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

Although Lossless will obviously sound good, I seriously doubt you can tell the difference between 320AAC and Lossless with your e3c's or even the e5c's.
 
Probably all the music downloaded from limewire was .mp3, and making it lossless, like stated many times above, is worthless.

Convert it to just .aac at good quality.

You really shouldn't be talking about pirating music... :rolleyes:
 
This horse has been beaten, but not to death. After reading all (I believe) of these comments (and at the risk of sounding pompous, which I don't mean to), there is still something that most people are overlooking when discussing the memory size of iPods, ripping at lossless and what the future holds.

Here's the reality:
(1) In the very, very, very near future, your CDs will be in a bankers box in your basement.
(2) Why not rip at lossless - and keep the music in a mirror image to the CDs - when internal/external memory is so cheap and vast. (Keep reading before you make the no-noticeable-difference argument.)
(3) iTunes - which is free - is vastly more important than the iPod; the iPod is merely one a way to get your library from point A (your computer) to point B (your car, your stereo, etc.)
(4) One thing will change soon, and one will not; the one thing that will change is the medium for getting the music from your computer to wherever (such as iTV, Wi-Fi, something akin to bluetooth, who knows); the one thing that will NOT change is your iTunes library, in the sense that you have one shot, each time you load a CD, to get it just right before throwing that CD in a box. That, for me, overcomes any no-noticeable-difference argument. Even if it is true that we generally can't distinguish these formats/rates, I don't want to take a chance that one day, long in the future, that I DO have a device, an iPod, some Klipsch speakers, a microchip in my head, that CAN tell the difference between AAC 192 and lossless. Why risk it?
(5) Finally, back to the subject at hand, google "Doug's Applescripts," run a search on "lossless" and the first thing to pop up will be a conversion applescript to get your lossless files down to AAC for the purpose of getting them on your iPod, WHILE STILL RETAINING LOSSLESS ON YOUR COMPUTER. That solves the problem of the original inquiry.

Anyone who has had the patience to read this probably thinks I've lost touch with reality and/or I'm a jack*ss. I don't mean to be either. I just think that one day we will all look back and realize the irony is that iTunes (free) was MUCH more important than whatever iPod (costly) we were toting at the time, and we will either be relieved we ripped at lossless, or we will have at least some regret.
 
By the way, I feel dumb but I had no idea lossless drained the batter faster. I don't understand why it would, but I don't understand how the things work anyway.
 
Arent the iPods "capped" so that even though you might have a high bitrate on your media, the iPod still plays it like it is 256?


If you want to listen to Lossless encoded media, you better play it on something else. Your earphones and those Sony DJ headphones suck. Get a real speaker system if you really want to enjoy the music at a higher quality
 
1279 songs in Lossless = 31.81GB that sucks!!!

That's just tough. Lossless takes about half the space of an uncompressed CD, and it empties your batteries (most power gets used for reading from the harddisk, and lossless reads six times as much as AAC).

I recommend a MacBook and an external 500GB harddisk.
 
have you ever listened to lossless or AAC 320 on Krell speakers? as a matter of fact, make that anything on krell? holy cr*p i have never heard anything like that in my life nor felt something like that (with the exception of well...) these beasts are amazing and have the price tag to go with it.
 
By the way, I feel dumb but I had no idea lossless drained the batter faster. I don't understand why it would, but I don't understand how the things work anyway.

It's because lossless files are bigger, which means less music can fit in the iPod's memory at any given time. In turn, this means that the iPod has to spin up the disk and read new data more often, and that drains the battery more quickly.
 
To the OP, you could always get two iPods! ;)
ok maybe I am majorly missing something here, but i don't see a single person on this thread named OP or anyone whose name begins with O for that matter; can someone clue me in?
 
ok maybe I am majorly missing something here, but i don't see a single person on this thread named OP or anyone whose name begins with O for that matter; can someone clue me in?

OP=Original Poster

By the way, I feel dumb but I had no idea lossless drained the batter faster. I don't understand why it would, but I don't understand how the things work anyway.

To save battery life, the iPod is designed to load a predetermined set of songs from the spinning hard drive into a small 32MB (64MB now?) flash -based cache. This prevents the iPod from having to spin the hard drive to get songs. The larger the file, the less amoung of songs it can fit in the cache, thus forcing the hard drive to spin back up to get the next song. Shuffle Songs drains your battery faster as well.
 
That's just tough. Lossless takes about half the space of an uncompressed CD, and it empties your batteries (most power gets used for reading from the harddisk, and lossless reads six times as much as AAC).

I recommend a MacBook and an external 500GB harddisk.

Dads got a 1.*TB server Xserve, we have the new imac duo or whatever with 500gb inbuilt and 500gb external. I have all my songs and stuff on my 180gb comp.
 
To add my 3 cents (inflation and all)...

When ripping CDs, if you have the hard drive space, rip as lossless. That way, when the new great codec comes along, you can always re-encode. But leave the lossless on the computer. Backup to DVD, stick on an external hard drive, whatever. Unfortunately for me, I had just finished ripping my 300+ CD collection as 256 AAC about a week before Apple announced lossless. I haven't gotten around to re-ripping my collection.

If you really are an audiophile snob, with $500 headphones, encode at 256 or 320 AAC. I consider myself an audiophile snob when it comes to classical music, and even on classical music, I can't tell the difference between 320 AAC and the original CD. I *CAN* tell the difference between 320 AAC and a DVD-Audio disc, though. (Even without surround.) This is on a $500 Sony 'shelf' stereo (which has better speakers than my home theater,) and on Sony 'DJ' headphones. So for classical music, I like it at maximum quality. For all other music, 128 AAC is just fine. (I will buy my 'everyday' music from the iTunes Store, but not classical.)

Don't put all 70 movies on the iPod. That's just stupid. Really. It's an iPod. Unless you take a 2 hour train ride every day, and will actually watch your movie collection that often, it's pointless to leave them always on the iPod. If you're going to leave on a trip, fine, load up the five to ten movies you might watch on the trip. Otherwise, only put video on that there is the remotest chance of watching. In anticipation of the iTV, I'm currently in the process of ripping my movie collection to an external hard drive, as H.264, 1500 kbps video, 128 kbps audio, 640x??? (height depends on aspect ratio of the source.) On my high-end-circa-1998 Sony non-high-definition TV, connected to my notebook via S-Video, I can't tell the difference between that and a DVD. When I get a video iPod, will I put all 100+ movies on it? No way. I'll probably put the Pixar collection on, since my daughter absolutely demands to watch them on a regular basis, but other than that, I'll put on my 'new' movies, and any that I specifically plan on watching on it soon. Other than that, it's useless.

Now, with music, even 320 kbps files, they will be small enough to reasonably keep them on an iPod at all times. But with movies that can easily top 1 GB a piece, it's silly to try to carry all of them all the time. Especially if they're duplicated on your main computer. (If you were moving your stuff to the iPod, then deleting it from the computer, it might make sense.)

MovieCutter said:
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.
And, yes, this guy is obviously a kid bragging. Just look at his "my dad has an Xserve" comment. I'm betting he doesn't even really have what he says he does. Or, if the does, then he's a spoiled little rich kid who needs to learn some humility and be disciplined once in a while. ("I have a PSP just for internet"....? Why not a Nokia 770? It's a much better 'portable web' device... Although I'm waiting with baited breath for the DS Browser kit to hit the U.S.)
 
Dads got a 1.*TB server Xserve, we have the new imac duo or whatever with 500gb inbuilt and 500gb external. I have all my songs and stuff on my 180gb comp.

Well, you need good ol' daddy to get you some better equipment. 180GB... that's pretty cheap. Ask him to get you a souped up MacPro with über GB of space!

Joshua.
 
Well, you need good ol' daddy to get you some better equipment. 180GB... that's pretty cheap. Ask him to get you a souped up MacPro with über GB of space!

Joshua.

Expensive? yes, very. But thats just Apple.

I am on a pc! pieces of crap. I tend to use the Imac a fair bit but yer my pc has only got a 180gb hard drive, but till i fill all that up i will just put it all on the server.

The server is for his business website but its still got a TB left of space and we have 380gb of uncompressed movies on it. So yer we got a fair bit of space. But the space on the computers isn't the problem, its the ipod.
 
Expensive? yes, very. But thats just Apple.

I am on a pc! pieces of crap. I tend to use the Imac a fair bit but yer my pc has only got a 180gb hard drive, but till i fill all that up i will just put it all on the server.

The server is for his business website but its still got a TB left of space and we have 380gb of uncompressed movies on it. So yer we got a fair bit of space. But the space on the computers isn't the problem, its the ipod.

The last time I checked, 1 TB RAIDS and 500 GB internals (in all-in-one systems with a width under 2 inches) were expensive period. Regardless of wether they were Apple or Non-Apple.
 
ZOINKS :eek: ! I've just filled up my 4 iPod 80GB with my better-quality-than-yours music, what ever shall I do? ;) (Using search for 80GB iPod would be a start...)


Question: If you're so rich and "own" so many high tech gadgets why do you feel the need to steal your music?
 
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.

Wha Wha WHaaaaa?? I have about 2100 songs and it only takes up 10 gigs? does sound quality really matter? honestly not enough for me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.