Storage media sizes exploding
in [Audio Recording]
|
Prev: Acoustic memory
Next: How to tell "true" wave files
From: Chris Hornbeck on 6 May 2008 23:12 On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:40:56 GMT, Mike Rivers <mrivers(a)d-and-d.com> wrote: > I don't suppose anyone can name enough songs to fill up a 100 GB >disk drive. I just wish I could *forget* about 100 GB of songs. Until I do, learning anything new involves an awful lot of hard-drive thrashing and page-file swapping. Damned inconvenient, and at my age, awkward. I don't need those old songs anyway; I can always make up something, and nobody else knows the difference. If you've got a Brill building, a Supremes, and a Beatles in your head, yer good to go. 'Course, there's too much that I wouldn't want to live without. So, a complete reformat is right out. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "It's for compatibility with 8-Track." -scott
From: Green Xenon [Radium] on 6 May 2008 23:13 Paul Stamler wrote: > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1(a)excite.com> wrote in message > news:481f9a17$0$31747$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com... > >> *Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to >> mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded >> differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally panned >> to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose phase is >> different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce the >> loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before converting >> it to mono]. > > Wha-a? > > Peace, > Paul > > Huh?
From: Richard Corfield on 6 May 2008 06:14 On 2008-05-06, Romeo Rondeau <eveyone(a)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
From: Arny Krueger on 6 May 2008 07:19 "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.
From: Mr.T on 6 May 2008 07:52
"don pearce" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:z8qdnfyPpaFHn73VnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d(a)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. |