Alternatives to an iPod?? Suggestions please!!

[STEALTHY™]

So if you cant hear the loss in quality how do you know it does lose quality????

So like, if i cant see wind, it doesn't exist?:rofl::rofl:

 

[Luke0011]

So like, if i cant see wind, it doesn't exist?:rofl::rofl:

Ridiculous analogy. as the feeling of wind tells you it exists, oh im sorry are you suggesting you can feel the quality drop?

 

[Fun_Bucket]

Thanks stealthy



And just to clear things up for everyone else reading these threads, yes you would lose quality converting to an MP3 this is indeed a fact, however even through a high-end system this quality drop is unnoticeable.

I don't understand why you think that the difference is unnoticible? The more "high end" the system, or better yet, the more detailed and accurate, then the more likely you are to hear the difference. Sometimes it can actually be easier on the ears, to listen to a poor recording, through a more average system. Some speakers, will expose flaws more than others. If you've ever dealt with a really accurate system, whether it be car audio/home audio, sometimes you can sit in agony trying to find a recording that actually sounds decent, and does the system some justice.

 

[Fun_Bucket]

That has nothing to do with the thread mate.

Your comment was i don't see the need to carry 10,000 songs. Well, alot of people DO see the need to. Just because YOU don't understand something, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for it

In a way it does. At the end of the day, whether you can tell the difference between one source and another, you'll still go for the one that supposedly has the better sound quality correct? My opinions did nothing but state the quality of sound in comparison, the reasons for it, and what can be done to better it.

 

[STEALTHY™]

Ridiculous analogy. as the feeling of wind tells you it exists, oh im sorry are you suggesting you can feel the quality drop?

You know exactly what i'm suggesting One sense can;t sense it (hear) but another can (your eyes SEEING the quality(size) change).

In a way it does. At the end of the day, whether you can tell the difference between one source and another, you'll still go for the one that supposedly has the better sound quality correct? My opinions did nothing but state the quality of sound in comparison, the reasons for it, and what can be done to better it.

I think you misquoted, my post was talking about the 'no need for 10,000 songs' comment made by you

 

[Luke0011]

You know exactly what i'm suggesting One sense can;t sense it (hear) but another can (your eyes SEEING the quality(size) change).

Now i think your on drugs, anyway i happy to agree to disagree.

 

[STEALTHY™]

Now i think your on drugs, anyway i happy to agree to disagree.

Not on drugs at all, quite the opposite in fact. Its quite easy to see the quality has changed by looking at the file size. Its a moot point really anyway, i've never had a problem with songs on an ipod compared to a CD or whatnot, and i have perfect hearing according to my latest hearing test

 

[06vzcalais]

geez ive never had any issues with my ipod, i still have and use my 30 gig ipod video which is like 4 years old or something. and i also just recently bought an ipod touch which is great for videos, games and stuff. i can understand if you have had troubles in the past with ipods so you wouldnt want another one but i still rekon they are the best mp3 players around, i am yet to see another portable mp3 player which is 160gig which is pretty impresive really.

second the ipod touch, had one since release no problems what so ever, use it in the car everyday and have memory maxed out. only problem i have is itunes

 

[edals]

second the ipod touch, had one since release no problems what so ever, use it in the car everyday and have memory maxed out. only problem i have is itunes

Remember to take ya iPod out of your car or any other device, The batteries expand due to the heat, happened to my iPod video after 1 year being in a hot car day after day. lucky i had a spare battery for it.

 

[theSeekerr]

Anyone who honestly believes that they can hear the difference between the original CD and a 320kbits MP3 should head on over to HydrogenAudio and check out the ABX testing they do.

Long story short, pretty much nobody can hear the difference on music samples. Only those who have trained their ears (and minds) to detect the specific artifacts of different codecs can hear the difference, and even then only on a small percentage of samples.

I was skeptical, so I tried it myself using the Foobar2000 ABX plugin (for the pedants, I was using an AMB Gamma-1 DAC, a Tangentsoft Pimeta headphone amplifier and a pair of Sennheiser HD-25-1-II's.), using LAME to encode CBR MP3's. At 64kbits, the difference was blindingly obvious. At 96kbits, it was less awful, but easily detectable. At 128kbits, many samples were listenable, but not perfect. And at 160kbits, my ability to distinguish the samples from the lossless source fell below the level of statistical significance - ie. maybe I could hear something, but not consistently, and this was when I was listening for problems.

I now use 160kbit Average Bit Rate AAC's (for the Sony) or WMA's (for the car head unit) - since both these codecs are more efficient than MP3, I'm confident that I've avoided nearly all possibility of audible artifacts, without wasting storage capacity. At home, I still store everything lossless, so I can convert it to the appropriate format as required.