Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - iPod
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosediPod

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 07 2004 at 17:34

have they made any players where you can port plugins across from?

on the vaguely related subject of software mp3 players, does anybody use 1by1? it supports winamp plugins and is absolutely tiny, and you don't need to create playlists, and you can skip tracks without activating the interface. http://www.mpesch3.de/ (it doesn't look too pretty though...)

Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 06 2004 at 12:01

A portable HDD digital audio player similar to the iPod exists which can play FLAC (free lossless audio codec) encoded music files: the company JetAUDIO sells the 20 Gb and 40 Gb iAUDIO M3/M3L which supports FLAC - see http://www.jetaudio.com/products/iaudio/m3/ (US$ 329 for the 20 Gb model and US$ 399 for the 40 Gb model).

The digital audio compression format FLAC seems very interesting, and the codec is Open Source like Ogg Vorbis (check out the Web site http://flac.sourceforge.net/ for details). A lossless digital audio compression format appears very interesting. The codec is apparently available for the popular operating systems.

 

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2004 at 12:29

I agree

Vynil is the best

But you have to have a good turntable with good cartridge

 

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 11 2004 at 03:42
Each to their own, but those late 1960s - early 1970s first pressings easily beat the wossname out of CD!!
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2004 at 09:46
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was just meaning I don't rate vinyl over CD
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2004 at 14:35
ipods are aweet apple that is it can store pics memos addresses important files its not just an mp3 player its also like an prtable pc theirs pros and cons
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2004 at 00:29
Can you explain, Goose?
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2004 at 15:38
Well I'll agree with half of that statement
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2004 at 04:18

Cd(numerical technology) is bad compared to vynil or tape (analogical)

...and  MP3 is even worst than CD!

 

Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2004 at 13:22

I'll second that - MP3 Pro is a superb piece of software - and dirt cheap too!

Note that you can also use it to burn and rip CDs - but if you got Nero free with your CD Burner, then there's simply nothing better for burning

Thanks for the tip about the CODEC - I wasn't aware of it!

Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2004 at 20:18
I use Mp3 pro on my MP3's ripped with Nero 6. This sounds remarkably good at only 80kbps.I only have a Freecom Beatmaster 128mb portable player but with its Sennheiser Phones it sounds good. When I play the tracks on my PC they sound surprisingly crisp, however I have an Audigy 2 soundcard and decent creative speakers.Surely you dont want perfect HiFI on a portable. The functionality of having so many tracks available on the go is the real seller here.The unlimited rips plug in for the Mp3 pro codec in Nero is widely available on hacker sites.



Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2004 at 08:23

Check out the various URLs on the following forum thread:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=990&am p;PN=1

where the subject of the different quality of the codecs was discussed. It's interesting listening to clips of the same piece of music encoded by all the different formats, and one can tell the difference in some cases. AAC did figure quite highly, but then so did OGG and WMA. Anyway, the external pages referenced in that thread have some interesting (and detailed) comparisons and things to say. One of the sites even compares different bit rates for the same encoding method if I recall.

 

Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2004 at 06:11
yeah but .aac 64kbps is apparently better sounding than .mp3 128kbps, or maybe it was even 192kbps. So it stands to reason that 192kbps .aac is going to be something special
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 30 2004 at 17:18

Much depends on the bitrate - your average 128k mp3 won't fool anyone; it's lossy, and a decent hi-fi will exacerbate the lossiness.

256k or 320k is a different boiling utensil of aquatic life, and CDs tend to vary in quality hugely depending on the mastering; Most early Genesis CDs, for example, pride themselves on being "AAD", meaning that the Analogue source was sent through an Analogue mixer to the Digital CD recorder, but sound muted with a narrow dynamic range. Porcupine Tree, on the other end of the spectrum have a sharp, wide dynamic range across the mix that gives a real "bling" to their music.

Those little mp3 players are great for music "on the go" - I'm very tempted to trade my portable MiniDisc recorder in for one

Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 29 2004 at 17:38
I think .aac is about as close to indistinguishable from CD (with earphones, that is) as you can get in terms of lossy digital formats. I don't know which players offer this apart from iPod, but if there aren't any others it's probably a good idea to wait until someone else is doing it, or in fact if you have 40 GB to play with just using .wav format. Personally I'm sticking to CDs for the time being...
Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 29 2004 at 11:40

Further to mimusica's previous post back in June and my reply, I've just made an interesting observation (well, listening, actually):

Today I happened to listen to an album burned to MP3 at 192 kbps and played through my PC's external amplified speakers (which produce quite reasonable quality sound, I should add).

Now, I bought a music CD the other day by a different band and listened to it today, again via my PC's external speaker system. I have to say the sound quality of the MP3s from the first band's album is much better than the sound quality of the audio on the second band's audio CD. What I'm trying to get at is that is seems that, with a well recorded/produced album, MP3s can sound quite good. Or, to put it another way, playing the MP3s made from the first band's album through my HIFI sounds better than playing the second band's audio CD on my HIFI. There appears to be a bigger difference in the recording quality between the two CDs than in the conversion to the 'lossy' MP3 format.

Mind you, my ears are not as sensitive as mimusica's: I can't hear distortion on the inner tracks of an LP (see his posting on another thread), so perhaps an audiophile would still not like the sound of the MP3s. But, for me, it was quite an eye-opener.

 

Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 18 2004 at 07:12

mimusica, for one simple reason: I have to travel very frequently and I can't take hundreds of CDs and my HI-FI with me.

The idea of being able, wherever I am - be it an airport, in an aeroplane, in a hotel, in an office or dentist's waiting room - to listen to *any* track from *any* of my hundreds of CDs (Progressive Rock and otherwise) is, to me, highly desirable.

And, as I have now been told by several people, with high encoding rates (which is now practical with 40 Gb and 60 Gb tiny hard drives) the MP3s, WMAs, AACs or whatever sound very good if one is using good quality in-ear earphones and also when pumped through a decent HI-FI.

So, although my main reason is 'massive' portability, fast and convenient choice at home (in the lounge by connecting to the HI-FI, or in my study by connecting to my PC's external powered speakers) is also of interest if the sound quality is good.

Ideally, as I mentioned in the LP versus CD thread, I would like a fully solid state device - e.g. no rotating (hard) disc - but such things do not yet exist in pocket size to hold hundreds of CDs-worth of music, so I'll have to make do with an iPod, iRiver or whatever with a tiny hard disc. But the possibility of having my entire CD collection, sampled at a sufficiently high rate and quantization to make it difficult to tell the difference from a CD, is attractive to me.

Back to Top
mimusica View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: June 04 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 17 2004 at 22:18

If you are like me, you probably spend thousands of dollars, pounds or euro's on an LP and CD collection. Why would you want to get all your favourite prog bands on a tiny harddrive? from a set of the cheapest possible earphones? I don't get it, maybe I'm oldfashioned. I want to hear those guys (and galls) coming to me from gigantic speakers, with megawatts of power, from great record players or if necessary, high-end CD players.

 Abacab goes iPod? Count me out!

Without music, life would be a mistake.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 17 2004 at 11:52

Yes, I was somewhat surprised to read in that article that the Apple iPod only supports MP3 and AAC formats, but am now confused as the Amazon Web site says that the 40 Gb iPod supports MP3, AAC, WAV, MP3 VBR, Audible, and AIFF formats. Which is correct?!! Anyone with a 40 Gb iPod out there able to enlighten us?

The 40 Gb iRiver iHP-140 (mentioned by Dusanyu) apparently supports MP3, Ogg Vorbis, WMA, ASF and WAV, is about GBP 100 cheaper than the 40 Gb iPod, has a battery that lasts twice as long as the iPod, has a built-in FM tuner, can record MP3 in real-time, and is virtually the same size and weight as the iPod (40 Gb iPod: 104 mm x 61 mm x 18.5 mm, 176 gm; 40 Gb iHP-140: 105 mm x 60 mm x 22 mm, 172 gm). 

To be fair, the article on the page http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/23/dvd_forum_chooses_ap ple_music/ appears to indicate that AAC is better than WMA 9, MP3 and Sony's ATRAC.

Anyway, I'm not going to take the plunge quite yet - I will wait for my birthday as a suitable excuse to buy one, but at present I'm drifting towards the iRiver iHP-140.

Thanks also to those of you who have sent me Private Messenger messages about the iPod - please do keep sending me info or posting here as I want to find out as much as possible about the iPod and equivalents before making a final decision, plus find out more about how the things work and how to make best use of them. (And hopefully the information may be of use to others also.)



Edited by Fitzcarraldo
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 17 2004 at 11:12

Yeah - I love my MD as well (only mine's a recorder as well as a player ).

If you're considering buying an iPod, however, be careful where you buy it from, as there are iPods and there are iPods...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/17/hmv_ipod/

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.195 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.