Apple Releases iPod Classic

[Lycanthrope]

Compression was always a compromise because storage technology couldn't cope, not because we can't hear the difference, because we can, especially with classical music.

I've always considered myself very fussy about reproduction quality but I'll be honest that I don't hear a lot of difference if any between the original WAV file and AAC at 160VBR.

When I re-ripped my collection following the purchase of my first Mac I did a test taking a WAV from EAC then encoding using different engines, iTunes, Lame etc. and bitrates, I found the above format indistinguishable from the WAV. Maybe I was using the wrong type of music, this was on some intense metal and accoustic tracks, I didn't try classical.

I did have a problem with my iPod photo with piano music as the impedance of my Bang & olufsen earphones caused the whooshing problem with the headphone amp to become apparent but this was solved by uograding to a 5th gen.

Could be I have bad ears of course...

 

[MacAodh]

If you want radio and someone else offers it in their player, then go buy their player. End of story. No one forces you to buy an iPod. There are other alternatives out there - why don't you seek them out?...

...If you want radio, get a different player or buy a radio tuner for your iPod. It's that simple. Or you could save a lot of cash and buy a handheld radio.

Yes, no one forces us to buy an ipod but i think, being on a mac related site, we all agree that the ipod is probably the best mp3 player out there. I've had two and will get a third once i can afford it. At the same time, even though i love listening to my own music, i do like not having to bother choosing the songs every now and then. Therefore, a radio would be really nice for me at least. Plus, from what i hear from an electronic engineering student friend of mine, it would cost next to nothing, in terms of both space or money, for apple to put one in

 

[SactoGuy18]

Compression was always a compromise because storage technology couldn't cope, not because we can't hear the difference, because we can, especially with classical music. (some people even say they can't tell the difference between SD and HD video!). The point here is of course it makes no difference if you only listen to your music on the iPods ear buds, but if the iPod is just the container and the music is played externally it really matters.

Actually, once you reach 256 kbps data rate VBR in either MP3 or AAC format, it's almost indistinguishable from the original unless you have a really high-end home stereo system that is way beyond the reach of most iPod users! I'm going to pick up the iPod Classic 80 GB either today or tomorrow will probably rip my entire CD collection into 256 kbps VBR High quality MP3 to copy to my new iPod.

 

[johngordon]

It's all about variety. You never know what you might want to listen to at any given time.

Exactly - there's loads I never or rarely listen to - but having my entire collection with me on the go so I can listen to whatever might pop into my head on a whim is the killer feature.

Have a 60GB 5G, with around 30GB of music - can't really justify a new one now, but very probably a touch in a year or two when they'll have a bigger capacity.

 

[MrCrowbar]

They should offer the touch in 16GB (flash), and 80 GB (HDD). Make the 80 GB one thicker to fit the larger battery and hard drive. I doubt many people will buy the 8GB model anyway since you can't fit a whole lot of video on it and the classic or nano are fine for podcast viewing.

I say the new nano is the sweet spot for most people. Those who did not want a nano before because it can't play video unlike other brands' player can get a nano now.

iTunes is great for organizing music and podcasts, but for video, it really sucks in my opinion. Can't even play back stuff efficiently, I always do the "reveal in finder" and watch with quicktime or vlc so the image is fluid and in sync.

 

[8bitrevolution]

Yes, no one forces us to buy an ipod but i think, being on a mac related site, we all agree that the ipod is probably the best mp3 player out there. I've had two and will get a third once i can afford it. At the same time, even though i love listening to my own music, i do like not having to bother choosing the songs every now and then. Therefore, a radio would be really nice for me at least. Plus, from what i hear from an electronic engineering student friend of mine, it would cost next to nothing, in terms of both space or money, for apple to put one in

I think the iPod is the best player hands down. But if you're sitting here complaining about no FM in the iPod and say "Hey, other players have it!", then buy the other player. It really is that simple.

The Apple Store sells an iPod FM Radio Remote for $49 bucks. If FM is that important, then you should invest in it.

Personally, for me, if I don't know what what I want to listen to, or don't want to bother picking something, I just use the "Shuffle Songs" option from the main menu.

As an aside - a lot of people seem genuinely disappointed over the iPod Touch not having a huge capacity hard drive. Did anyone really honestly expect one? For me it was a "that'd be awesome if they did it" scenario but I didn't expect to see one at an affordable price point.

 

[WannaGoMac]

IMHO, they must have had a reason for no HDD based iPod Touch.

 

[mpuck972]

How long should I wait for the 33% price drop? I'm thinking that 68 days should be about right, then I can get one for a reduced price!

 

[mkjj]

IMHO, they must have had a reason for no HDD based iPod Touch.

Could be somthing to do with response times, HD vs Flash, I suppose the flash based iPod touch has instant response times, on my 3g pod you car hear the HD spinning like crazy sometimes, wouldn't be good for Cioverflow etc

 

[Cloudane]

They could've picked a better name for it. Surely anyone who's used Macs before about 3-4 years ago will shudder at the name "Classic" and associate it with obsolescence and a product that's basically on death row.

I wonder if all these colours are actually coloured metal, or if they're painted on? (thinking of the joys of my Powerbook with its disappearing paint on the wrist rest area)

 

[flying dog]

They could've picked a better name for it. Surely anyone who's used Macs before about 3-4 years ago will shudder at the name "Classic" and associate it with obsolescence and a product that's basically on death row.

My thoughts exactly. Classic = old and obsolete... hate the name and it reminds me of OS 9 backwards compatibility. I said this yesterday...

The classic model I see as being an item to only help bridge the gap until flash storage cost comes down; to me it's not even a 6th generation (that would be the touch model) but something between that and the 5.5th.

The Classic model feels obsolete out of the box compared to the touch. Even the name Classic coming from a technology company should tell you which direction they want the market to move towards, and that's flash storage. Releasing a hard drive-based touch model probably would've sold well but gone against Apple's big picture for the next few years.

That said, I'm picking up a Classic one this weekend. My choices are to keep my dying 512MB iriver, get something that will drive me crazy with transferring music off and on, or pick up the classic model and ebay it when what I really want becomes available. It'll probably be an 80... I really need to figure out just how big my itunes folder got after my 3rd gen died.

 

[jklps]

My thoughts exactly. Classic = old and obsolete... hate the name and it reminds me of OS 9 backwards compatibility. I said this yesterday...

The classic model I see as being an item to only help bridge the gap until flash storage cost comes down; to me it's not even a 6th generation (that would be the touch model) but something between that and the 5.5th.

The Classic model feels obsolete out of the box compared to the touch. Even the name Classic coming from a technology company should tell you which direction they want the market to move towards, and that's flash storage. Releasing a hard drive-based touch model probably would've sold well but gone against Apple's big picture for the next few years.

That said, I'm picking up a Classic one this weekend. My choices are to keep my dying 512MB iriver, get something that will drive me crazy with transferring music off and on, or pick up the classic model and ebay it when what I really want becomes available. It'll probably be an 80... I really need to figure out just how big my itunes folder got after my 3rd gen died.

160GB, which is the big selling point for me, won't be in a flash product for awhile..in my uneducated estimation, at least early 2009.

 

[flying dog]

Absolutely, it'll take a while to get there. It just seems like Apple's bigger strategy is to move in that direction all across the line. It's unfortunate for us who like to take a ton of video, music, data or whatever with us. I think the best thing that could happen for those who want a large capacity touch model is for the current one and other flash players to sell like crazy and increase the market and production for the bigger chips.

Is the classic model supposed to hit the apple stores by this weekend? I've been looking forward to having all my music with me at work for a while now.

 

[Tom B.]

So the article says 40 hrs of music and 7 hours of video..
but that simply doesn't make sense for a 160GB iPod.

40 hours of music or 7 hours of video on 1 charge, they're talking about the battery, not the capacity.

 

[Cloudane]

The classic model I see as being an item to only help bridge the gap until flash storage cost comes down; to me it's not even a 6th generation (that would be the touch model) but something between that and the 5.5th.

Exactly.

(Hmm, so it's a 5.75th gen then!)

To me, it states Apple's intentions loud and clear: they no longer "like" HDD-based storage. They will by all means continue supplying it to meet demand until they can come up with the best of both worlds, but as far as they would like, it's on its way out. This would also explain why the Classic model didn't get anything new (storage is easy, and the interface was just a port of the one the designed for the Nano) - they don't want to put too much energy into updating a condemned product.

Kind of like the Mac Mini

 

[djkirsten]

software

I really just want to know if the software for the new ipod classic and nano will be available on the "old" (5.5gen) ipods. if not...call me when the hack comes out cause the software looks SWEET!!!

 

[Roy Hobbs]

I really just want to know if the software for the new ipod classic and nano will be available on the "old" (5.5gen) ipods. if not...call me when the hack comes out cause the software looks SWEET!!!

don't hold your breath

 

[bilbo--baggins]

Well, I certainly am not complaining, since a 160gig iPod has enormous storage.

My iTunes library is about 600 gigs at this point--no, not one single stolen song, video, or movie.

But I certainly don't feel like I need to complain.

Seriously, do you really expect people to complain that there is not a 1 terrabyte iPod? What would the slogan be? 100,000 songs in your backpack?

I think 160GB's for the iPod is great. Even with most of my music in Lossless format I'll be able to fit it all on. That doesn't include video. I think that 160GB for the Apple TV isn't great - but I have the 40GB model and I've finally configured my network to give me reliable streaming, so hard drive size isn't an issue. In fact I'd rather have reliable streaming, than an Apple TV with a huge hard drive that duplicates my library.

 

[OllyW]

40 hours of music or 7 hours of video on 1 charge, they're talking about the battery, not the capacity.

It's actually 30 hours music and 5 hours video for the 160GB, the other figures are for the 80GB model.

 

[tmoney468]

It's actually 30 hours music and 5 hours video for the 160GB, the other figures are for the 80GB model.

Nope, you're wrong:

160GB iPod

http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html

 

[heisetax]

Classic or Nano?

I have a feeling the classic line will suffer in sales when there is the iPod touch line now

'The iPod Touch is more closely related to the iPod Nano in storage capacity. Thus I would expect that to be the most competition. Price wise the iPod classic is closest. But the iPod classic is geared towards those that want a lot of storage.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[technicolor]

'The iPod Touch is more closely related to the iPod Nano in storage capacity. Thus I would expect that to be the most competition. Price wise the iPod classic is closest. But the iPod classic is geared towards those that want a lot of storage.

Bill the TaxMan

Exactly. They are two different products entirely. The capacity on the touch is what "cripples" it. A lot of people want storage and arent too concerned with the bells and whistles.

 

[Chef Medeski]

I didn't see coverflow on the iPod classic.

http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/

 

[chillywilly]

Exactly. They are two different products entirely. The capacity on the touch is what "cripples" it. A lot of people want storage and arent too concerned with the bells and whistles.

While this is true, you would think that a widescreen and battery life would be bigger priorities over storage. What good is 160gb if your battery life is less than 10 hours per charge for audio or 2 hours for video?

I think the iPod touch would end up looking like a Sony PSP if it had the storage and battery life it needed, which IMO, would draw more criticism.

Thus, stick with the tried and true model/form factor for the most storage and longest battery life.

 

[blueflower]

Hi guys, I have a question why is it that Apple has decided to scrap white coloured Ipods?

Is it a cost reason because I thought white paint was the cheapest which is why in Japan white cars are the most popular and cheapest.

Or it is that they want to create a new colour mark with history now or something? Deciding to scrap white just for the heck of it?