Storage media sizes exploding
in [Audio Recording]
|
Prev: Acoustic memory
Next: How to tell "true" wave files
From: Arny Krueger on 6 May 2008 14:14 "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:UomdnRvCc-0G7L3VnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d(a)giganews.com > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk(a)hotpop.com> wrote in message > news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone(a)ease.com> wrote in message >> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254(a)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?
From: geoff on 6 May 2008 22:47 Doug McDonald wrote: > Mike Rivers wrote: > ?I don't suppose anyone can name enough songs to fill up a 100 GB >> disk drive. >> >> >> >> > > Well, if you use "song" literally that's true. But I don't listen to > songs, I listen to music. I already have 30 gigabytes (at an average > 170 kByte/sec). And I don't have even a modest CD collection. > I suspect that I will eventually reach 110 gigabytes. So get a 250GB drive, or bigger. And you don't even have to mount them physically inside the compute. They cost 10% of what a 4GB drive did when they were the biggest around ! geoff
From: Eeyore on 5 May 2008 21:14 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
From: Mike Rivers on 5 May 2008 22:40 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'. It annoys me when the only disk drives you can buy conveniently are so large that I'd hate to lose that much data when the drive fails. I know I can always just use 20% of a 500 GB disk and call it full, but life's not like that. I just got an announcement of a class action lawsuit against Creative Labs. Someone claimed that because a real gigabyte is 2^30 rather than 10^9, users were cheated out of approximately 7% of the capacity of the disk and couldn't store as many songs on their Jukebox players as claimed. Then I found out that someone sued Seagate on exactly the same basis. I don't suppose anyone can name enough songs to fill up a 100 GB disk drive. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers (mriv...(a)d-and-d.com)
From: geoff on 5 May 2008 23:35
Romeo Rondeau wrote: > > You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for convenience. If you > want quality buy something that was designed for it. But everything with an 'i' is quality..... geoff |