitive data telling me the ipod quality is low. so far this is just conjecture.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:06 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] True enough. The best is to do the listening yourself.
I chose an iAudio X5 myself, because of ogg and flac. The good sound quality I got from it was an added bonus.
...after I binned the crap plugs that comes with it and replaced them with something good, that is...
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:55 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > The best is to do the listening yourself.
This is bullshit. The best is to do ABX tests. "Just listen yourself" is what audiophiles tell themselves to justify their thousands of wasted dollars.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:41 UTC (Mon) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] Oooh! Flamebait ;)
"This is bullshit. The best is to do ABX tests. "Just listen yourself" is what audiophiles tell themselves to justify their thousands of wasted dollars."
Not everyone uses the "Just listen yourself" approach to justify wasting money. I use a simple approach that has always worked.
1. Listen to a music that you are very familiar with.
Usually, it is easy to tell the difference. Sometimes there is a difference, but you can't tell which is better. Or the differences are very small. In that case, it's time to try an ABX test.
ipod :) Posted Dec 5, 2005 11:38 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] Hmmmm, ABX testing is a tool to help in listening tests, not to replace "listen yourself" tests AFAIK
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 21:19 UTC (Mon) by mikeraz (guest, #155) [Link] And some people have abused their hearing and have minimal response over 15khz. The quality that audiophiles love is not perceivable.
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:38 UTC (Tue) by etwilson (guest, #8459) [Link] most people can't tell the differenceWell, if most people can't tell the difference then why should they care? I must be one of those people because my ipod mini sounds fine to me. Am I an idiot because of that?
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:23 UTC (Mon) by vputz (subscriber, #5639) [Link] > it is proprietary, but it is also very, very, very> nice.
So was BitKeeper.
Don't get me wrong. I *like* Apple. I love my (wife's) iPod. I'm fascinated by the one company among tech design firms which actually puts some thought into the "design" side. I even admire BitKeeper, for that matter. No one says that all proprietary software is bad software.
That's not the point. The point is that NO MONOCULTURE IS SAFE--particularly when that monoculture owns your data. If you are dependent on a single proprietary source code version manager, things get nasty when the software is removed and you have to flail to get control of your own data. If all your music is controlled by a single proprietary digital music player, that digital music player has way more control over your data than it should.
A better solution would have an open, vendor-neutral repository format which could be accessed by various front-ends, with separate back-ends to upload to a player of your choice, supporting whatever players you may wish. I'm alarmed that RockBox isn't supported more; I don't have a player that supports it (I can't carry any digital storage device at work, so don't have a player) but it looks like a fantastic project.
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:21 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] > (I can't carry any digital storage device at work, so don't have a player)
Showoff. :-)
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:54 UTC (Mon) by jeld (guest, #22397) [Link] Can you copy music to/from iPod without special software?Can iPod play OGG? Can iPod play MS formats?
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:20 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] >> Can you copy music to/from iPod without special software?
i can't speak to the access available in windows or osx, but on my linux box, my shuffle is available as a usb drive. if you want to do things the hard way you can poke around in the directory hierarchy of the device itself in a terminal or you can use gnupod to have a simpler interface to this functionality.
itunes may be required to deal with apple's aac formatted files, but for straight mp3s, gnupod should work.
>> Can iPod play OGG?
no, but gnupod will convert to ogg to mp3 on the fly while writing to the device. if you just close your eyes during this part of the process you can just pretend you are listening to oggs.
can't speak for wma, never had a need for it.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:30 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > no, but gnupod will convert to ogg to mp3 on the fly while writing to the device. if you just close your eyes during this part of the process you can just pretend you are listening to oggs.
Until you actually have to listen to it and notice the transcoding quality loss plus MP3's horrible quality, or run out of space on the device.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 20:58 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] >> Until you actually have to listen to it and notice the transcoding quality loss plus MP3's horrible quality
mp3s can be encoded at a high bitrate (just like any other codec). not lossless, but i am 99.9999% sure you would not be able to tell the difference at a high bitrate anyway. also you can encode your oggs at a very low bitrate if you wish. while ogg quality is very good, its main selling point is that it is free/open.
the fact is that if you are over thirty and have spent considerable time listening to music on headphones, you have probably suffered some low-grade hearing loss already (get tested, you will be surprised)...you might as well scale down the bitrate you encode at.
>> or run out of space on the device.
how does this change if you use ogg?
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 22:59 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] You run out of space faster by reencoding Oggs as high bitrate MP3s. You save space by encoding Oggs at lower bitrates for the same quality as high-bitrate MP3s.
Sure, I probably can't tell a 256kbps Ogg reencoded to a 320kbps MP3. But I sure can notice the 25% space increase. And I can also notice the difference between a 128kbps Ogg and a 128kbps MP3, *before* errors compound from transcoding.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:59 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] well i see your point about issues with transcoding. i guess my only response is that my ipod shuffle 1GB, which i use for trailrunning, is barely half full and i've run out of good running/workout music to put on it. so for me transcoding is not an issue.
i've never run into space constraints on the ipods i've owned, i don't think i've ever exceeded 60% space used. for other people, i suppose this may be an issue.
so far the shuffle has been the perfect running device for me - very light, resistant to light abuse, very easy to control in mid-stride.
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:18 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Ah, the old patent encumbered format avoidance by closing your eyes technique. :) Seriously, why rip to ogg if you're only going to listen to mp3s anyway?
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:18 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] >> Seriously, why rip to ogg if you're only going to listen to mp3s anyway?
i'm holding out hope that one day a player i like will support ogg.
and on my desktop/laptop i have a variety of ogg players.
if i only want to rip my cds once, i prefer to put them into a format that gives me the most options for the future. barring flac (i don't have the disk space to encode my all my cds in lossless), ogg seemed the next best "reserve" format.
ipod :) Posted Nov 28, 2005 23:35 UTC (Mon) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Sorry, almost every other player wins in the most important category. They are normal USB drives that you can copy files to and have them play. So long as the iPod is just an accessory for iTunes I'll never consider one.
And yes iPod fanboy (and there is ALWAYS one when one speaks of an Apple product in a less than adoring way) who would otherwise have to reply, I do know an iPod will appear as a drive and that you can use them to transport random data files. They just can't be music that you intend to play, which kinda defeats the number onw reason for copying files to an iPod.
Yep, "almost" Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:23 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] My sis bought a Creative Zen Micro, which I like rather well on every other front... except that while you *can* see it as a USB drive, *you can't put music on it that way*.
All you can do is use some of it as mobile storage.
<sigh>
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:21 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] the only reason you need extra software to copy songs to your ipod (or any other player) is to rewrite the songlist database so your player knows about the music.
this would be the same with any player.
once again, there is open source code to write this data to the ipod.
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:26 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] No, many (most at this point?) players are smart enough to scan the files themselves and just need the files copied over. No special software required.
ipod :) Posted Nov 29, 2005 23:53 UTC (Tue) by omez (guest, #6904) [Link] > this would be the same with any player.
The Neuros machines will rebuild automatically if it can't find the song database on startup. Simply deleting the database after copying songs over is enough to get it squared away.
That said, reading the vorbis comments and reindexing tens of thousands of songs is best left to a beefier CPU/memory/disk arrangement. The positron utility for updating the device, allows you to listen to the fresh tunes the same day.
|
|
||||||||||||