Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod 80GB! Full, is there gonna be bigger??

B

Brayden87

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 11, 2006
37
0
Australia
Hey,

Well i have filled my ipod up :S allready with songs and movies:

1279 songs in Lossless = 31.81GB that sucks!!!
70 Movies = 38GB thats not too bad

But i need more space :S are they gonna bring out a 100? or 120GB because i need more space.

:S i don't use ACC or MP3 only lossless for the quality.
 
Isn't keeping all those movies on your iPod sort of pointless?

I have an 80GB iPod that I typically keep about 4 or 5GB of videos on. That being said, my iTunes library has over 180GB of videos... I just transfer to my iPod when I know I'm going to be watching something specific.
 
70% songs are from Limewire 30% CD

One i get a movie, i rip it onto my ipod and thats it.

About the movies, i'd rather have it and not watch it, then not have it, and wanna watch it.
 
I'm sure they will eventually get larger drives, but get a different format for your music so you will have more space for your movies, or more music.
 
Brayden87 said:
70% songs are from Limewire 30% CD

One i get a movie, i rip it onto my ipod and thats it.

About the movies, i'd rather have it and not watch it, then not have it, and wanna watch it.
Click to expand...

How are they all lossless if they're from limewire? Or did you not list how much those songs take up? I don't use limewire, but I thought that you normally don't get high quality downloads from it. :)
 
Remember, if you download something that is compressed from Limewire and then you re-encode it as lossless then you don't magically get the quality of lossless. It will be the same quality as the source. If you actually enjoy the quality after re-encoding then you might as well just kept them the same original size. Problem solved.
 
BornAgainMac said:
Remember, if you download something that is compressed from Limewire and then you re-encode it as lossless then you don't magically get the quality of lossless. It will be the same quality as the source. If you actually enjoy the quality after re-encoding then you might as well just kept them the same original size. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

indeed. and perhaps you shouldn't be illegally downloading music in the first place....

the only way to get true lossless is to encode it directly from the CD...

and for an iPod Lossless not only kills your battery life, it also is pointless. the headphones you're likely to be using with your iPod will probably be a bigger factor in how it sounds than the bit rate on the iPod. even making 'em 192 or 320 AAC will see a much better result. and if you would rotate your movies instead of keeping them all on there that would help a bit too...
 
PlaceofDis said:
indeed. and perhaps you shouldn't be illegally downloading music in the first place....

the only way to get true lossless is to encode it directly from the CD...

and for an iPod Lossless not only kills your battery life, it also is pointless. the headphones you're likely to be using with your iPod will probably be a bigger factor in how it sounds than the bit rate on the iPod. even making 'em 192 or 320 AAC will see a much better result. and if you would rotate your movies instead of keeping them all on there that would help a bit too...
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's very difficult for me to tell the difference between 320kbps AAC and lossless song files with a pair of $500 headphones, much less the iPod headphones.
Brayden87 said:
:S i don't use ACC or MP3 only lossless for the quality.
Click to expand...


You're just poorly managing your media, not to mention stealing it. You clearly don't understand the benefits of lossless since you're downloading from Limewire, not to mention discounting AAC (not ACC) as a suitable alternative to lossless. Limewire "lossless" is likely a bunch of adolescent screwballs who don't know what they're doing and "upconverting" 128kbps MP3s to lossless files thinking that will make them sound better.
 
The audio quality on the iPod really isn't sufficient to justify lossless. I think you're either trying to sound like an audiophile snob, or trying to impress us with your collection (I'm guessing the latter, cuz of the "hey i have 5 iPods and a PSP" thread you also started), but if everything you're saying is really legit then you're not making good decisions.
 
Yeah, 320AAC and Lossless are pretty close. Very few stereos/speakers show the difference and those cost 15k upward (Or on headphones 1k+).
The only reason I rip everything in Lossless is that it is an awesome way to back up your discs as this is most likely the highest bit-rate you'll ever want from a CD.
For my iPod and stereo I currently use 224AAC although I might up that to 320AAC as I do hear a difference between the two. Slight one but it is there.
 
Chaszmyr said:
The audio quality on the iPod really isn't sufficient to justify lossless. I think you're either trying to sound like an audiophile snob, or trying to impress us with your collection (I'm guessing the latter, cuz of the "hey i have 5 iPods and a PSP" thread you also started), but if everything you're saying is really legit then you're not making good decisions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, judging from his previous posts, sounds like a kid just looking for attention by bragging about how much stuff he has. Nobody's all that impressed...really.
 
Still have around 6GB spare on my 40GB G3 iPod..., and a lot of that is just backed up program install stuff.

Lossless, nice but takes up way too much space - 128 AAC is fine by me.
 
maybe a silly question, but what does lossless provide and what is the spectrum of quality, i.e. lossless > MP3 > AAC etc.?
 
Sounds the best but take up loads of space, little bit pointless for storing all your music on a device, run out of space too quickly.

Although for bragging rights lossless is the King!
 
Aniej said:
maybe a silly question, but what does lossless provide and what is the spectrum of quality, i.e. lossless > MP3 > AAC etc.?
Click to expand...

Lossless > AAC 320 kbps > MP3 320 kpbs. Mp3 and AAC strip the file of less noticeable frequencies that produce brighter highs and deeper lows and general broader dynamic range that headphones such as those that come with the iPod do a piss poor job of playing anyway. That's why, unless you have a decent set of cans or IEMs, there's no point in listening to lossless on a portable device.
 
Whoa. that explains a lot. So yeah unless you got Shure E5C's just do yourself a favor and make it Mp3
 
I've got all of mine at 128 AAC, and I can't tell any difference with the headphones. FOr listening in the car I wish I had a higher quality, but it's too late to redo the whole library.

And to stay on topic, I'm pretty sure the OP won't be coming back here for a while. Y'all did a pretty good number on him.
 
Zwhaler said:
Whoa. that explains a lot. So yeah unless you got Shure E5C's just do yourself a favor and make it Mp3
Click to expand...

Not even the e5c's, the e3c's do a nice job of the lossless range. I learned all about this when, a few years ago, I picked up a pair of Shure e3's and stuck them in my ear. While the mp3s I had sounded good, I was curious about how lossless sounded. I ripped a few songs into 128kbps MP3 and AIFF files. I was blown away by the difference. After I realized there was almost as much as a difference between iTMS files and 320kbps AAC files, I stopped buying music from the iTMS and started buying CDs again, due to the fact that I had good IEMs and can actually hear the compression in the iTMS music. I still can't really tell the difference on the stock iPod headphones.

reubs said:
And to stay on topic, I'm pretty sure the OP won't be coming back here for a while. Y'all did a pretty good number on him.
Click to expand...

Oh well...he didn't contribute anything of value anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back