Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam - Page 4

Last message on previous page:

Amen Barry!! Apple really sold out on thier iPod. If any company went to bat for us, it was Rio. To bad their gone now.

It's only misleading to one that thinks that playing a single file is gapless playback. Sorry if you don't understand what gapless playback is.

That's not a group of tracks, it's a single track. Once you join 2 or more songs into a single file, it is one track. From the iPod's point of view (that is from the firmware that runs your DAP) it is one song/One track. Your ipod will not suddenly say it's playing Money while playing that song and then say show that "Us and Them" is playing when that song is playing, if you've joined the tracks. It can't, because it's a single file, with a single Tag describing that file).

That's not gapless playback. If you went to ipod lounge, a very Apple friend board, you'd know that what I said is accurate.

It's not my definition skippy.

I said it does not support gapless playback. It does not. You want to say that playing a single file gaplessly is gapless and it's not. I'm sorry if you didn't understand what gapless means, but that doesn't make my statement inaccurate.

If someone demands gapless playback, the iPod is an unacceptable choice. If they don't, then the fact that it doesn't support it is irrelevant.

I was clear, you're just dense and/or obstinate.

Look who's the pot calling the kettle black.

What part of "a file without gaps" either joined from separate files or or a single file to start with, is not "gapless"?

Quit trying to persuede yourself (and, unfortunately, others that you are correct. You have already substatiated my argument with a link to Apple's knowledge base within YOUR OWN POST!

Fine so it becomes a single track (if that's how you want to state it), didn't it start out as multiple tracks? Would those track, if played back normally, not have had gaps? Did an option in Apple's software not eliminate those tracks? You are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

It must be your definition "skippy", you continually fail to post relevant fact to support your claim. All you do is say "go check the boards here, they will agree with me". I think we can all agree that M-W's definition of the word is correct. Saying "but they agree with me", only spreads this gross misinterpretation that you, and others like you, are infesting these boards with.

M_S

p.s. try again if you must "skippy", but this sort of misguided tomfoolery must end.

Congrautaltions. You've been done by THE BEST in the industry !
Feels good - eh ? The name of the game is control my friends. :!:
Can you say, 'anti choice.'

Look who's the pot calling the kettle black.

What part of "a file without gaps" either joined from separate files or or a single file to start with, is not "gapless"?

Quit trying to persuede yourself (and, unfortunately, others that you are correct. You have already substatiated my argument with a link to Apple's knowledge base within YOUR OWN POST!

Fine so it becomes a single track (if that's how you want to state it), didn't it start out as multiple tracks? Would those track, if played back normally, not have had gaps? Did an option in Apple's software not eliminate those tracks? You are obviously a moron if you believe otherwise.

It must be your definition "skippy", you continually fail to post relevant fact to support your claim. All you do is say "go check the boards here, they will agree with me". I think we can all agree that M-W's definition of the word is correct. Saying "but they agree with me", only spreads this gross misinterpretation that you, and others like you, are infesting these boards with.

M_S

p.s. try again if you must "skippy", but this sort of misguided tomfoolery must end.

<yawn>

A pathetic attempt at a comeback from a disgruntled loser, yet the only intelligent thing you have said.

M_S

At least the cell phone takes user-replacable batteries, so no... when I buy a cell phone I then promptly go onto ebay, purchase a pair of batteries, the desired faceplate, a car charger, and data cable (if needed), and can usually get it all for less than $30, which is less than the cost of 1 battery in the store. I then keep all batteries charged in a cradle at night and take them with me during the day. When one dies while I am out and about, I pop it out, put in one of the spares, and keep going.

Problem is, with a device like the iPod, that has an internal battery only, you simply can't do that. What a joke; what garbage.

OK!

Gapless means no gaps in between tracks when it's playing. Such functions are used in progressive rock, art rock (well, this falls under progressive), and many other genres. So let's say I have In the Flesh off of CD1 in The Wall from Pink Floyd, my player would just jump right into the song with no loading or cache skips (ie. the player is buffering/loading the song into the cache). With gapless, there would be no skip so that the songs join together, in which this is a rock opera, it's suppose to be like that. The Ipod doesn't not in anyway (sans Rockbox because I'm talking about the Ipod natively and so should many members in this thread). Of course you can join the tracks, which would lead to clutter and to no choice but to manually skip between tracks, which is rather stupid I might add as this would be a big file. I love The Wall, my most preferred song is Track 4. The Happiest Days of Our Lives. Now this song is followed by Track 5 (duh). Another Brick In The Wall (Part II) in which should be a favourite among many. When Track 4 goes to Track 5, it's just magical, producing a feeling of connectivity (this is an opera, should be gapless!). You see, on an Ipod (sans Rockbox), if I want to select The Happiest Days of Our Lives and it's one track, it's going to take too long or just be stupidly redundant (I listen to a lot of Progressive Rock, many albums are gapless). It would just be smarter to select the freaking song already and have gapless. It's not hard either. In some cases, Vorbis does better in gapless than mp3 because to have gapless mp3, a hack must be used which LAME takes care of pretty nicely (oh wait a second, there are LAME errors on some Ipods ).

Now can you see it M_S, joining tracks is just completely stupid. And no, joining tracks isn't gapless at all, it's just one ficken album in one file! The Gapless Feature does not apply to it at all. Gapless is a necessary feature to many, Ipods do not support Gapless! The joining of tracks is not gapless!

Do you now understand? You really have to start listening to some Concept Albums, you'll understand then.

Oh, btw, I want to see those references.

*
If I want to select a certain song so that it would fade into the other song creating the same effect it was suppose to create, then I would want to select a single song and have gapless. Just a small summary for some.
*

Opinion! What sort of opinion?

Look here, I want to select Track 4! I want it to go straight to Track 5! Without gapless, there would be a subtle but annoying skip. It is annoying when dealing with a masterpiece. Joining tracks just makes for bloat. BLOAT! A portable device must not suffer from 200 MB files, the buffer would just be too small. Now is that an opinion?

Well, being of experience in this area, I know that I am right.

I know that there would be no gaps in the process of joining files, but it's not gapless playback. It's just one fickin track as I said before.

Gapless playback is with separated tracks!

GET IT? If you do not believe me, debate it.

All you are saying is that I am this and I am that, I did read some of the previous posts. Why don't you debate my post for errors?

Another one agrees with my point ("I know that there would be no gaps in the process of joining files" ) and continues to debate. Truly hilarious.

I especially like the comment "being of experience in this area, I know that I am right". That's how you state fact alrighty</sarcasm>.

I especially think using incorrect sentence structure, poor spelling and profanity are a great way to get your point across</yetagain, sarcasm>

Re-read the previous posts and intelligently post new information based on fact (as I have done), or step to the side.

M_S

This article...is bad.

As in "not good".

It's so strange to see someone hate a company and its products so much that they would rant so many pages of drivel dripping with their hateorade. I mean the whole anger in the "i" vs. "I" thing? That's a little obsessive; next time try and find something worthwhile to get worked up about, and perhaps people will take your words seriously. I feel dumber for reading it.

Also, that Creative Labs thing the reader bought? Ugly. Uggg-gly. Take that out on the subway and watch the pretty girls all run away from you. The ipod nano, on the other hand, is one of the few electronic devices I have ever had that gets compliments from women, the only other ones all being small, sleek cell phones like the razr.

Now I'm not advocating purchasing electronic equipment vainly out of the hopes that it will help reel in the ladies. However, I provided the example above to show that some people place value in things that are asthetically pleasing - in fact, most people do, but it usually doesn't extend to computer electronics purchases. Apple undeniably extends it to computer electronics, and the ipod market share vs. that of its competitors shows that people overwhelmingly see value in this. Sure, the Creative Labs product does the same thing on paper, although if the companion PC-based music player is anything like the confusing abortion of a music player that comes with my SB Audigy, that's arguable. However, the laundry list of specs the Creative Labs product has doesn't overcome the one biggest issue consumers see when they review the packaging - it's ugly. Go figure. Perhaps when Creative Labs brings out something that doesn't look like the retarded offspring of Optimus Prime and a Yugo, they might have a chance at this whole MP3 thing in the broader market. Here's an idea - bring out some good-looking devices that concentrate on just doing things in a simple manner that the non tech-oriented consumer (a.k.a. the majority of consumers) can easily understand. Works for Apple, I hear.

In your pictures of rock icons of yesteryear, you forgot one for when you were talking about the Nano. Elvis. As in "50 million Elvis/iPod fans can't be wrong".

Another one agrees with my point ("I know that there would be no gaps in the process of joining files" ) and continues to debate. Truly hilarious.

I especially like the comment "being of experience in this area, I know that I am right". That's how you state fact alrighty</sarcasm>.

I especially think using incorrect sentence structure, poor spelling and profanity are a great way to get your point across</yetagain, sarcasm>

Re-read the previous posts and intelligently post new information based on fact (as I have done), or step to the side.

M_S

OK, as I am typing this in a rush, there will be some mistakes here and there.

Now back to the point, it's not gapless playback! Look, joining files has it's issues, as I said, the cache size in portable players are small (16, 32, 64). Single file albums has a file size of about 200 MB. Do you see where I'm coming from? Gapless playback helps this as there is no need to join tracks. Joining files is just plain tedious.

Oh, and about my experiences on audio compression and data, it's pretty broad. Having an H320 with all my files in q7 Vorbis aoTuVb4.51 Lancer, I know how to take care of my audio files.

And remember kids, Lossy to Lossy encoding is a waste of time and quality.

M_S, if you know that the Ipod has native gapless playback, why not test it on your Ipod. Buy a copy of Dark Side of the Moon, Animals, or The Wall. Rip it with EAC in LAME 3.97b2 mp3 at any preferred quality. Now, import these files to Itunes (and don't join, that wouldn't be native), place the files in your Ipod, and finally play the album. Now, is the Ipod gapless natively? I would guess not since it is apparent that gaps will be there.

Hey, what's wrong with LAME. I love LAME, it's the only way my mp3s are encoded .

Hehehe, just kidding.

My sentiments EXACTLY!

Go into any Wal-Fart and look at the lineup of cretinous MP3 players, kinda looks like their clientele, don't you think? Or so I've been told!

One word, Fugly!

Yeah, too use a car analogy, they might get 10,000 MPG and go from 0-60 in like 0.0 sec, but like I said, one word:


FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!

I think this was a great article.
And kudos to the author for going against the crowd.
Ipods are pretty, like most of Apple's products. But they are also incredibly overpriced and offer an extremely low price/performance ratio.

So if you want to throw your money away and pay for all the advertising, marketing and to feel part of the "gang", then sure, go buy an ipod.
But for that much money you can buy better products. Or equivalent products, just much cheaper.
The MuVo works great. You can use with cheap rechargeable batteries and it's also an USB key for the easiest possible use. It's smaller than all ipods, except the nano (which does not have the display though) and does the job just as well.

About MP3s and DRM, I cannot believe the people who are not concerned. I used to buy a CD and exchange it with friends. I could make tapes for the car or for my walkman.
Now I can rip the CDs and make as may compilations as I want.
But no, if I download a song from iTunes I can't do this anymore. Why? Because if you "buy" a song from iTunes you don't "own" it but you own the right for using it with restrictions. BS. Pure BS. On a typical CD you have, what, 16 songs and you pay ~$30 for one CD. On iTunes you'll pay about ~$16 but you won't be able to own anytihng. It's not worth it. It's a rip off. And, incredibly, thousands of people are falling for it. Then you wonder about file sharing. If I buy a CD I own it and I want to be 100% free to share it with whomever it pleases me, and rip it and make as many CDs as I see fit. Period.

Oh God, now we need to get you a definition for native...

I guess when you are beat the only thing to do is step back and modify what you said originally to fit the criteria I put forth. Now it's a pain to choose a menu option to join tracks? Yes I have "The Wall" in iTunes I don't own an iPod, (but have purchased many for family and friends) and don't need to own one to tell you that "The Wall", which I ripped with joined tracks, plays with no gaps. You are mincing words and definitions to form to your view of what "gapless" should mean.

What part of "without gaps" does not equal "gapless"?

You understand what you are saying as do I, but those that are perhaps not quite as informed would read what you said and say "Oh, it must be impossible to play back any audio intended to be without gaps properly on the iPod"

Now that I have brought it up, you and others are starting to clarify your positions (only slighty), but before that you and the original author mislead the reader.

BTW, I recieved my B.A., with major/minor in music, in audio engineering from an accredited university. I just might be considered an "expert" as well.

M_S

An expert Troller maybe...

You are arguing semantics, they are talking about terminology pertaining to a specific object.

Yes "Gapless" in the dictionary simply means without gaps, but in the world of music players it has come to mean the transition between tracks without noticable pause.

You are in the wrong and are either too proud to admit it, or are intentionally trying to instigate.

It is not I arguing semantics, it is the other two (and now you) trying to fit a concise deifintion for your own purposes.

First of all "gapless" is not in the dictionary, but that's nitpicking on my part. I am using the definition as put forth by M-W and what you say it has "come to mean", as a transition between tracks w/o pause. In trying to make a point you have screwed it all up. Perhaps beacause you did not read the posts in their entirety as I suggested to others? If you did read them, maybe we have a comprehension problem.

Your opinion that I am wrong is blinded by your failure to read along and follow the story. I am not trying to instigate, only to keep those who read these posts for information from making incorrect judgments based on incomplete fact and failed opinion.

M_S

p.s. Again tell me how tracks that are joined and therefore without gaps not "gapless"?

There seems to be some problem with reading comprehension in the group. Who disputed that "gapless" did not mean without gaps between the tracks?

Maybe the ability to read and understand coherent thoughts is the problem here?

Yet another poster disputing that which has not been disputed... Brilliant!

M_S

As I said before, Ipod does not do gapless, it does with Rockbox but as in my earlier posts where I stated that I'm only arguing on the native features on the device itself. The Ipod is fully capable to play a single file album, but it does not have gapless capability. It is a function of the DAP itself, not the actual file in question. I think you must visit Hydrogen Audio, if you know about audio, you know that site. Karma is gapless, you don't need to make modifications to the actual album in question. My earlier example of The Happiest Days of Our Lives and Another Brick In The Wall (Part II) is a perfect example of which I can choose to listen to the first then it would play with no gaps when making a transition to the latter. And there is still an issue with the cache. Ipod is able to play single file albums, but it's not gapless. The file might be gapless, but the actual player is not.

Apple can put gapless on their players, Apple can also have Vorbis decoding. Why aren't they doing it? I wonder what would the answer be.

M_S, which is better, a digitally remastered CD of a classic or a 1980's release of the same CD? And when I mean Digitally Remastered, I mean recent releases that you find on the store shelves. And state why?

One must test another's credentials, eh?

If you meant to say that the iPod alone w/o modification would not seamlessly play tracks that were not joined in iTunes, then why did you (and others) not say that?

Do you see how the uninformed could be swayed by stating "the iPod will not do gapless", which is the exact (as I recall) statement that I countered. It will, you have to join tracks first, and that comes with consequences, but flat out saying it won't is dishonest and disingenuous unless that statement is clarified with further comment (as you are finally starting to do).

As for your "test" of my credentials, you will have to be more specific. I could argue that the 80's release is "better" because it might fetch more on Ebay if unopened or rare (but I don't think that's what you are going for). Without having (I am pretty sure I don't) a re-master of an 80's classic (pretty sure I have a bunch of those) and listening on my ancient monitor one near field's and comparing waveforms in ProTools my opinion on that would be of little value.

A better "test" would be to ask " did you really get your B.A. in music/audio engineering to which my answer would be "yes". A follow up question might be "have you ever worked in the music industry" to which I would say "no, not since leaving college" (and that was a long time ago). What reason would I have to lie about such things? I am sure that many of the posters here (and elsewhere on the net) construct persona that are less than accurate, I would have no reason for doing this. btw, credentials have little to do with being able to link to relevant sites (M-W, Apple, Wiki, etc.) and regurgetate that data. The problem seems to lie in the actions of some who omit some data and claim things that are "half-truths", possibly misleading those who are not able or not inclined to do the research themselves.

M_S

2 or more tracks joined into a single file = track without gaps. That is not what ANYBODY means by gapless, other than your concensus of 1.

Morons...

Apple makes less than a cent on each songs it sells for 99 cents. The real money is in the iPods! It's the record companies making the big bucks off of music.

i really highly doubt it but i want to give you a chance to back up your claim before every one starts to tear into it. so.... give some evidence!

Wow, that is such a cruel ploy... Take a perfectly appropriate word for a product, then twist it by putting a cutesy "i" in front. Everyone will just have to have one. I feel totally conned into spending my cash on a product that works as advertised and looks good.

I am so glad that the author even provided us a link to these Forumz so that all of us gullible iPod owners could rant about how awful it is to be duped by such a heinous scam!

Branding (successful or not) may be annoying at times, but it's a part of modern consumer life, not a scam.

So, what is the bottom line?
iTunes is a good thing...let me explain:
the i in iTunes stands for:
inferior (the quality of the music)
ignorent (the ppl who buy it and think DRM is a good thing)
idiots (who are happy about nothing)
Being happy about nothing is an art, and I admit I envy the idiots cause I wish I could be happy about nothing.

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.