This discussion is closed.
Tribi18
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by amexblack)
If 15GB is sufficient and you want something that looks butt ugly, get it in terms of sound quality, it is probably as good as the ipod - certainly good enough for most people. I'm a bit of an apple fanboy -- I have apple powerbooks, cinema displays and ipods :P I realise there are probably cheaper, comparable alternatives - but they all lack apple's style. My PC is a P4 though.
well no i don't want somthing that looks ugly but ye i no what u mean. its jus cheaper n just because apple have made them doens't mean they r better does it. Whats a pc at P4? U no to get music onto the ipod can u jus dragg and drop kinda thing ontot hew ipod from the computer - if u download on the net ??
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by amazingtrade)
No because you can hear the extra detail there.
but any of the extra detail, will be, by defenition, higher than the ear can hear. (unless you can hear high frequencies)
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by Tribi18)
well no i don't want somthing that looks ugly but ye i no what u mean. its jus cheaper n just because apple have made them doens't mean they r better does it. Whats a pc at P4? U no to get music onto the ipod can u jus dragg and drop kinda thing ontot hew ipod from the computer - if u download on the net ??
well, it's not butt ugly. but not as stylish as the iPod in my opinion.
http://www.press.ce.philips.com/uplo...ifa/hdd100.jpg

You do pay a premium with iPods for the name. For some people it's worth it, for others it's not. There are many fairly similar MP3 players out there for alot less.

P4 = Pentium 4, so not an Apple.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
(Original post by amexblack)
combined with sample size, it is the accuracy of the recording.

CD Audio contains sound that has been sampled 44.1 thousand times a second, with a sample size of 16 bits.

It is similar to picture quality -- an image can contain a certain number of pixels (ie the sample rate with audio) each of which has its colour described by a certain number of bits, such as 16 bit colour, or 32 bit colour, (ie the sample size with audio).
to take your picture analogy, the smallest resolution (be it spatial or colour) that the eye can resolve is limited, so increasing the quality of the image (by giving it a higher pixel density or more colour bits) will, after a certain point (44.1kHz for the audio analogy), do nothing to the quality of what the eye detects.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
This is quote a techy thread hehe. All I care about is how the music sounds as it will with most others...
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by elpaw)
to take your picture analogy, the smallest resolution (be it spatial or colour) that the eye can resolve is limited, so increasing the quality of the image (by giving it a higher pixel density or more colour bits) will, after a certain point (44.1kHz for the audio analogy), do nothing to the quality of what the eye detects.
Basicly the higher the sampling rate the less the DAC has to guess what the sound is and the more accurate it actually is.

A CDs transport (the trey and laser machanism) reads binary from the disc. The digital to analogue converter then converts these 01's into an analogue wave form.

In CD it is 44,100 times per second, anything else in between is guessed, the higher the sampling rate the better quality the recording will be. Try listening to a 6khz sampling rate, it will sound like a telephone recording, try a 20khz it sounds like AM radio etc.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Basicly the higher the sampling rate the less the DAC has to guess what the sound is and the more accurate it actually is.

A CDs transport (the trey and laser machanism) reads binary from the disc. The digital to analogue converter then converts these 01's into an analogue wave form.

In CD it is 44,100 times per second, anything else in between is guessed, the higher the sampling rate the better quality the recording will be. Try listening to a 6khz sampling rate, it will sound like a telephone recording, try a 20khz it sounds like AM radio etc.
i know how a cd/digital signalling etc works (im a physics student for gods sake ). i am just arguing that having a higher sampling rate (above 44.1 kHz) will not change the way that music sounds
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by elpaw)
i know how a cd/digital signalling etc works (im a physics student for gods sake ). i am just arguing that having a higher sampling rate (above 44.1 kHz) will not change the way that music sounds
I read a report on this and the figure in which the extra detail won't matter is around 60khz. They know the 44.1khz was a problem when CD was invented but they stuck with this as it seemed the easiest and cheapest option and also allowed around 74 minutes to recorded.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I read a report on this and the figure in which the extra detail won't matter is around 60khz. They know the 44.1khz was a problem when CD was invented but they stuck with this as it seemed the easiest and cheapest option and also allowed around 74 minutes to recorded.
the time of a cd depends on its dimensions, so if they wanted a 60kHz CD of 74 mins, they could have just made it bigger.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by elpaw)
the time of a cd depends on its dimensions, so if they wanted a 60kHz CD of 74 mins, they could have just made it bigger.
Yeah but the marketing people would have already decided on a size, I think they wanted it to be smaller than a 7" single for impact.

CD sound has come on the long way in the last ten years but I think the fact that storage is now so cheap solid state systems will become more common and will sound better than CD because there is no machnancial device it has to read from hence reduced jitter and there will be no need for buffering which effects the sound quality of CDs though buffering is vital.
0
dazmanultra
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
You're not going to notice the lower quality of MP3 with most headphones though.

I encode mine a 192-256kbit vbr, this is plenty high enough that i can't tell the difference (at least not through headphones in your average environment, on the bus etc). Obviously, if connected to my hi-fi you'd be able to tell.

I'm still yet to be convinced over vinyl's "better sound".
0
deary_ma_leary
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by Tednol)
Personally, I would say changing the battery is easy.
but how much does it cost?
0
Emma18
Badges: 0
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
i still have a tape playing walkman!!!! though if i could afford one of thse new fangled ipods thatd be groovy!!!
0
chidori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
The iPod is a waste of money. Most people don't need 20GB or even 5GB of music on them. I think it's too hyped up and people only want it because it makes them look cool and 'with it'.

If you do get one, then you might want to consider changing the earphones. Apparantly, thieves know immediately who has a £400 iPod on them just by looking at the distinctive white earphones.
0
Dazbradbury
Badges: 0
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
I dont think high capacity music players are a waste of money, I think they're the best thing to happen to portable music.

Yuu've got to remember we're talking portable music here, not a hi-fi set-up, so you can't expect perfect sound. That said, I own a 20gb iRiver (much better than the ipod in all ways, apart from it may not look as slick and isn't, as most ipod owners need, made by apple.)

I use my iRiver with a pair of sennheiser px200, they're not the best headphones, but they're great for portable use. I think that set-up is perfect, even though, i probably would have prefferred the 40gb version. I think people that say 20gb or 40gb is too big and isn't valuable are pretty stupid. My iRiver is full, and that's not got my whole music collection on it. I do find it frustrating though when people have 20gb ipods and only 500mb of songs on them, now that is a waste.

About digital quality, well i don't have a problem with it, but there are lossless codecs out there, like FLAC, and new players are starting to support them, wether it's neccessary or not is another argument, as i'm prefectly happy with ogg's or mp3's at a high bit rate. I do like the sound of vinyl though, but i'm not picky enough to complain. Most people that buy ipod's use ipod headphones though, so i doubt they care about sound quality too much anyway.

Well, those are my thoughts, and if anyone feel's they want to argue that the ipod is better than the HDD iRiver's, then feel free! I'm going to get back to enjoying my music...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (2)
6.67%
Confident (5)
16.67%
Indifferent (1)
3.33%
Unsure (7)
23.33%
Worried (15)
50%

Watched Threads

View All