[beastie]

I have to agree with MacDEF on most of the points. i believe trading backup copies of original material is unlawful. but i don't believe trading of this kind can only be contained but not eliminated. i'm thinking about the music store theory. what apples did is ingenious. as MacDEF said is correct, it is a service that caters to convinience and practicality (at least to pop and most rock albums, a album contains 2 or 3 good catchy tracks and the rest of them fillers). Basing on return on investment in this context in my opinion, the service is pretty much worthless. a dollar worth of digital 1's and 0's that exists only in the virtual space of the hard disk. people who buy apple products are probably a more free spending bunch with higher social ethics (at least the people i've come across), so offering the service is probably going to get by. should they expand the service to windows users... faggetabouit. the broader public market will most likely not buy into the scheme. the charge is way too expensive for the return (in the end, it's all about the money)

i can't speak for all of the public, but i don't like the idea that i should pay for anything for something that is readily available to me somewhere else. unlike reality, i don't need to go store to store looking for the best price on items to save a few bucks, online freedom is just a few keystrokes/clicks away. i will never pay a dime even though i know it is unlawful as long as it is not criminally constituted. don't start thinking that i STEAL music or rip off artists. on the contrary i do my best to support the artists i admire. i always buy new cd's from music stores. but i only buy those that deserve it. sometimes i use the exchange program to download songs to try them out, see if i like them or not, sometimes i just take the plunge because the cover was pretty (made many mistakes that way). music clips offered by amazon and other places are WAY too short. i'd like to hear the whole song not the first 30 seconds. i'd like think of this as a musical survival of the fittest. the artists who make good music are able to make more albums, and artists who put out most BS will be dropped. but sadly this will never happen. mass market (most of which belong to the teen demographic) is herded by the industry to buy certain artists and music genres i have no respect for (mostly pop)

i think idenpendent artists can only benefit from unrestricted online music exchange, because this is the biggest channel of reaching the public. (of course the increase in awareness may also lead to creative degredation, one example i can think of is nelly furtado). it is the artists on the covers of magazines that are shaking in their boots. and for the majority of them, i have absolutely no problem in hearing they can't by that third mansion they always wanted in malibu. so ya, i don't think fee-based online exchange will ever fly.

well that's what i think. off to bed.

 

[xlifez]

wow, doesn't look too much different, in my personal opinion, i think the old one looks better, tho the new one has functions that are pretty cool *kinda sounding like a palm pilot..

but one thing is makin me walk away is that the batteries!!!! its not removeable? plus no FM radio!

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by xlifez plus no FM radio!

An option here. Plus to go the other direction.

 

[NewSc2]

Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx An option here. Plus to go the other direction.

Wow, that FM radio transmitter is pretty cool. It makes the iPod compatible with those of us that upgraded to CD decks with no tape players.

Also, the lack of removeable batteries is in almost every mp3 player, and I've gotten used to not relaly caring for it anymore

 

[Trounce]

I just don't understand the longterm advantages between the new and old Ipods. Surely Apple can't be thinking of negating any further updates for the oldPod in favour of newPod. The outcry from the fanbase will be enormous if they don't receive queueable playlists and the new games and functions. Otherwise, I see only the dock as being the selling point of an already-great machine. The battery life would do a hell of a lot more for me than any gimicky dock, even with a line out.

 

[BaronJack]

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...utingpage.html

Purchase through this student savings link and save $30 dollars

 

[RunsWithScissors]

Quote:

Originally posted by xlifez but one thing is makin me walk away is that the batteries!!!! its not removeable?

It may not be removable but it can be replaced, at least in the 'old' iPods - a search on ipoding.com for keyword 'battery' turns this up quickly:
http://www.ipoding.com/modules.php?o...thread&order=0

 

[nales]

I picked up the following from Slashdot.
According to <A HREF="http://www.infoanarchy.org/comments/2002/9/8/23472/23921/0/post" TITLE="infoanarchy.org">this</A> [infoanarchy.org] blind listening test conducted by <A HREF="http://www.heise.de/ct/" TITLE="heise.de">c't</A> [heise.de] magazine, AAC at 128kbps was ranked the lowest of all codecs sampled at that bitrate (WAV, OGG, WMA, RA, MP3Pro and MP3)... One can always hope that the claims of Apple making their AACs directly from the record masters are true, as this would help the situation some.
-
most encoders are not optimized for sample rates >44khz. on top of this, encoding from a master copy would make the chosen bitrate of 128kbps even less appropriate, for there would be more available data to compress down.
-
Aside from the fact that you're really making an unfair comparison if you use a higher sampling rate for the lossy than you do for the non-lossy, the ogg-vorbis actually won't sound better than the CD if you ultimately play them both through a 16-bit @ 44.1kHz D-to-A convertor. If you do that, then the process involving lossy compression ultimately becomes yet another way to reduce sampling rate and/or word size.
-
Once again Apple (read Steve Jobs) makes the mistaken assumption that just because they SAY their stuff is better, everybody should just accept that.

--
The AAC codec used was Quicktime's (Apple's); PsyTEL would have swept the competition at all bitrates.

AAC support is especially interesting for Windows users, who can opt to encode with PsyTEL-AAC, for a level of fidelity rivalled only by MPC (formerly MP+).

You can hook yourself up with PsyTEL here: http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/aac.html

Something else: Why wouldn't Apple at least use an ABR or VBR setting (to maximize the limited bandwidth, as MacDEF mentioned)?

Why doesn't this board support HTML?

 

[grinch]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/4/28/23831/4108

interesting article. it states that apple will *not* let you re-download any of the songs you buy from the music service, despite the fact that they record all of your purchases.

i will never use any online music service, let alone one that you have to pay for. paying for lossy files is just stupid in my mind. this is coming from a person who buys at least ten to fifteen new cds a month. just my opinion though, i understand that the sheep of the country love downloading music.

it's really sad that the new ipods have lower battery life. i know that users of the older ipod will point and laugh at the new models when it is fully loaded with 128kbps aac files and the ipod can play for twelve hours (guesstimate) without needing a charge. better skip-protection too.

the docking connector on the bottom of the ipod is something i'm not liking. i've never been a docking station fan (for any computer-related device really) and this just adds fuel to my fire. instead of plugging in a firewire cable when i need it, i have yet another thing that sits and clutters up my desk. some people may like it, but i'm just not a fan. the fact that this big fragile connector is fully exposed on the bottom doesn't rest well with me either. i love the ipod's current firewire-only setup and the plug that covers that port is really sturdy and works great.

the new button layout is eh. i like the buttons on my current ipod and the fact that they're sturdy yet easy to use. i don't have to be completely paranoid about using the hold switch like i do with every pcdp i've ever owned.

apple software _always_ sucks ass on pc's (quicktime, ipod updater.. don't get me started) and i'm really wondering how they're going to handle putting aac files on an ipod. installing musicmatch is like installing a virus, so i certainly won't be using that. there are a couple of aac encoders out there for pc (nero) but i'm not encoding all my files with a plugin from some burning program. gimme a console-based exe file please so i can use exact audio copy (new version out last week, by the way).

i'm very interested in what aac can do though, as i've heard from a trustworthy head-fier in a direct a/b comparison that it really does sound better than mp3 and this gets me interested. mpc is a great encoder but i don't think it's going to ever be put into hardware devices. i kind of wish somebody could hakc up some crazy ipod firmware that would allow plugins and stuff for different audio codecs. oh well.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by nales Once again Apple (read Steve Jobs) makes the mistaken assumption that just because they SAY their stuff is better, everybody should just accept that. Something else: Why wouldn't Apple at least use an ABR or VBR setting (to maximize the limited bandwidth, as MacDEF mentioned)? Why doesn't this board support HTML?

Interesting results. A few things. I have 128 mp3's and 128 mp4's here and there is no comparision. Try it. RealAudio sucks as you move up the scale. And probably the biggest suspect... WHO MAKES A MP3PRO ENCODER OVER 96KPS????????

Supported Bitrates
mp3PRO technology can support more bit rates than just 64 kbps. At lower bit rates mp3PRO technology is ideal for web casting and Internet radio. At higher bit rates, mp3PRO technology is perfect for high quality audio transmission and storage. The following bit rates are supported by mp3PRO:
Mono: 18, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 kbps
LC-stereo: 18, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 kbps
Stereo: 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96 kbps



And confused about the VBR settings in iTunes also. Site claims it. Program options don't list it. If all settings are VBR, what do the numbers actually mean (starting point, middle ground, etc.)?

And does somewhat.

My question. Now that AAC has gone relatively mainstream, what's this talk about aacPlus?

 

[hempcamp]

"Something else: Why wouldn't Apple at least use an ABR or VBR setting (to maximize the limited bandwidth, as MacDEF mentioned)?"

It is my understanding of the particular AAC encoder used in iTunes 4 (Quicktime 6.2) that it is greatly different from the AAC encoder in Quicktime 6.1. The new encoder transparently operates with a VBR scheme -- at any bit rate -- for the highest possible quality at that bit rate. This VBR technology is a Dolby Systems enhancement to the original AAC encoder. I will try to dig up the link about this and post it.

As for all the visceral criticism: geez, people, get a life! The great thing about capitalism is that you can vote with your feet on everything, including a music service on the internet. Lossy compression not good enough for your precious ears? So what! Don't buy music from Apple and shut your cake holes.

For the rest of us who appreciate the technology behind AAC (we realize it's lossy, we just don't care!), and also love Apple products and style, we'll continue to buy.

What is undeniable is that this is a major step in the right direction -- even if it's not the most desirable step for most of us. The fact that I keep the song forever and never have to pay a subscription fee to keep it is a far cry from the old days.

And no matter how you try to justify P2P sharing, it's stealing. Ordinary, criminal theft. Not much "better" than Winona Ryder-style shoplifting.

--Chris

 

[grinch]

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...More=T6714LL/A

also, that thing is really great. too bad it just works with the new ipods though.. i guess i'll have to make my own one with a firewire cable.

 

[Fuse]

Ok, just to clarify: Is the 1.3 firmware going to support on-the-fly queueing and playlist creation or not? I think MacDEF and someone else said no, but I couldn't find any confermation on Apple's website. I hope it is supported, because it would be really nice for my little 10 gig. TIA

 

[nales]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch also, that thing is really great. too bad it just works with the new ipods though.. i guess i'll have to make my own one with a firewire cable.

Disposability = PROFIT. Refer to that Irish guy's 7506 post about the rep. telling him it's a disposable product.

 

[aos]

>>apple software _always_ sucks ass on pc's

I'm not going to make a sweeping statement, but the Acrobat Reader is the SINGLE MOST UNSTABLE program for Windows that I know. I don't like Microsoft at all but they came a long way since their crappy unstable software was crashing all the time. These days the only program that regularly crashes (and forces me to open task manager and kill it manually as you every time you try to start it after a crash it does nothing visible but creates another process) is AR. And sometimes it freezes my PC, which is really an event for W2K. And I have to use Acrobat Reader every day, since all datasheets are in PDF. I like PDF but AR needs some serious work and is one of few applications besides games that still can show you whether your PC is slow or fast.

More on topic, I very much like the idea of craddle. It is so annoying to use the firewire cable and try to be extra careful all the time since the fit is tight. And to try a space on desk that won't be scratching iPod. I also like reduction in size, making it round and making it lighter, but the cost in battery life is a compromise that might not be worth it. I don't like new button layout and the overall look but it's not something I'd base my buying decision on. Line out is also of fairly limited use because it's not available outside of craddle (the adapter might come in later, but it will be only available online from some small business, and with shipping and taxes it'll cost too much). So overall I'd say it's certainly not worth buying it if you already have the old one unless you need more capacity. If you don't have any, it's better to get the new one - not that you have much choice anyway.