[GSTom1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MASantos My brother had a 60 gb photo ipod and was always complainingthat he had almost no space left. About a week ago, he sold the ipod, and with the money bought a ipod mini 6gb and a bargain 300 gb external hard drive. Now he has lots and lots of space to sotre his music and more space in his pocket for the cmoy I've build for him!!! You don't listen to 60 gb of music each day, not even in a week, get a smaller mp3 player and a LARGE hard drive!!!! that beats even an 100gb ipod IMO. Just my 0.02 cents.... Cheers Manuel

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks i disagree. i like to listen to a lot of different music during the day, and if i had a smaller player i would have to decide what i want to listen to every morning. i'd rather spend that extra time sleeping.

I disagree too. I have a large capacity player (60GB) and a small capacity player (5GB) and I find myself using the large capacity player a lot more. Have all the music available is much better than having to think and swap music periodically.

Having to decide what music to put on your player each morning is akin to the old days when you had to decide what CDs you wanted to carry with you each day.

 

[kloan]

Well you could always use Smart Playlist where you can make it select random tracks and specify it to a specific capacity, ie: 4GB..

I do this with the Shuffle, because I find it actually selects a wider range of tunes from my 30GB collection.. I think the Autofill tool is bias.. it always seems to select a certain group of tracks, and leaves out tons of others.

That way you don't have to give it another thought.. a full mini is just a couple clicks away!

 

[t10]

It really depends on your needs. Some people can get by with a 512mb flash player, for others like myself a 60GB is not enough.

I listen to music at work, which is 8 hours a day. And I sure as heck am not going to create a smart playlist every evening the day before. Having a duplicate of my home PC music collection on me at all times, makes my life much easier.

 

[DRSpeed85]

I noticed that many non audiophile people with high capacity DAPs rarely have more than 10gb of music despite having DAPs capable of storing much more than that. I hear G.W.Bush has a little over 5gb in his 20gig ipod. Hence the fact that ipod shuffles and minis sell much more than regular ipods, so it makes me think that such capacity as 80gb and 100gb are most probably dedicated for video not music. The 60gb ipod was one of the few failures in the ipod line. Apple doesnt think there are enough people, audiophiles needing such capacity for music to make it a compelling business case.

 

[allenf]

The 60GB wasn't a failure for me, because back in November 2004 that 60GB persuaded me to buy it!
An 120GB iPod (with an option to "hide" video functionality in the menus, and no compromises sonically) - now we're talkin'

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab Well, I can tell the difference between even AAC/320 and Lossless. It's subtle to be sure, but the differences are there. When I listen from an iPod without EQ, using the line out into my HeadRoom Maxed Out Home using any of my good cans, I can hear a difference with decent recordings (even I use VBR MP3 for things like the Dead Kennedys). I can also easily hear the difference when listening to the iPod through my main, very high-end stereo.

Ah... the joys of non-ABXing!

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Ah... the joys of non-ABXing!

There are plenty of very compelling arguements that ABXing does not cover all the bases needed to really evaluate sound properly. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is not whether I can hear a difference. What matters is that I believe I can. There is no way for you to prove that I can't, and since I believe that I can, it makes sense to me to maximize my enjoyment.

Sorry, but double-blind testing people seem to have such an axe to grind about it. Perceptual coding involves loss, pure and simple. I want no loss, and it's available to me, and disc space is cheap, so why throw away resolution?

If you are happy with accepting someone else's concept of what you can and cannot hear (which is what a lossy perceptual coding algorithm is), fine. But there is no need to patronize me with a comment like the above for my stating that I can hear a difference.

 

[eeerie1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab It you are happy with accepting someone else's concept of what you can and cannot hear (which is what a lossy perceptual coding algorithm is), fine. But there is no need to patronize me with a comment like the above for my stating that I can.

Well said!

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab There are plenty of very compelling arguements that ABXing does not cover all the bases needed to really evaluate sound properly. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is not whether I can hear a difference. What matters is that I believe I can. There is no way for you to prove that I can't, and since I believe that I can, it makes sense to me to maximize my enjoyment.

What did I say to the contrary? If you've got no sense of humour it's nobody's fault. Specifically not mine.

You say it's not important if you hear a difference and that it is more important that you believe you can... more power to you. I find such a statement laughable. Quote:

Sorry, but double-blind testing people seem to have such an axe to grind about it. Perceptual coding involves loss, pure and simple. I want no loss, and it's available to me, and disc space is cheap, so why throw away resolution?

Maybe because somebody might have a huge music library that doesn't fit on his/her portable player? Perceptual coding involves loss. True. Even JPG is perceptual coding and yet... on a regular monitor you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a well compressed image and a non-compressed one. Especially from a certain difference. Why should hearing be different than sight, especially given that sight is more developed in human beings than hearing? I've got no axe to grind but space disc is not so cheap (is a 20 GB iPod the same price as a 60GB one? Never noticed that) and because, for portable use, we're more limited as to how much space we have available. Quote:

If you are happy with accepting someone else's concept of what you can and cannot hear (which is what a lossy perceptual coding algorithm is), fine. But there is no need to patronize me with a comment like the above for my stating that I can hear a difference.

Nope, I'm happy with what I found out for myself. ABXing myself. Have you ever seriously and properly tried? You might be surprised. I certainly was. And I wasn't patronizing (I might be patronizing now, certainly wasn't in the first post). I was just joking. More power to you if you are happy with your setup.

 

[camera]

what I can disclose is that Apple will launch a device (it may not br called iPod) which has camera and supports playing music & video too.

 

[jerikl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by camera what I can disclose is that Apple will launch a device (it may not br called iPod) which has camera and supports playing music & video too.

Camera, do you really know something the rest of us don't?

Like Sledge said earlier, look to the harddrive manufacturers and what they're coming out with. If you haven't heard of any smaller drives coming out to market, then the iPod probably isn't going to be equipped with that size of a drive either. It seems like I've heard of an 80gb coming out, but nothing of a 100gb ... so I doubt that the iPod will come out in September or whenever in that size. Unless of course, things drastically change in a month ... but that's a bit unbelievable.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

What did I say to the contrary? If you've got no sense of humour it's nobody's fault. Specifically not mine.

Gorman I apologize that I misunderstood the intent of your first post. It seemed to be attacking the position that a differnce can be heard, and not a joke, but apparently I was wrong, and so I certainly apologize for that -- meant no ill will.

I was only trying to point out that I don't believe that ABX testing is necesarily the best way to judge these things, and certainly that just because one individual hears no difference in an ABX test does not mean that there are in fact no differences. People have different sensitivities to different things in audio. Many people might listen in an ABX test of a perceptual coder for nothing but frequency response abberations, and find no problem, and conclude that there is no difference. Another might listen to the same exact test, but be listening for effects to the soundstaging, and report a significant difference. So my point was that people should do what makes them happy, and not assume that because one person can or cannot hear a difference, that the same will be true for them.

I admit that I personally think lossy-compression for music is a bad thing. But I also believe strongly that people should do what makes them happy, since music is about enjoying it, and whatever makes a person enjoy it more is fine by me.

So Gorman, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. That was not my intent.

 

[Skylab]

I appreciate the resonses to my original question, and I would be happy even for the presence of an 80GB iPod (although I am still hoping for even higher!). Anything I can get that will hold more of what I have in my iTunes library would be great.

 

[axle]

In regard to the smaller player & external drive:

I do just this. I have my 250GB drive in an external enclosure, and a 1GB iAudio U2, which I live with. The problem is I have no computer, so if I want to hear a song that pops into my head, I have to take my (rather large) HD down 8 floors, across the street, and up 27 floors to a computer lab.

I've been looking at a 60GB player, having just converted my 191GB of mostly ogg, ape, apl/cue, flac, mpc, and wav into the new alpha LAME V2 (~192kbps)--it would fit. The problem is sorting through thousands of hours of music on a screen 2" wide would seem to be... cumbersome. The players are also very expensive; the $300 could buy me most of a computer.

I'd also hate to run with something that big. And, well, own something that expensive. My iAudio was $150--but short of putting it in a 10 ton tensile tester, it's not going to break. I drop it 2-10 times a day. A 60GB HD? I'd live in constant terror of breaking it.

So in conclusion, I have no idea why I rambled on for so long, and contributed so little.

 

[camera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerikl Camera, do you really know something the rest of us don't?

My company supplies some materials to the contract manufacturer of Apple. During a meeting with some engineers in June, I was told that Apple would launch that device. Indeed, they're reluctant to disclose further info to me.