Quake3World

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:17 am**

shiznit wrote:
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:4gb is quite a bit of music
Most mp3s are between 4-6mb if not less, so it's like 1000 songs?

at around 128kbps yeah.

so...

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:54 am**

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote: and the nano only holds 2-4gb.

yet it's 200 dollars (compared to 300 dollars for regular)

the now "defunct" mini was 4GB and was $250 US. were you griping about it as well?

never saw the point of the mini really - not that much smaller.

as for the rest of the arguments - THANKS - that's all i was looking for. My posts were all ASKING people what is so special about it. I didn't consider the flash memory thing.

btw does that mean that there isn't a pause between tracks?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:14 am**

i don't see gapless playback listed in it's features. so, like most other DAP's, no.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:23 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:btw does that mean that there isn't a pause between tracks?

Seriously, Jules, that is one dumb question. Unless you're trolling, of course.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:35 am**

What's dumb about it?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:43 am**

What does the standard iPod have 32 of?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:46 am**

my ipod has this annoying gap between tracks - sux for things like pink floyd albums (unless you copy over the whole album as one mp3).

they're meant to be heard seamlessly.

I heard the reason that this gap occured was because of the type of memory used.

*doesn't really know much about mp3 players - i know there are ipods and i've seen these tiny ones that people have - put the nano to shame (but i guess they don't store as much?)

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:53 am**

Geebs wrote:What does the standard iPod have 32 of?

I guess you're talking about memory buffering. What Julios and I were talking about is the iPod has this annoying split second of silence between tracks. I have a first generation, I don't know what Julios has. I am curious too whether later iPodas, including the nano, have completely seemless transitions.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:56 am**

IT'S CALLED GAPLESS PLAYBACK

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:01 am**

I shop at the Gap all the time. This is not the time or place to be hating. What the fuck is your problem dude?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:53 am**

hey, next time you're at The Gap you might want to pick up some panties that aren't so tight.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:07 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:my ipod has this annoying gap between tracks - sux for things like pink floyd albums (unless you copy over the whole album as one mp3).

they're meant to be heard seamlessly.

I heard the reason that this gap occured was because of the type of memory used.

*doesn't really know much about mp3 players - i know there are ipods and i've seen these tiny ones that people have - put the nano to shame (but i guess they don't store as much?)

the gap is inherent to the mp3 format....

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:09 pm**

Geebs wrote:What does the standard iPod have 32 of?

Form your answer as a question please

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:19 pm**

saturn wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote:my ipod has this annoying gap between tracks - sux for things like pink floyd albums (unless you copy over the whole album as one mp3).

they're meant to be heard seamlessly.

I heard the reason that this gap occured was because of the type of memory used.

*doesn't really know much about mp3 players - i know there are ipods and i've seen these tiny ones that people have - put the nano to shame (but i guess they don't store as much?)
the gap is inherent to the mp3 format....

no coz on my computer this gap doesn't exist.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:37 pm**

Yup, when I play mp3s on my computer there is a SEAMLESS TRANSITION between tracks. In other words, there is no ANNOYING SPLIT SECOND OF SILENCE. In other words, there is NO DISCONTINUITY.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:37 pm**

that's cause your player mixes the end and beginning of songs to create a seamless transition. iPods can't mix the songs (yet), something Apple should include in the next version.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:40 pm**

Some compression methods such as the popular MP3 can create problems because they introduce small gaps on decompression. Even if two tracks are decompressed and merged into a single track, a gap will remain between them. More recent audio formats have been designed to address this problem, and will produce gapless audio if played back correctly.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:42 pm**

I don't hope that Julios and Mr Herpes will remain stubborn about this subject.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:38 pm**

saturn wrote:that's cause your player mixes the end and beginning of songs to create a seamless transition. iPods can't mix the songs (yet), something Apple should include in the next version.

ah cool.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:39 pm**

saturn wrote:I don't hope that Julios and Mr Herpes will remain stubborn about this subject.

heh - have I ever been stubborn before?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:45 pm**

saturn wrote:I don't hope that Julios and Mr Herpes will remain stubborn about this subject.

Mr Julios and Mr Herpes Simplex are very thankful that Mr Saturn could enlighten his fellow comrades about the nature of the problem. Mr Julios and Mr HSV-1 are still very bewildered that a trailblazer in the field of media electronics like Apple can still fail to include a fix for this problem, when freeware software such as FooBar2000 has been able to find a fix.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:46 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
saturn wrote:I don't hope that Julios and Mr Herpes will remain stubborn about this subject.
heh - have I ever been stubborn before?

THE IPOD NANO IS A LOT SMALLER, NO LIE!!

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:56 pm**

mjrpes wrote:
saturn wrote:I don't hope that Julios and Mr Herpes will remain stubborn about this subject.
Mr Julios and Mr Herpes Simplex are very thankful that Mr Saturn could enlighten his fellow comrades about the nature of the problem. Mr Julios and Mr HSV-1 are still very bewildered that a trailblazer in the field of media electronics like Apple can still fail to include a fix for this problem, when freeware software such as FooBar2000 has been able to find a fix.

iTunes has seamless transition...I dunno why apple didn't include it on the iPod, i don't really miss it.

p.s. I read mrjpes as Major Herpes actually :>

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:59 pm**

Apparently, Apple (Jobs) decided 9 months ago to make the Mini better when it was just 11 months old. Bold move to change and replace your best (THE BEST SELLING) mp3 player.

Nice article from Times:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 72,00.html

People expect consumer electronics to keep getting smaller, as though it were a natural process like grass growing, but it doesn't happen by itself. The Nano may seem superficially iPod-esque on the outside, but on the inside it has been completely, painstakingly, exhaustively re-engineered. Older iPods (except for the low-capacity iPod Shuffle) have miniature hard drives in them, but the Nano is built around a chunk of solid-state Flash memory. The screen is all new too. Because it's smaller, the Nano's screen has to be sharper to be readable. (It ended up being so sharp, it shows one line of text more than the Mini's screen does. In color too.)

And that's just the obvious stuff. The click wheel on the front had to be reinvented to fit the Nano's ridiculously slim 6.9-mm profile. Ditto the battery and chips. "We use every fraction of a millimeter of space to get things in there," says Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller. "It's like a puzzle to fit all that stuff together. It has the tightest tolerances of anything we've ever made in the history of this company."

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:00 pm**

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:4gb is quite a bit of music

I do more then just listen to music with it. A self powered, 20 gb usb HD is a dream for on site data recovery or just sharing movies and shit with people.

Quake3World

Cool, iPod nano