It acts exactly like a flash drive. To me, the flexibility involved with that is a big deal yet not many people I've talked to needed that feature.Uzique wrote:
You basically mean like a flash drive?
4th g nano, 16 gb.
today's mp3 players > original ipod, the industry has matured and they
are a commodity now. it's all evolutionary, the revolution is dead.
the best part of this thread is learning the pros/cons of different systems, and
as always the trolls showing thier IQ.
today's mp3 players > original ipod, the industry has matured and they
are a commodity now. it's all evolutionary, the revolution is dead.
the best part of this thread is learning the pros/cons of different systems, and
as always the trolls showing thier IQ.
theirburni$te wrote:
4th g nano, 16 gb.
today's mp3 players > original ipod, the industry has matured and they
are a commodity now. it's all evolutionary, the revolution is dead.
the best part of this thread is learning the pros/cons of different systems, and
as always the trolls showing thier IQ.
l2read, drag and drop is retarded, unnecesary, and offers no advantage over syncingDefiance wrote:
Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say?
You ran out of space on your player, so you put some on your 500GB external hard drive to bring along and use with your laptop on a journey.JoshP wrote:
l2read, drag and drop is retarded, unnecesary, and offers no advantage over syncingDefiance wrote:
Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say?
By an unfortunate turn of events, your laptop is broken beyond on-the-spot repair on the trip, and you're dead tired of the same old music that's on your iPod. You need to get your music from the hard drive to the iPod, but your 16-hour flight back home boards in half an hour. The only computer available is one of the many public computers on the airfield. What do you do?
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
1) you're freezer and have 5 albums, problem solvedFreezer7Pro wrote:
You ran out of space on your player, so you put some on your 500GB external hard drive to bring along and use with your laptop on a journey.JoshP wrote:
l2read, drag and drop is retarded, unnecesary, and offers no advantage over syncingDefiance wrote:
Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say?
By an unfortunate turn of events, your laptop is broken beyond on-the-spot repair on the trip, and you're dead tired of the same old music that's on your iPod. You need to get your music from the hard drive to the iPod, but your 16-hour flight back home boards in half an hour. The only computer available is one of the many public computers on the airfield. What do you do?
2) You're me and have 25GB of music and a 120GB ipod, problem solved.
3) Use portable itunes which you would have had prepared for this situation. Or alternatively, download portable itunes.
Last edited by JoshP (2009-02-10 08:54:29)
You've brought up that 5 albums things 4-5 times now, since it means nothing that's just immature. I may not win any records, but I'll double your 25GB, and I'm on an 8GB flash player. I have no problems putting on what I want, you're not going to listen to even 8GB in one outing. Finally, wouldn't you love to just plug it in and be set up? No carrying around anything extra..JoshP wrote:
1) you're freezer and have 5 albums, problem solved
2) You're me and have 25GB of music and a 120GB ipod, problem solved.
3) Use portable itunes which you would have had prepared for this situation. Or alternatively, download portable itunes.
Retarded is null, unnecessary is not true because the capability is present on your iPod and it even seemed to fascinate you for a moment. The advantage is not needing a proprietary program. Even on a home computer, that's paramount. Not needing that program means:JoshP wrote:
l2read, drag and drop is retarded, unnecesary, and offers no advantage over syncingDefiance wrote:
Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say?
1) You can use just about any computer. If it's a public system and USB is disabled, you really ought not to anyways, though it's possible. Advantage here is that you just need to get through the USB block, not getting another program on the system as well.
2) You can organize the folders yourself if the player offers directory view. Folder browsing can let you organize music however you want without having to manipulate the ID3 tags.
3) Quick. Open the Cowon folder, open my local music folder, drag and drop. Since I select by artist, this is the fastest possible way to do it.
4) Stock programs are shit. I went back to iTunes for a family member's iPod and the interface had been so dumbed down to plug and sync that there was nothing else without manipulating the config.
Are you going to try and say something intelligent or just whine like a child?
Edit: adjective fail.
Last edited by Defiance (2009-02-10 20:26:48)
It's amusing and ironic as he claims to be an audiophileDefiance wrote:
You've brought up that 5 albums things 4-5 times now, since it means nothing that's just immature.
The most awsm thing about having a high capacity iPod is that you can listen to any one song from your entire collection at any moment. You'll probably not even listen to more than say, 512MB in one outing, but should we all just stick to 512MB players because of that?Defiance wrote:
I may not win any records, but I'll double your 25GB, and I'm on an 8GB flash player. I have no problems putting on what I want, you're not going to listen to even 8GB in one outing.
This is what I do? For me, freezers "but what if you want to add extra music" is pointless because I only ever download music at home, I'm not going to add extra music elsewhere because I'm bored of my existing collection (his hypothetical situation) - I already have 25GB of it on my iPod, perfectly sufficient.Finally, wouldn't you love to just plug it in and be set up? No carrying around anything extra..
It's unnecessary for me. Me clicking "sync all my music" in iTunes requires 2 keypresses - G6 (loads iTunes), and clicking the "Sync all music" the first time I connect my iPod. From then on, everything's on it, and if i want to update my iPod, iTunes opens and syncs automatically when i plug the iPod in. If you disabled that for some reason, it's only 1 keypress at the most.Defiance wrote:
Unnecessary is not true because the capability is present on your iPod and it even seemed to fascinate you for a moment.
Drag and drop would be loads slower - navigating to my music folder, opening the device, selecting the music, dragging over the music... unnecessary hassle much?
But by your own admission, iPods also support your beloved drag-and-drop, however they also have an alternate method of syncing (which works really well). This is clearly better than just having one rigid method...Defiance wrote:
The advantage is not needing a proprietary program. Even on a home computer, that's paramount. Not needing that program means:
Who really does use other people's computers to sync their music? I've never done this or even wanted to (partly because my friends all listen to bad music, but still). Anyway, if you enable disk usage on the iPod + manually manage music, it works just like a drag and drop mp3 player, so no program is needed. And if you still wanted to use iTunes, you could put a portable version of iTunes on your iPod and use it from there. I have a friend who goes round to all his friends houses and syncs his iPod there, so I know it works.1) You can use just about any computer. If it's a public system and USB is disabled, you really ought not to anyways, though it's possible. Advantage here is that you just need to get through the USB block, not getting another program on the system as well.
The fuck? Just use the standard \Artist\Album\01 Song.mp3 structure for folders, what's the point in having a complicated folder browsing method when all media players (iTunes, WMP) will organise it themselves in the interface, and any sensible portable media device will have a well designed interface which allows you to browse your music in a variety of different methods (by Artist, Album, Genre etc). In fact, look at the iPod for this - the iPod is a widely accepted example of a very sleek, easy to use, and well designed UI. (Isn't the Cowon supposed to have a bad UI too? I read a review of it after a quick googling and it said it had a shocking UI)2) You can organize the folders yourself if the player offers directory view. Folder browsing can let you organize music however you want without having to manipulate the ID3 tags.
Pressing G6 and letting iTunes do it for me is quicker3) Quick. Open the Cowon folder, open my local music folder, drag and drop. Since I select by artist, this is the fastest possible way to do it.
Um, lrn2useiTunes?4) Stock programs are shit. I went back to iTunes for a family member's iPod and the interface had been so dumbed down to plug and sync that there was nothing else without manipulating the config.
Are you going to try and say something intelligent or just try and prop up your invalid arguments by saying I whine? (no u basically)Defiance wrote:
Are you going to try and say something intelligent or just whine like a child?
Also are you even arguing against the iPod or against iTunes/any other automatic syncing program? Your purported "advantages" of the Cowon and drag and drop are either also available on the iPod or have a superior alternative on the iPod. Also - if you had a larger capacity player that actually held all your music, I doubt you would still be an advocate of drag and drop.
I haven't even once said that I'm an audiophile. I know my way around the stuff better than most, and I prefer using that to my advantage. That's all.JoshP wrote:
It's amusing and ironic as he claims to be an audiophileDefiance wrote:
You've brought up that 5 albums things 4-5 times now, since it means nothing that's just immature.
Also, you're just plainly dismissing so many points that I could just say I don't care for the size of the player, and still have just as much punch as your arguments. Most of your counters are simply "I don't care", but we're expected to live up to your exact requirements. That doesn't really work.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Most of your dismissals of my arguments are simply vague summations that aren't even correct, just like the aboveFreezer7Pro wrote:
Most of your counters are simply "I don't care", but we're expected to live up to your exact requirements. That doesn't really work.
Where exactly am I wrong?JoshP wrote:
Most of your dismissals of my arguments are simply vague summations that aren't even correct, just like the aboveFreezer7Pro wrote:
Most of your counters are simply "I don't care", but we're expected to live up to your exact requirements. That doesn't really work.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Where exactly am I wrong?JoshP wrote:
Most of your dismissals of my arguments are simply vague summations that aren't even correct, just like the aboveFreezer7Pro wrote:
Most of your counters are simply "I don't care", but we're expected to live up to your exact requirements. That doesn't really work.
Anyway, brb doing something non-pointlessMost of your counters are simply "I don't care"
You started this. You're the one who just wrote a page-long post defending your iPod.JoshP wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Where exactly am I wrong?JoshP wrote:
Most of your dismissals of my arguments are simply vague summations that aren't even correct, just like the aboveAnyway, brb doing something non-pointlessMost of your counters are simply "I don't care"
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Jesus fuck, this thread is borderline retarted.
1) iPods are brilliant for 90% of music listeners
2) iTunes works fine for most people
3) most people don't even know what flac is
4) most people use the stock earphones anyway
now that that's covered, let's move on to the next points
1) It's amazingly easy to sync, add songs, etc to an iPod, agree?
2) It's probably got the most easy to use interface, amirite?
3) It's easy as fuck to import songs with iTunes, yes?
Therefore, it's perfect for the average user, which is exactly why apple have made it like they have, and it's therefore a good MP3 player. Why? Even my mother could use it.
1) iPods are brilliant for 90% of music listeners
2) iTunes works fine for most people
3) most people don't even know what flac is
4) most people use the stock earphones anyway
now that that's covered, let's move on to the next points
1) It's amazingly easy to sync, add songs, etc to an iPod, agree?
2) It's probably got the most easy to use interface, amirite?
3) It's easy as fuck to import songs with iTunes, yes?
Therefore, it's perfect for the average user, which is exactly why apple have made it like they have, and it's therefore a good MP3 player. Why? Even my mother could use it.
People are always going to have superior-elitist attitudes to iPods because they're the mainstream and average option. Of course there are technically better formats, of course there are technically more efficient softwares/methods of syncing, of course there are ways to get better sound-quality and 'x' number of additional features and functionality... but that's not what iPod users even want or care about.
Jen makes some good points, namely that anyone can use an iPod. I doubt the mp3 player market would have exploded and caught on quite the way that it did (with many of your beloved alternate products feeding off this craze-success) unless iPods have been so simplistic and intuitive. Out of the huge chunk of the market-majority that are iPod users, I doubt very many of them care for the processing-advantages of FLAC, or the abstract and unlikely hypothetical situations that Freezer puts forward (talk about a sequence of bad events...). Thus, it is only logical to say that the elitist anti-iPod bandwagon consists of nerdfuckers and pointless bangwagon-hopping bitches; basically people that hate an all-round and simple mp3 player for being an all-round and simple player.
Jen makes some good points, namely that anyone can use an iPod. I doubt the mp3 player market would have exploded and caught on quite the way that it did (with many of your beloved alternate products feeding off this craze-success) unless iPods have been so simplistic and intuitive. Out of the huge chunk of the market-majority that are iPod users, I doubt very many of them care for the processing-advantages of FLAC, or the abstract and unlikely hypothetical situations that Freezer puts forward (talk about a sequence of bad events...). Thus, it is only logical to say that the elitist anti-iPod bandwagon consists of nerdfuckers and pointless bangwagon-hopping bitches; basically people that hate an all-round and simple mp3 player for being an all-round and simple player.
Last edited by Uzique (2009-02-11 08:44:25)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Sure, it works for most people, but you can get things that work better for cheaperJenspm wrote:
Jesus fuck, this thread is borderline retarted.
1) iPods are brilliant for 90% of music listeners
2) iTunes works fine for most people
3) most people don't even know what flac is
4) most people use the stock earphones anyway
now that that's covered, let's move on to the next points
1) It's amazingly easy to sync, add songs, etc to an iPod, agree?
2) It's probably got the most easy to use interface, amirite?
3) It's easy as fuck to import songs with iTunes, yes?
Therefore, it's perfect for the average user, which is exactly why apple have made it like they have, and it's therefore a good MP3 player. Why? Even my mother could use it.
and my mom has horrible troubles with her ipod, and she makes me help her which is terrible, a lot of the time I just have to say, no mom, it can't do that.
Not to mention that when I put my music on my friend's ipod and he syncs it on his computer, it deletes everything I put on.
Last edited by Miggle (2009-02-11 10:17:19)
but not as easily, most of the time.Miggle wrote:
Sure, it works for most people, but you can get things that work better for cheaper
press the x next to syncing iPod..........miggle wrote:
Not to mention that when I put my music on my friend's ipod and he syncs it on his computer, it deletes everything I put on.
He can't sync his shit on without losing my shit, it's a problem, and one of the many flaws with JoshP's concept that syncing is perfect.Jenspm wrote:
but not as easily, most of the time.Miggle wrote:
Sure, it works for most people, but you can get things that work better for cheaperpress the x next to syncing iPod..........miggle wrote:
Not to mention that when I put my music on my friend's ipod and he syncs it on his computer, it deletes everything I put on.
well of course, synronizing your MP3 player means making it a copy of something, and if your music isn't in the thing that is to be copied, it naturally won't be on your iPod anymore.Miggle wrote:
He can't sync his shit on without losing my shit, it's a problem, and one of the many flaws with JoshP's concept that syncing is perfect.Jenspm wrote:
but not as easily, most of the time.Miggle wrote:
Sure, it works for most people, but you can get things that work better for cheaperpress the x next to syncing iPod..........miggle wrote:
Not to mention that when I put my music on my friend's ipod and he syncs it on his computer, it deletes everything I put on.
how about it just moves over the stuff that isn't already on the iPod?Jenspm wrote:
well of course, synronizing your MP3 player means making it a copy of something, and if your music isn't in the thing that is to be copied, it naturally won't be on your iPod anymore.Miggle wrote:
He can't sync his shit on without losing my shit, it's a problem, and one of the many flaws with JoshP's concept that syncing is perfect.Jenspm wrote:
but not as easily, most of the time.Miggle wrote:
Sure, it works for most people, but you can get things that work better for cheaper
press the x next to syncing iPod..........
My brain gave up on this thread a while ago. It's just that bitchy teenage part that's still here.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
half the point is being able to syncronize it to, say, a playlist, so you can manage your iPod without it being connected.Miggle wrote:
how about it just moves over the stuff that isn't already on the iPod?Jenspm wrote:
well of course, synronizing your MP3 player means making it a copy of something, and if your music isn't in the thing that is to be copied, it naturally won't be on your iPod anymore.Miggle wrote:
He can't sync his shit on without losing my shit, it's a problem, and one of the many flaws with JoshP's concept that syncing is perfect.
Of course, there is also the reason that anyone with half a brain can save quite the chunk of change by buying something that isn't made by Apple, because it's not being made by Apple.Uzique wrote:
People are always going to have superior-elitist attitudes to iPods because they're the mainstream and average option. Of course there are technically better formats, of course there are technically more efficient softwares/methods of syncing, of course there are ways to get better sound-quality and 'x' number of additional features and functionality... but that's not what iPod users even want or care about.
Jen makes some good points, namely that anyone can use an iPod. I doubt the mp3 player market would have exploded and caught on quite the way that it did (with many of your beloved alternate products feeding off this craze-success) unless iPods have been so simplistic and intuitive. Out of the huge chunk of the market-majority that are iPod users, I doubt very many of them care for the processing-advantages of FLAC, or the abstract and unlikely hypothetical situations that Freezer puts forward (talk about a sequence of bad events...). Thus, it is only logical to say that the elitist anti-iPod bandwagon consists of nerdfuckers and pointless bangwagon-hopping bitches; basically people that hate an all-round and simple mp3 player for being an all-round and simple player.
Apple has a brand premium, period. If you buy Apple, you are spending money and getting little more than a logo. If that's not a problem, and for many people it isn't, have fun. I would rather not pay more than I have to kthx.
Alright then, some progress. Don't take the whining line personally, it worked.JoshP wrote:
Look it up, listing is pointless.
Amusing to you? Maybe. Ironic? Not by definition. Audiophile? Off by that one too! An audiophile cares about sound quality, you can have one song as long as you want it to sound really awesome. Next, no, we shouldn't stick to 512MB players unless you have a playlist you know you're going to be using (this is the appeal of the Shuffle). Might I direct you to the 250GB offerings from Archos? If you only add music at home, it's fine for you, but the point stands that a USB MSC connection is more flexible. As to the folders, the same point remains that it allows options, no matter how many presets the manufacturer gives you.
Which leads me to: Yes, your iPod has a drag and drop like feature but you can't do it from any connection as it won't be added to the iPod database. Sure, the files will be there, you just can use them. On the other hand, with the MSC style, you can have any program set up to 'sync' with it. Which, in turn, allows the same one button option.
Also, if you didn't pick up on it, iTunes isn't hard to use. It just doesn't have any flexibility. But I guess it looks pretty and displays silver fruit...
Last edited by Defiance (2009-02-11 15:40:49)
2nd Generation iPod Touch 8GB here
I wish they would come out with a larger battery upgrade for it like they have for all the other ones. Safari would probably deplete it as it is in a little under 3 hours.
I wish they would come out with a larger battery upgrade for it like they have for all the other ones. Safari would probably deplete it as it is in a little under 3 hours.