[TheMarchingMule]

Rockbox doesn't count, because even that seems to not be stable in its own rights for the 4G model. At least, last time I checked...

I'm just wondering. I know anybody would love the SQ, but then wouldn't you guys get fed up with the tiny gaps of silence between songs?

TIA.

 

[sberger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockbox doesn't count, because even that seems to not be stable in its own rights for the 4G model. At least, last time I checked... I'm just wondering. I know anybody would love the SQ, but then wouldn't you guys get fed up with the tiny gaps of silence between songs? TIA.

no. why?

 

[Fatality_]

I believe that the reason is that it sounds good

 

[sberger]

the imod sounds great, and that's all i care about. a separation of a few seconds between songs is a non issue to me. if you want the best sound by far from an ipod, you do the imod, period.

 

[Packgrog]

...And Rockbox changes a LOT. Plus, given the rather large iPod user base, you can bet that the current problems with it are a high priority for the Rockbox team.

So the battery doesn't last as long as the regular firmware, and it might be a little buggy. iPod firmware is buggy too, and not half as useful as Rockbox. Just use it. Plus, you can always switch back to the iPod firmware if Rockbox isn't doing it for you yet. Hell, I'd consider an iModded iPod Photo if it weren't for the versatility of my H120 and a Micro DAC.

 

[ERNEST T]

I would give up gapless any day to get the sound of the Imod.

 

[kiwirugby]

For those who listen to classical (and there maybe other genres that have the same issue), for those works that are all in one movement (e.g., Sibelius 7th) there is a noticeable "gap" (quick stop) between "movements." I wonder if there is a way to get around this. It's not too terrible, but it can be distracting.

 

[JSTpt1022]

I REALLY don't understand all the uproar about gapless. To each their own but it just seems so insignificant to me. I haven't had the iMod done yet, but I'll take SQ everytime over gapless.

 

[Packgrog]

Gapless is very nice, but no, not necessary. A good shuffle function, though, can be a make or break situation. Heh.

 

[camille]

if vinnie can somehow get 5G iPods iModded, then this solves the problem.

but it's a shame i sold my 4G iPod, i would've totally iModded it by now...V_V

SQ < gapless

 

[wanderman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by camille /img/forum/go_quote.gif SQ < gapless

qft. How can something have good sq if it can't faithfully reproduce the files that it is playing. If gaps aren't on the album their shouldn't be any on the player. Gapless is an inherently quality of sound quality imo. So, I guess it would be more true to say that gapless=sq

 

[craiglester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif qft. How can something have good sq if it can't faithfully reproduce the files that it is playing. If gaps aren't on the album their shouldn't be any on the player. Gapless is an inherently quality of sound quality imo. So, I guess it would be more true to say that gapless=sq

Quite right, i don't think of it as "player X isn't gapless", i think of it as
"player X has dropouts in the music"

Totally ruins the flow for me. I cannot understand why ALL DAP's aren't gapless. It can't be hard to do if Rio managed it 3 years ago, Ipod has it now, and rockbox can do it. Any new player (yes I'm talking to you microsoft) should be capable of playing gaplessly out of the box.