yeah, this one had 16 megs built in
plus the aforementioned max for a memory card (back when they were actually pricey)
for a total of 80 megs of music
and this was still when i listened to DMB (so clearly i'm going back a ways here)
so i could fit like 5 songs off Red Rocks or something if i maxed the bitch out

10/27/2005 3:00:13 PM

sweet, speaking how awesome ipods are. I just found a adapter so i can hook up my digital camera to it and download all my photos. No need to travel with the laptop anymore on long trips.

10/27/2005 3:10:03 PM

I just carried memory cards anyway

10/27/2005 3:11:03 PM

how can anyone fault apple for making money off stupid people? I mean, I may hate their products, but I certainly don't fault them for filling people's heads with lies like apples don't get viruses and the like. all they're doing is creating job security for the IT and information security fields.

10/27/2005 3:12:05 PM

well in all the years i've owned a Mac. I've only used it for surfing porn and have never had any kind of virus protection or spyware protecion. and its still clean as a whistle.

10/27/2005 3:16:27 PM

Quote :

"Apple wins out because they beat everyone else to the market with their product. I bought a shuffle in January because it was the only product at the time that met my needs for a portable mp3 player."

No sir. Iriver had a USB device out thats in all forms much better then any shuffle before the shuffle hit stores. You bought a shuffle because its white and you wanted to look hip.

I like the ipod, but the shuffled is worthless device. No screen, no forward backward button? No thanks.

10/27/2005 3:22:31 PM

yeah, shuffle is crap. but then they wouldn't be able to really call it a shuffle. The nano however is what the shuffle should have been. Its perfect in size.

10/27/2005 3:23:42 PM

popular does not always mean better

10/27/2005 3:51:38 PM

tl,

a large amount of my music library is ripped CD's using windows media player (WMV).

Everytime I have to put it on my gf's shuffle, iTunes tells me that it has to convert it to AAC or something.

10/27/2005 3:55:37 PM

nm

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 3:58 PM. Reason : nm]

10/27/2005 3:58:03 PM

wma is not too hot of a codec, but wma pro is the heat.

10/27/2005 3:58:51 PM

^ Yea I am sure a personal music player has 5.1 capabilities

10/27/2005 4:02:42 PM

the original creative nomad had 2 front 2 back support.

And i'd imagine any of those Portable Media Center or whatever devices that you can plug into your entertainment center would definately want to have 5.1 support.

Of course i was refering to wma pro's superior 2 channel quality. However i imagine many devices could use the 5.1 to simulate better surround in 2 channels.

The option to do 5.1 is a bonus and not a requirement. Although as far as future devices go, its better to already have the support than not. I think wma pro goes up to 7.1?

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 4:06:43 PM

The point is that unless you use a high resolution audio source like SACD, DVD etc., you gain no value/quality from using WMA Pro with its 24bit encoding.

10/27/2005 4:14:40 PM

encoding 2 channel sources to wma pro from cd is better than encoding to mp3/ogg/aac from cd.

thats what makes it better for mobile devices. The quality is better at all levels of encoding.

Also, having the ability to encode high resolution sources including 5.1 sources etc... is better than not having the ability.

10/27/2005 4:17:59 PM

how is it better.

10/27/2005 4:18:36 PM

it sounds better.

10/27/2005 4:19:45 PM

how

10/27/2005 4:20:26 PM

encode the same song in mp3, ogg, aac, and wma pro.

listen and compare. its very noticably better than mp3. slightly better than ogg and about the same as aac.

10/27/2005 4:21:37 PM

technically, it shouldn't be better for non Dolby Digital/DTS/5.1+ audio

or in simple words

a normal 2 channel CD.

PS: My point is that WMA Pro == WMA for normal applications.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ..]

10/27/2005 4:22:34 PM

it makes perfect sense that its better.

they're all totally different audio codecs. They use different methods to encode the original wave form. Some are able to encode more of the wave than the others, and those sound closer to the original.

also, wma and wma pro are not the same codec.

wma pro is noticably better

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 4:25:46 PM

Dude

An audio CD is 16 bit 48khz encoded.

you will not see any improvement if you try to re-encode it with 24bits.

WMA9 and WMA9 Pro are the same codecs

for CD audio

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 4:30:25 PM

you are correct on the first part, but wrong on the second

WMA and WMA Pro use different encoding FOR ALL LEVELS.

WMA Pro creates an encoded recording that is closer to the original source than normal WMA

Regardless of encoding rates

comparing WMA to WMA pro is like comparing MP3 to AAC

10/27/2005 4:36:12 PM

Only difference is that WMA Pro provides dynamic range control just like WMA9 Lossless

but you won't notice it until your player supports it.

not to mention that for CD audio you won't notice a thing.

10/27/2005 4:38:04 PM

it DOES make a difference for cd recordings

go grab wmencoder and do some tests.

as for devices supporting wma pro, it would be better if they DO support it because it not only sounds better for cd sources but the ability to play things encoded in wma pro from high quality sources is also a plus.

10/27/2005 4:43:50 PM

why don't you provide me with some tests?

10/27/2005 4:46:30 PM

i've already done it and i know its better.

So if you want to be convinced you can do it yourself.

10/27/2005 4:49:45 PM

Why don't you link me to an appropriate shoot-out comparing WMA9 with WMA9Pro for CD audio?

10/27/2005 4:50:19 PM

^^ audio codecs have strengths and weaknesses.

Some genres sound better with one format, some sound better with another.

Cateogorically calling one better than another (especially at high bitrates, and without direct empirical evidence) is ... stupid.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 4:57 PM. Reason : +sm]

10/27/2005 4:56:43 PM

Plz2 encode using ATRAC3.

/thread.

10/27/2005 5:07:33 PM

Quote :

"no forward backward button? No thanks."

WTF? Where did you hear this?

Quote :

"a large amount of my music library is ripped CD's using windows media player (WMV). Everytime I have to put it on my gf's shuffle, iTunes tells me that it has to convert it to AAC or something."

Alright, no WMVs. Fair enough. (but shame on you for encoding to that evil format. evil, evil, evil I tell you.)


But you don't have to convert it to AAC.
You can choose from MP3, MP3 VBR, AAC, or WAV.

and if you had a full size iPod, you could choose from MP3 (VBR), AAC (VBR), ALC, AIFF, WAV.
So unless you consistently use Ogg, FLAC, SHN, or WMV, you should be good to go (like all the good, christian children)

10/27/2005 5:10:29 PM

WMA's DRM is the reason why all successful subscription music services use it.

10/27/2005 5:11:59 PM

Your statement is incorrect, sir.

10/27/2005 5:16:05 PM

correct it, then

10/27/2005 5:17:04 PM

WMA's DRM is the reason why all most successful subscription music services use it.

10/27/2005 5:19:16 PM

What are some successful subscription music services which don't use WMA?

10/27/2005 5:19:56 PM

iTMS

10/27/2005 5:20:20 PM

iTMS isn't subscription music

you have to buy every single sound track even if you don't like it later.

10/27/2005 5:20:56 PM

Ahh Ok.

Nevermind then.

10/27/2005 5:21:34 PM

Quote :

"I love Apple though because they are the only company that would dedicate most of their front page to an American hero"

The "Think Different" campaign is yet another thing I hate about Apple.

They associate buying an over-priced POS computer with struggling for human equality.

Or various other actions that actually have significance

10/27/2005 5:22:40 PM

I didn't object to his statement because I assume he is comparing the subscription stores to each other.
"Out of the 20% of the market that we own, I own 50% of that!! HAHA, I'm so awesome!"

10/27/2005 5:23:48 PM

Audio CD's are PCM 16-bit audio sampled at 44.1 KHz, not 48. Really, most audio is recorded at 98 or 192 KHz, then down converted to 44.1

Anyway: The iPod was sucessful because it was the first small MP3 player. I had a Creative Nomad Jukebox 1 (One of the first HDD MP3 players, I think it was actually second), and it was the size of a large CD player. Now, compare that to the ipod, which is alot smaller. The reason it was so small is becuase apple was the only company that had access to the 1.8" HDD's used in the ipod, everyone else was using 2.5" laptop drives.

The shuffle is pretty useless, although it is only $100.

10/27/2005 5:56:00 PM

w00t...now i can watch video on my in-dash LCD via the ipod

10/27/2005 9:11:58 PM

apple is the shit now they run windows stuff

10/27/2005 9:25:39 PM

Quote :

"They associate buying an over-priced POS computer with struggling for human equality. "

Gee... when you phrase it like that...

10/27/2005 9:30:04 PM

Quote :

""Out of the 20% of the market that we own, I own 50% of that!! HAHA, I'm so awesome!""

P.S. I love Macs and I think they are FAR better computers. Still buying a Mac is NOTHING like not standing up from your seat in a bus full of pigfaces. That shit is distasteful.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 11:06:17 PM

another reason why i 'hate' apple...

i can now download all my photos directly from my digital camera or memory card onto my ipod without using a computer. no more traveling with a laptop just to clear out some memory cards.

10/27/2005 11:06:36 PM

How about you try transferring songs onto your Ipod without installing itunes and see if it plays them.

10/27/2005 11:15:32 PM

haha...i wouldn't want to not use itunes ever. i have been using itunes since day one release on Mac way before windows and way before i knew what an ipod was. I'm just so used to it and hooked i wouldn't want to try anything else.

10/27/2005 11:18:14 PM

Yeah, I don't know if iTunes is a problem on Windows, but why would you not use iTunes on Mac?

10/27/2005 11:19:24 PM