Storage media sizes exploding

On 2008-05-06, Romeo Rondeau <eveyone@ease . com > wrote:
>>
>> People buy iPods for the name. They buy mp3 players, the iPod being one
>> of many types of mp3 players, for convenience.
>>
>> "Quality" when referring to mp3 players is about durability.
>
> Says who? We were talking about sound quality. Thanks for playing, though.

Ease of use too. The user interface on the ipods an that touch wheel
thing, at least on the originals, was very nice to use. The whole
experience of the player is not just how it sounds but also how pleasant
for fiddly it is to get it to play the right selection of those 1
billion songs you want it to play.

Size comes into it, battery life, and for many people I expect looks and
fashion.

That said, I have an iAudio which is bulky, can be fiddly to use, but
sounds good enough and runs on a normal AAA cell which can be easily
replaced. (I use rechargeable ones). It also has tuner and line in which
are two features I value. It wasn't too expensive.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

"Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone@ease . com > wrote in message
news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254@newssvr19.news.prodigy . net

> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for
> convenience.

What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio playback device
whose electrical output is about as clean as a CD player, but that has a
low source impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load it with
uncompressed audio files, it is the functional equivalent of a high quality
portable CD player.

> If you want quality buy something that was designed for it.

IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product.

Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3, which was a logical
predecessor of either the iPod or the Microtrack.

At this point I don't think that the professional utility and perhaps even
the professional stature of the Microtrack and competitive products are in
doubt by many.

Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks without the extensive
facilities for location recording, but with a more user-friendly file
system.

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone@ease . com > wrote in message
> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254@newssvr19.news.prodigy . net
>
>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for
>> convenience.
>
> What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio playback device
> whose electrical output is about as clean as a CD player, but that has a
> low source impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load it with
> uncompressed audio files, it is the functional equivalent of a high
> quality portable CD player.
>
>> If you want quality buy something that was designed for it.
>
> IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product.
>
> Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3, which was a logical
> predecessor of either the iPod or the Microtrack.
>
> At this point I don't think that the professional utility and perhaps even
> the professional stature of the Microtrack and competitive products are in
> doubt by many.
>
> Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks without the extensive
> facilities for location recording, but with a more user-friendly file
> system.
>
The zeitgeist manifests not in the hardware platform, which is decent, but
in the mastering and the compression. The hardware is equivalent or better
than a typical CD Walkman of the 90's, but the sound is not. But the
zeitgeist also manifests in the market share of flash player music, which
occured with the changing role of music in our society. In the past, music
was marketed as a performance. High fidelity was a privilege equivalent to a
good seat in the hall. That is now quite secondary. Music is now principally
a pacifier, an auxilary brainwave. I would guess that most audio
professionals hear music fewer hours of the day than the typical flash
player addict, but we listen more intently.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:UomdnRvCc-0G7L3VnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews . com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
> news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone@ease . com > wrote in message
>> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254@newssvr19.news.prodigy . net
>>
>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for
>>> convenience.
>>
>> What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio
>> playback device whose electrical output is about as
>> clean as a CD player, but that has a low source
>> impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load
>> it with uncompressed audio files, it is the functional
>> equivalent of a high quality portable CD player.
>>> If you want quality buy something that was designed for
>>> it.
>>
>> IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product.
>>
>> Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3,
>> which was a logical predecessor of either the iPod or
>> the Microtrack. At this point I don't think that the professional
>> utility and perhaps even the professional stature of the
>> Microtrack and competitive products are in doubt by many.
>>
>> Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks
>> without the extensive facilities for location recording,
>> but with a more user-friendly file system.

> The zeitgeist manifests not in the hardware platform,
> which is decent, but in the mastering and the
> compression.

So then this isn't about iPods or storage media, its about mastering.

> The hardware is equivalent or better than a
> typical CD Walkman of the 90's, but the sound is not.

Given that the hardware can be loaded with what have you, then your
statement makes no sense.

Are you decrying customer preferences or hardware?

> But the zeitgeist also manifests in the market share of flash
> player music, which occured with the changing role of
> music in our society.

Do tell, what is "flash player music", and how does it differ from the
finest digital recordings ever made?

> In the past, music was marketed as a performance.

Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen
to.

> High fidelity was a privilege equivalent
> to a good seat in the hall.

Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.

> That is now quite secondary.

Speak for yourself!

> Music is now principally a pacifier, an auxilary
> brainwave.

For some people, probably.

> I would guess that most audio professionals
> hear music fewer hours of the day than the typical flash
> player addict, but we listen more intently.

Your point?

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
news:TfGdncvodPLqPb3VnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
> news:UomdnRvCc-0G7L3VnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews . com
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop . com > wrote in message
>> news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast . com ...
>>> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone@ease . com > wrote in message
>>> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254@newssvr19.news.prodigy . net
>>>
>>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for
>>>> convenience.
>>>
>>> What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio
>>> playback device whose electrical output is about as
>>> clean as a CD player, but that has a low source
>>> impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load
>>> it with uncompressed audio files, it is the functional
>>> equivalent of a high quality portable CD player.
>>>> If you want quality buy something that was designed for
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product.
>>>
>>> Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3,
>>> which was a logical predecessor of either the iPod or
>>> the Microtrack. At this point I don't think that the professional
>>> utility and perhaps even the professional stature of the
>>> Microtrack and competitive products are in doubt by many.
>>>
>>> Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks
>>> without the extensive facilities for location recording,
>>> but with a more user-friendly file system.
>
>> The zeitgeist manifests not in the hardware platform,
>> which is decent, but in the mastering and the
>> compression.
>
> So then this isn't about iPods or storage media, its about mastering.
>
>> The hardware is equivalent or better than a
>> typical CD Walkman of the 90's, but the sound is not.
>
> Given that the hardware can be loaded with what have you, then your
> statement makes no sense.
>
> Are you decrying customer preferences or hardware?
>
>> But the zeitgeist also manifests in the market share of flash
>> player music, which occured with the changing role of
>> music in our society.
>
> Do tell, what is "flash player music", and how does it differ from the
> finest digital recordings ever made?
>
>> In the past, music was marketed as a performance.
>
> Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen
> to.
>
Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen
to.


>> High fidelity was a privilege equivalent
>> to a good seat in the hall.
>
> Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.
Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.
>
>> That is now quite secondary.
>
> Speak for yourself!

Speak for yourself!

>
>> Music is now principally a pacifier, an auxilary
>> brainwave.
>
> For some people, probably.

For the majority.
>
>> I would guess that most audio professionals
>> hear music fewer hours of the day than the typical flash
>> player addict, but we listen more intently.
>
> Your point?
>
Your point?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

"Soundhaspriority" wrote ...
> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
...
>> Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to
>> listen to.
>>
> Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen
> to.
.....
>> Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.
> Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.
....
>> Speak for yourself!
>
> Speak for yourself!
....
>> For some people, probably.
>
> For the majority.
....
>> Your point?
>>
> Your point?

CHILDREN!
Don't make me stop this car!

geoff wrote:

> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented and
> the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
> billion songs on our 'ipods'.

Unfortunately it would take significantly longer than one's lifetime to listen
to them all even once.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> geoff wrote:
>
>> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented and
>> the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
>> billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>
> Unfortunately it would take significantly longer than one's lifetime to listen
> to them all even once.
>
> Graham
>
>

At three minutes a song that is 57,000 years. That's almost as long as
Wagner's "Der Ring des Niebelungen".

d

"don pearce" <nospam@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:z8qdnfyPpaFHn73VnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@plusnet...
> >> It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is
invented and
> >> the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
> >> billion songs on our 'ipods'.
> >
> > Unfortunately it would take significantly longer than one's lifetime to
listen
> > to them all even once.
>
> At three minutes a song that is 57,000 years.

Which even at 128kb/s is approx 30,000,000 gigabytes.
I think ipod hard drives are a little short of that at the moment :-)

MrT.

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:481FB10B.AEF95A37@hotmail . com ...
>
> > It always amuses me when the next greatest memory technology is invented
and
> > the technology 'journalists' say that now we will be able to store 10
> > billion songs on our 'ipods'.
>
> Unfortunately it would take significantly longer than one's lifetime to
listen
> to them all even once.

Only if you insist on listening to them one at a time. I believe we had a
thread about that recently.

Peace,
Paul

>> Unfortunately it would take significantly longer than one's lifetime to
> listen
>> to them all even once.
>
> Only if you insist on listening to them one at a time. I believe we had a
> thread about that recently.

:-)
F.