no one has said anyhting about this yet, but the fact that the graphic says "Mono Microphones for voice recording" scares me. it scares me to think that a high quality line-in and/or mic/in isnt even POSSIBLE. i realize that many people feel this is a niche market, but honestly practically the only reason Minidisc is still surviving in the States, is because it widely supports mic/line in on the walkman recorders. i think a lot of people would be ecstatic to see a quality recording device for the iPod. id be willing to pay GOOD money for something like this too...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod LCD Remote?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That radio looks retarded. I don't want to have to carry a pocketful of accessories for my iPod. The radio should be built in. If a radio add-on looked anything like that, wouldn't it be large enough to serve as a radio independent of the iPod? Just plug your headphones into the radio and leave the iPod at home, in your car, your pocket, or whatever. Silly.
I wonder about the same thing. There's only one reason why recording wouldn't be possible though - the processor isn't fast enough to do real time encoding. Even then it's hard to believe that there isn't someway to do it, given that the iPod is essentially a FireWire hard drive with an MP3 player attached to it. (in that sense I've already recorded live audio on to my iPod, through my PowerBook though). Since the memory card reader accesses the hard drive, I don't see why an audio in device couldn't.
Somehow I wouldn't be suprised if Apple made the audio in accessory itself. It's probably the most sought after add on, with the highest price and margin and it needs to be good quality. Maybe their not letting Belkin at el in on how to implement it.
Some of you guys don't seem to get what a wireless LCD remote would be for. It's tough to easily use an iPod with a home stereo. Who wants to get up and walk across the room to change something?
These are just concepts for possible products, to get a marketing person's mind going.
I'm pretty disappointed in the first round of peripherals. They're way over-priced for that they do. The odds of anyone buying them who doesn't really need them just aren't great at the prices they're charging. $100 for a media card reader?
I'd buy peripherals that cost between $20 and $50, depending on their function.
These are just concepts for possible products, to get a marketing person's mind going.
I'm pretty disappointed in the first round of peripherals. They're way over-priced for that they do. The odds of anyone buying them who doesn't really need them just aren't great at the prices they're charging. $100 for a media card reader?
I'd buy peripherals that cost between $20 and $50, depending on their function.
If this is real, I think it is intended only to show the extensibility of iPod, not an indication that Apple-branded peripherals of this nature are forthcoming. Both the recently announced microphone and memory-card reader are third-party (Belkin) products.
Indeed, I know many were upset that iPod software 2.0 was not available for older iPods; but perhaps 2.0 just won't run on older iPods, as the new hardware was developed to the purpose of providing an architecture to promote easy creation of peripherals by developers.
Apples seems fixed at cradle/basic remote/basic case/basic earbuds; and the same case can be made as they make with the one-button mouse: want two buttons (or an LCD remote or an FM tuner), buy from a third party. Third-party peripherals cost extra, of course, but nurturing a robust third-party developer community is great for Apple.
Yep
I agree with you all in that plugging some clunky device onto the ipod is not much of a solution as far as adding features goes. I bought an ipod becuase it was small, sleek, and all-in-one. I refuse to plug in an FM tuner or big microphone device. If Apple wants to add useful features to the pod, they need to be intgrated into it, but while keeping the unit small. I do like the idea of a wireless remote though, that would be great to be able to change songs (and see the display!) with the ipod still in your pocket or backpack. However, for this to be totally sweet, the IR port would need to be integrated, which means it would have to be in the 4g ipod. Oh well, we shall see what Apple decides on.
I agree with you all in that plugging some clunky device onto the ipod is not much of a solution as far as adding features goes. I bought an ipod becuase it was small, sleek, and all-in-one. I refuse to plug in an FM tuner or big microphone device. If Apple wants to add useful features to the pod, they need to be intgrated into it, but while keeping the unit small. I do like the idea of a wireless remote though, that would be great to be able to change songs (and see the display!) with the ipod still in your pocket or backpack. However, for this to be totally sweet, the IR port would need to be integrated, which means it would have to be in the 4g ipod. Oh well, we shall see what Apple decides on.
ipod home
i agree with mikel.
the lcd is especially useful for home use. even if one was willing to walk across the room to reach the ipod, a lcd makes it much easier to manipulate the ipod. and if you don't want to walk across the room, the lcd is even better.
i assume it will work well in cars as well.
i like to see it, even if i cannot afford it.
i agree with mikel.
the lcd is especially useful for home use. even if one was willing to walk across the room to reach the ipod, a lcd makes it much easier to manipulate the ipod. and if you don't want to walk across the room, the lcd is even better.
i assume it will work well in cars as well.
i like to see it, even if i cannot afford it.
have any of you thought about how an lcd display would be updated if the remote is talking via IR?
sounds like you would have to have a perfectly clear line of sight, all the time.
not a very good solution in my mind, not to mention it would be very expensive since it would be a 2-way remote. $100 is not worth my lazyness.
sounds like you would have to have a perfectly clear line of sight, all the time.
not a very good solution in my mind, not to mention it would be very expensive since it would be a 2-way remote. $100 is not worth my lazyness.
Re: Yep
For this to be really sweet it would have to be Bluetooth or 802.11b integrated or as a plug-in peripheral (personally I wouldn't mind a small Bluetooth peripheral that plugs in to, preferably, the headphone/remote jack, although I don't know if BT can draw enough power through the headphone/remote jack). Forget 802.11b: overkill, mucho power drain.
I'm not one of these big Bluetooth iPod cheerleaders, but it's the only way a wireless remote would be efficient on the go. You forget that IR is directional and will not penetrate some fabrics. So to use your wireless remote, you'd likely have to pull your iPod out of your pocket and point your remote at it; might as well use a wired remote; indeed a wired remote is easier than that.
Nifty dream peripheral: wireless Bluetooth remote with LCD display and Bluetooth module that attaches to headphone/remote jack or dock connector. Chiefly because I hate the extra wire length added by the wired remote; and also my wired remote cable has frayed at the base *again* and I have to go the Apple Store for another warranty replacement; and I treat the remote very delicately.
Minimum price: $150; not likely to see the light of day at that cost.
For this to be really sweet it would have to be Bluetooth or 802.11b integrated or as a plug-in peripheral (personally I wouldn't mind a small Bluetooth peripheral that plugs in to, preferably, the headphone/remote jack, although I don't know if BT can draw enough power through the headphone/remote jack). Forget 802.11b: overkill, mucho power drain.
I'm not one of these big Bluetooth iPod cheerleaders, but it's the only way a wireless remote would be efficient on the go. You forget that IR is directional and will not penetrate some fabrics. So to use your wireless remote, you'd likely have to pull your iPod out of your pocket and point your remote at it; might as well use a wired remote; indeed a wired remote is easier than that.
Nifty dream peripheral: wireless Bluetooth remote with LCD display and Bluetooth module that attaches to headphone/remote jack or dock connector. Chiefly because I hate the extra wire length added by the wired remote; and also my wired remote cable has frayed at the base *again* and I have to go the Apple Store for another warranty replacement; and I treat the remote very delicately.
Minimum price: $150; not likely to see the light of day at that cost.
Uncompressed Stereo Recording
Ok folks... does ANYONE need/want a 40G dictaphone?? I laughed my butt off when that was announced... and spare me the student/lectures angle - whatever. Weak.
An FM trasmitter? Yuk. Besides the fact that radio programming, DJs, and commercials SUK, who here has tried one of the FM transmitters on the market? I have an iTrip and it's headed to eBay as soon as I get to it (if anyone's interested, feel free to email me to cut through all the eBay hub-bub). Anyway, the sound quality, when/if one can get a reception, is unacceptable to my ears. Awfully muddy...
Remotes? I mean, the flippin iPod is the size of a remote. Do we really need/want a remote for a remote?? Redundant?
No, what we really want (and what should be included first and foremost) is full-on, uncompressed stereo audio recording capabilities. You can always down sample. Give us uncompressed, and let the user decide to compress or not to compress.
We'll see...
Ok folks... does ANYONE need/want a 40G dictaphone?? I laughed my butt off when that was announced... and spare me the student/lectures angle - whatever. Weak.
An FM trasmitter? Yuk. Besides the fact that radio programming, DJs, and commercials SUK, who here has tried one of the FM transmitters on the market? I have an iTrip and it's headed to eBay as soon as I get to it (if anyone's interested, feel free to email me to cut through all the eBay hub-bub). Anyway, the sound quality, when/if one can get a reception, is unacceptable to my ears. Awfully muddy...
Remotes? I mean, the flippin iPod is the size of a remote. Do we really need/want a remote for a remote?? Redundant?
No, what we really want (and what should be included first and foremost) is full-on, uncompressed stereo audio recording capabilities. You can always down sample. Give us uncompressed, and let the user decide to compress or not to compress.
We'll see...
Re: Uncompressed Stereo Recording
Hear, hear. My very case against the remote, wired or unwired, in the first place. I could do without altogether, and I do, as the wired remote sees little use.
Hear, hear. My very case against the remote, wired or unwired, in the first place. I could do without altogether, and I do, as the wired remote sees little use.
Re: a "real" remote
Or you could just mount the iPod onto the laptop and play it from iTunes. I've done it (and yes, with a laptop and an iPod which were out of synch, though in all honesty it was the laptop with which I had last synched the iPod - the music library was on a then-absent firewire drive).
Or you could just mount the iPod onto the laptop and play it from iTunes. I've done it (and yes, with a laptop and an iPod which were out of synch, though in all honesty it was the laptop with which I had last synched the iPod - the music library was on a then-absent firewire drive).
Do we know what the bandwidth on the memory card reader is? If it's not high enough to support stereo sound, that would be a very good reason why.
Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
YES, i've been saying this all along. it would be great for syncing everything except music (i.e. contacts, calendars, notes, etc) and a wireless remote (ideally in watch form). you could transfer files/contacts/whatever between PDAs, phones, and other iPods as well.
also, to those saying this could mean nothing because it is merely speculative, if apple is showing that an LCD remote is a possible product then they must have built in support for special remotes, just like they built in support for the card reader and microphone and radio tuner. i think they are expecting to make a LCD remote, or for another company to make one
YES, i've been saying this all along. it would be great for syncing everything except music (i.e. contacts, calendars, notes, etc) and a wireless remote (ideally in watch form). you could transfer files/contacts/whatever between PDAs, phones, and other iPods as well.
also, to those saying this could mean nothing because it is merely speculative, if apple is showing that an LCD remote is a possible product then they must have built in support for special remotes, just like they built in support for the card reader and microphone and radio tuner. i think they are expecting to make a LCD remote, or for another company to make one
Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
And as many sources have reported all along: Bluetooth headphones: not enough bandwidth in BT for stereo high-fidelity headphones. It is, as the French say, impossible.
And as many sources have reported all along: Bluetooth headphones: not enough bandwidth in BT for stereo high-fidelity headphones. It is, as the French say, impossible.
Re: Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
Not to mention we need to place a battery in the headphones which will drag my head down to the ground.
Apple should still make a wireless remote. I really want to sit down and control my playlist from chair. Only question is what kind of batteries: rechargeable or another dock for the remote to charge a battery inside?
Not to mention we need to place a battery in the headphones which will drag my head down to the ground.
Apple should still make a wireless remote. I really want to sit down and control my playlist from chair. Only question is what kind of batteries: rechargeable or another dock for the remote to charge a battery inside?
Re: Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
if you had quoted the rest of my post i talked entirely about bluetooth as being used for syncing non-music files and for a wireless remote.
btw there was a post awhile back where someone brought up the bluetooth headphones idea and i did mention that i didn't think there was enough bandwidth for audio. i just think bluetooth on the ipod would be great for syncing files, a bluetooth remote, integration with a cell phone, etc.
i had an idea for a bluetooth wristwatch that would have a small amount of flash memory (like 16-32MB) and LCD screen that would work as a watch, alarm, etc. but then it would also sync with your iPod and Address Book, calendar, etc. You could also store small important documents in the extra flash memory.
Address Book integration would store all your contacts on the watch, and if you have a Bluetooth cellphone when the phone rings you would see the caller ID info on the watch screen and you could either deny the call, silence the ring, or answer the phone (especially if you have a Bluetooth headset) directly from the watch.
iCal integration would simply sync your calendar to your watch and all the alarms would work directly on the watch (how useful are the iCal alarms if you're away from your computer..?)
iPod integration would basically consist of a wireless remote in the watch so you can see what track is playing and possibly have some limited browsing of artists/albums/playlists/etc. And also it would sync with your computer/watch/cellphone/PDA
if you had quoted the rest of my post i talked entirely about bluetooth as being used for syncing non-music files and for a wireless remote.
btw there was a post awhile back where someone brought up the bluetooth headphones idea and i did mention that i didn't think there was enough bandwidth for audio. i just think bluetooth on the ipod would be great for syncing files, a bluetooth remote, integration with a cell phone, etc.
i had an idea for a bluetooth wristwatch that would have a small amount of flash memory (like 16-32MB) and LCD screen that would work as a watch, alarm, etc. but then it would also sync with your iPod and Address Book, calendar, etc. You could also store small important documents in the extra flash memory.
Address Book integration would store all your contacts on the watch, and if you have a Bluetooth cellphone when the phone rings you would see the caller ID info on the watch screen and you could either deny the call, silence the ring, or answer the phone (especially if you have a Bluetooth headset) directly from the watch.
iCal integration would simply sync your calendar to your watch and all the alarms would work directly on the watch (how useful are the iCal alarms if you're away from your computer..?)
iPod integration would basically consist of a wireless remote in the watch so you can see what track is playing and possibly have some limited browsing of artists/albums/playlists/etc. And also it would sync with your computer/watch/cellphone/PDA
if you really want wireless headphones, you can do it now. Pop an iTrip on your iPod, then buy a set of those FM receiver headphones. Problem solved.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
Cheeseter: I was really trying to quote the guy you quoted by I was in the middle of revising pieces of a manuscript and screwed up the quote. Ergo, I didn't try to make you look like a doofus; I mean to make the guy you quoted look like a doofus. (Not really: no doofus intented to anyone, just reminding all that BT has been discussed for wireless headphones and it's pretty much limited to wireless lo-fi headphones.
Cheeseter: I was really trying to quote the guy you quoted by I was in the middle of revising pieces of a manuscript and screwed up the quote. Ergo, I didn't try to make you look like a doofus; I mean to make the guy you quoted look like a doofus. (Not really: no doofus intented to anyone, just reminding all that BT has been discussed for wireless headphones and it's pretty much limited to wireless lo-fi headphones.
Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
For the last bloody time, Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for music headphones.
We need to put that in the FAQ.
For the last bloody time, Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for music headphones.
We need to put that in the FAQ.
Re: Uncompressed Stereo Recording
Yes, we do.
I want to be able to connect my iPod into my car stereo and a recharger, and keep it in the armrest or glove box. I don't mind running cables through the car for that.
But to do that, I need a remote display, and remote control. Both need to work via RF, not IR. A remote that fits the bill is shipping soon.
Someone needs to make a nice, wireless RF alphanumeric display for showing the current track, elapsed time, etc. It needs to be easily mounted/removed on a dashboard or center console, and it needs to be large enough to be easily readable at a glance-- squinting at a small display = not good. Something that is as visible as the display on my current car stereo = good.
Of course, that's what I'll settle for. What I'd really like is a car stereo specifically made to interface with the iPod.
~Philly
Yes, we do.
I want to be able to connect my iPod into my car stereo and a recharger, and keep it in the armrest or glove box. I don't mind running cables through the car for that.
But to do that, I need a remote display, and remote control. Both need to work via RF, not IR. A remote that fits the bill is shipping soon.
Someone needs to make a nice, wireless RF alphanumeric display for showing the current track, elapsed time, etc. It needs to be easily mounted/removed on a dashboard or center console, and it needs to be large enough to be easily readable at a glance-- squinting at a small display = not good. Something that is as visible as the display on my current car stereo = good.
Of course, that's what I'll settle for. What I'd really like is a car stereo specifically made to interface with the iPod.
~Philly
Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
Really? I found this rather interesting: http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=415&ipod-accessories
and this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1365257,00.asp
and this:
http://www.infiniterange.com/
However, the article states the device is 200 feet away...which is odd because i thought Bluetooth's range was about 30 feet.
Really? I found this rather interesting: http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=415&ipod-accessories
and this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1365257,00.asp
and this:
http://www.infiniterange.com/
However, the article states the device is 200 feet away...which is odd because i thought Bluetooth's range was about 30 feet.
Re: Re: Re: Lets Do Bluetooth?
That seems to be streaming the AAC or MP3 data, which will not only limit you to low bitrates (128k or so), it will also require separate AAC decoders in your headphones, which defeats the whole point.
That seems to be streaming the AAC or MP3 data, which will not only limit you to low bitrates (128k or so), it will also require separate AAC decoders in your headphones, which defeats the whole point.
The article says in analog devices (like simply plugging a transmitter into an analog output) it will re-compress the audio digitally, then the receiver must decompress it. OR in the case of digital devices if it is built into the digital audio device it will leave it in digital form (i don't know if it will change compression) until it reaches the receiver.
So yes, the headphones must have a de-compressor, but it would be very hard for any wireless technology to transmit completely uncompressed digital audio.
If the compression scheme is tuned for wireless audio over Bluetooth I'm sure the quality will be fine.
I don't see how compression would defeat the purpose, why can't the receiver chip have the decompression chip built in? It's going to need the receiver anyway.
So yes, the headphones must have a de-compressor, but it would be very hard for any wireless technology to transmit completely uncompressed digital audio.
If the compression scheme is tuned for wireless audio over Bluetooth I'm sure the quality will be fine.
I don't see how compression would defeat the purpose, why can't the receiver chip have the decompression chip built in? It's going to need the receiver anyway.