0

So, Lasher, have you got any references or proof yet? All I see is endless babbling about how you're right and I'm wrong, and theories which are completely unsupported. Nevertheless, I will reply to you, but I request that in your next post you show at least one piece of proof (even a screenshot of your iTunes library showing WMA files in the 'kind' field will do). Otherwise, I fail to see any point in arguing with you further.

>From the start i have said these things have just been my experience.
Really? Really?

I don't actually think there are any other MP3 players out there that have proper Wifi or you can view youtube videos on. Itunes actually supports WMA format.

I have never had any problems with playing WMA in itunes or on my ipod. (Okay, so now you actually admit that WMA in iTunes is only your personal experience. But look at what follows.) They are only ever converted in order to be played on the ipod itself however the files on your computer stay WMA format. This is the case with most of the high end mp3 players that actually use a program to sync. It just makes the device itself more efficient.

>I think your running in circles here. Almost seems like your arguing both sides.
Nope. You don't even understand what I said there, did you? It said the iPod's supported formats. It is saying that the iPod can play song files encoded in those formats. It didn't say that iTunes automatically converts songs from those formats into AAC for the iPod (which I would think it should mention in the technical specifications of the device).

Your argument that iTunes automatically converts songs into AAC for the iPod for efficiency is completely skewed. Do you even have any idea how encoding algorithms work with AAC and MP3? I may not know much either, but one thing I do know: both AAC and MP3 use lossy compression techniques.
http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/audioFormats.html

Can't I just convert my MP3 files to another format if necessary?

Yes, you can convert MP3 files into any other format that you can find software for. But because MP3s are created with lossy compression, the information they contain about the music is not a perfect copy of the original. So you would be working from an imperfect source. Even if the format you were converting to allowed better audio quality than MP3, your converted files would not be able to make use of this extra quality, because you would be working from an MP3 file. Conversion and compression can only ever make quality stay the same or get worse; they can never make quality improve.

That means if you convert an MP3 file to an AAC file sampled at an identical bit rates, you will lose quality. Audio experts recommend that if you must convert your songs between lossy formats such as AAC, MP3, WMA, etc., you should at least double the bit rate. Either way, you would lose. Converting the song to another format with the same bit rate will result in crappy sound quality, and doubling the bit rate for acceptable quality will result in your music library taking up twice its original size (in examples where the entire library is made up of MP3s).

Doing some research here, I decided to convert a 4 minute MP3 file, encoded at 128 kbps to a 128 kbps AAC file. Do you want to know how long it took on my dual-core MacBook? 19 seconds. So that means if you want to copy 100 MP3 files to your iPod, it would take 31 minutes, and that's not even counting the time it takes to transfer the file onto the iPod nor is it taking into account slower computers.

Efficiency? Hah!

0

I don't actually think there are any other MP3 players out there that have proper Wifi or you can view youtube videos on

Mu pocket pc + 4gb worth of memory cards only £50 more than the 4gb nano and it can do "proper wifi" and has windows media player, internet explorer, msn, office.. and a nice big screen and speaker

Do you want to know how long it took on my dual-core MacBook? 19 seconds. So that means if you want to copy 100 MP3 files to your iPod, it would take 31 minutes, and that's not even counting the time it takes to transfer the file onto the iPod nor is it taking into account slower computers.

My new PC with SATA cd-rom drive and a core2duo managed to rip a CD into windows media player (12 tracks) in under a minute.

0

I'd get the iPod classic, 80GB, $250. The nano is way to ugly and fat in my opinion, and who wants to watch videos on a freaking 2 inch screen?

0

Joe im done arguing over silly things just because you decide that you want to have an argument. From the start i have been talking about what works in my experience and the quotes of me you have only back that up. Half of your points are pointing out the same things as i am and there is absolutely no reason to keep going on with this discussion.

If you want to take this as a you were right i was wrong kind of thing then so be it. You are a far superior nerd.

Syncing your ipod can take anywhere between an average of 15 seconds to 30 seconds a song. More then enough time for the conversion to take place if need be.

Mu pocket pc + 4gb worth of memory cards only £50 more than the 4gb nano and it can do "proper wifi" and has windows media player, internet explorer, msn, office.. and a nice big screen and speaker

I actually meant things that were designed as an mp3 player. But you are right a pocket PC does have that functionality mainly because it is a PC.

My new PC with SATA cd-rom drive and a core2duo managed to rip a CD into windows media player (12 tracks) in under a minute.

Nice work. I think that also depends on the quality setting in WMP as well though. I would be interested in hearing how fast it rips these songs at the highest quality. Be warned they they often end up at least 25 mb if you do this.

I'd get the iPod classic, 80GB, $250. The nano is way to ugly and fat in my opinion, and who wants to watch videos on a freaking 2 inch screen?

I think the reason it looks ugly is actually because its not what we are used to seeing. We are used to a more rectangular ipod where as the new nanos are more of a square. I wouldn't mind waiting until they hit the shops just so i can see what they look like in real life. I think the screen size on the nano is actually just a little smaller then the classics which is why they ended up looking like this.

0

Honestly Lasher, if you can't even find 1 link to support your theories, then you seriously need to reconsider them.

0

Are you blind or what? I said "THIS IS ALL IN MY EXPERIENCE." Its not a theory. Its not something that i have to prove to you. It is experience.

0

My new PC with SATA cd-rom drive and a core2duo managed to rip a CD into windows media player (12 tracks) in under a minute.


Nice work. I think that also depends on the quality setting in WMP as well though. I would be interested in hearing how fast it rips these songs at the highest quality. Be warned they they often end up at least 25 mb if you do this.

a 5:22 song is 4.92mb at (according to the properties tab) :

Windows Media Audio 9.2
128 kbps, 44 kHz, stereo 1-pass CBR

This is the WMP11 default.

0

I am an open source user all the way, but when it comes to hardware that is released by MicroShaft you can't beat the warranty. They back their products with confidence. I bought the Zune, and am very satisfied.

0

They decided to halt support for my PDAs OS a year after release so now my 2003 pda cant sync with windows media player 11 or vista:(

0

I have never been impressed with Microsoft OS's on PDAs. They are very slow and inefficient. I am a Blackberry 8703e user myself. Not really any media support, but they are reliable and I don't have to wait ten seconds for my email to display. Today will be my 3rd implementation of the BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) environment at a local corporation. No complaints yet, and it allows for very specific IT policies.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.