Reply With Quote
I've had mine for years and always wondered why they didn't put a battery of some kind in it to make it portable. Now they are releasing a Bose dock that is portable. I'm ing pissed.
i just think their strategy is stupid. they don't really offer anything different, and they took a year to offer something Apple has been offering for years? - change the GB available slightly - 6 and 12, 40 and 75, whatever. the wireless syncing is ok i guess, i just don't see it being practical for me since i don't change what's on my 80 GB at all. i just add stuff from time to time. they also put a screen on it that's bigger, but offers a lower res? what's with that? if i had the cash i would probably get an archos, those look badass. or a zen, they actually offer something different and technically better.Don't do that! Just get TF2 - it's really worth it man. And while people may be against MS - you have to admit the move they made with the Zune 30 was bad ass. Still, I doubt my stance with Apple will ever change - it's continually molded from the stories I see online and the experiences that people have with their products. You're one of the first truly satisfied people I've met with Apples products - though you can't call yourself a geek since you haven't hacked that iPhone yet. That's another thing that pisses me off - but we won't touch that subject for now!
I've had mine for years and always wondered why they didn't put a battery of some kind in it to make it portable. Now they are releasing a Bose dock that is portable. I'm ing pissed.
I bought mine in May, and haven't really had a reason to use a battery powered version since then. It would be nice to have the option, though.
I do know someone who got a portable non-Bose dock, though, and that thing sounds like .
I'd like the portable bose for the pool or beach or something.
I've yet to hear a decent sounding non-bose dock. I'm still amazed everytime I turn mine on. I'm probably going to pick up Bose's two speaker surround sound for my tv. I just listened to it at Best Buy the other day and they sounded soooooo good.
The Apple brand dock has really good sound, but it's not quite as good as the Bose. And it's ridiculously ing huge.
i got one of those for free. it does sound pretty good, but not as good as the 12's in my living room, but i was surprised. they got discontinued though.
thanks, I Spose. Lol didn't mean to start a battle between ipoders and lose... I mean non-ipoders. :P
I have the iphone and an old 40 Gig with no pics or anything. I love em both. I didnt really start buyng songs from itunes till recently. I just dont wanna take any risks with the iphone, which i am using now to post! Hehe
you didn't start up anything, enigma and i have been having this discussion across various threads for at least a year now
you didn't start up anything, enigma and i have been having this discussion across various threads for at least a year now
On good. I an sleep soundly tonight :P
I use an iPod, but will never buy songs from iTunes.
So your saying that ipods convert mp3s into aac on the fly in order to play them? mp3 is as native to ipods as aac and wav are.
Get your facts straight before writing stuff like that (I won't even go into the merit of aac vs. mp3). Aac is the format of itunes because it offers DRM something that is impossible in mp3.
I've had an iPod since they first launched and have never used iTunes. I have ripped all my CDs to mp3 and have a synced database of music in my car, my house and my ipod. Ipods became popular because of their user interface and sound quality - both feature others took years to catch up with.
The interface in sucks, IMO - that's always personal preference. Who gives a about DRM - all it can cause is headaches? I thought you were against DRM and the likeness with Vista ... oh well. And sorry, but iPods generally just aren't considered an MP3 player because it generally will do AAC.
Hold on wait - I just noticed you said sound quality. Sorry, but Creative has had better sound quality before iPods were even out - back when the MP3 player world was Diamond vs. Creative. Remember those days?
You said their native format is aac. That means that they only playback aac file, so if you want to play anything else it has to be converted to aac at some point. That's what native means. And that is wrong.
Btw many sounds experts claim that aac is a better compression scheme for audio than mp3. Which is great for the ipod since you have a choice.
Ipods are according to worldwide sales the most popular mp3 player. Which is no surprise since itunes (the main source of aac in the states) wasn't available in other countries until last year - and still isn't for the majority of the world.
I never defended DRM in my life, I only mentioned it as the reason why itunes doesn't do mp3. Reading comprehension my friend.
The UI is very popular, I personally like it, but know many people who don't - again I'm not defending it just saying that's what Apple and others are citing as a reason for the ipods success.
Your kidding right? comparing a 32MB Diamond player that was expendable only with (at the time) hugely expensive memory cards and a battery life of a few hours to the 1st generation of ipods (20GB and between 5-6 hrs of playing time). And no they didn't sound good at all - on speakers or headphones. I don't care what the setup, the sound was very average.
Didn't they comunicate with the PC over a paralell cable? Yeah, that's a nice practical thing to carry around...
I don't remeber the Creative players except that the ones before the ipods did not have a lot of memory. They fixed it later, but too late. Anyways as I said today's choices are much better, but everybody was late reacting to the ipods better specs.
But I get it. You hate the ipods. Fine. But you can't deny that it was/is a nice device and hugely succesful. I'll say as a user that nobody can even come close to the ipod for the following reasons:
- Connectivity: (ipod interfaces exist for a wide range of audio devices)
- Software: both open source and commercial software exists that will allow you to use your ipod music collection in a wide range of applications.
Hmm, to me native is their default audio selection, like most players are MP3, iPods are aac because of iTunes.
We both have different translations of what's being native, that's fine.
As for your comment about MP3 players like Diamond and Creative - they had MP3 players out my freshman year in high school, 96/97 ... iPods weren't released for some time after that. I'll argue that Creative has and will always be better in the sound department ... and if we want to talk about sound quality for compression, what about OGG Vorbis? I haven't entirely researched it recently, but do iPods play them?
I like ogg because it's license free but, I rarely used it simply because it is not as widel supported as mp3. I don't use aac for the same reason.
Funny you should ask, because a friend of mine recently showed me a 1st gen ipod with ogg support - but he used some 3rd party firmware (probably messed up it's connectivity to itunes?).
Yah, it does ... I like ogg also, but it's not terribly supported. That, and converting an entire collection of music could take quite some time. I like the fact that the Sansa players are getting the custom firmware support from the community.
isn't FLAC all the rage nowadays?
I was just about to mention FLAC... all the good torrents are in FLAC now.
they're great for beefing up share ratios, that's for sure.
I have no problem gettin 320kbps MP3 torrents ... I rarely see a FLAC torrent, but I've had a few for the more obscure or older CDs I'm looking for.
most hard core live show afficianados sniff at anything that isn't FLAC from the sound board.
Flac is a lossless compression. Which means that it only uses a mathematical algorithm to reduce the size of the file without touching the data itself - like zip. The problem with lossless compression is the fact that the max ratio you can achieve is somewhere around 2:1 which still leaves you with a pretty big file.
As for the afficionados swearing by FLAC it always comes down to how they listen to those high quality files. If they go ahead and burn an audio CD and then listen to that on a high quality player/system I agree FLAC is great (another alternative are really hi quality network players, but they are rare). It has often been my experience that people are just too lazy to do it properly negating all the advantages of FLAC in the process.
Because of my job I owned one of the first super audio CD players that hit the market and imediately purchased a few of my favourite Jazz CDs on super audio. It sounds great! but honestly I so rarely have the time or patience to calm down seat correctly in the speakers' sweet spot and really concentrate on the music (I do it maybe once or twice a year). There's no denying the technology and quality are both great but it is so inpractical that I doubt many really do it properly (I know some do but again they are rare).
And if you don't do it properly then there's no way you can hear/notice the difference between a Super Audio CD and a 192 kbps mp3 - so if you listen to music a lot while doing other things, why not go for the more practical solution?
haha. well, personally the only reason i rip stuff to FLAC is by request at certain forums for bartering purposes. the files are quite large, but if that's what they want to get what i want, why not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions