Wireless Syncing would be a great idea, and also letting you share your music with other iPod Touch's and MP3's via wi-fi or bluetooth.
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 touch New Features for the NEW iPod Touch
- Thread starter Andrew K.
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wireless Syncing would be a great idea, and also letting you share your music with other iPod Touch's and MP3's via wi-fi or bluetooth.
I don't think that Apple really needs to introduce new hardware. It just needs a really good software update. What they need to do is release tons of control from the App Store. Give us jailbroken quality of freedom, minus the legally shady stuff.
Hmmm...I hope the OP is right. GPS will be a serious deal breaker, since all you have to do is download some maps and viola. I know the argument is that it'll overlap the iphone, but the iphone still has a working telecommunications system, a camera, 3g and such. Plus alot of car GPS units nowadays double as a music player as well. So if Apple gives the ipod touch GPS, I'm sure they'll gain a significant market share in the GPS navigation arena as well - so much that it won't even be funny.
Personally I'm stuck right now between investing in an ipod touch 16gb alone and manually finding my way, or a cheaper ipod and GPS navigation. I'm sure many people are in the same boat.
Now lets hope they bust out a dedicated GPS navigation app soon. And an ipod touch with GPS of course.
Personally I'm stuck right now between investing in an ipod touch 16gb alone and manually finding my way, or a cheaper ipod and GPS navigation. I'm sure many people are in the same boat.
Now lets hope they bust out a dedicated GPS navigation app soon. And an ipod touch with GPS of course.
A decade ago, no one would have thought there would be cameras on phones or Apple could transform the music industry. There is the iPod with a phone, why is it so strange that Apple might bring out an iPod with a camera; maybe even a better one than what is on the iPhone...
Instead of people thinking that the Touch can't match the iPhone, in terms of physical features, why not something different to separate the two products?
Do what I do - leave the RCA cable plugged in. My iPod mostly uses that connector but it's useful to be able to plug any 3.5mm device into my amp.
-----------------------------
The sound is poor in the different ipods. The quality of how you hear the music is something that makes me cry.... and the quality the ipod presents the music can actually ruin the track of the album... That is... I'm afraid, a lot of the mp3 players have in common ... not just Apples :-/
So much better quality in the hardware and software would be a hole new experience... but many people under maybe 25 years ( I'm 42 ;-) can't probably not even remember the old records where sound where far far better... BAnd I have to say ... the ipods is very poor in performance in sound quality....
For the general user, though, this isn't the case. The audio sounds just fine to me, and half my job is dealing with audio.
Okay, maybe compared to records it's not as good, but you can compare it all day long. The fact of the matter is MP3s lose sound quality. And one just needs to deal with that and accept it, you know?
Anyway, from my experience, better headphones = better quality. It's not necessarily the iPod's fault.
You are right for general use....or may I say for general use for people who are not used to listening to anything with better quality who thinks that it is supposed to sound like that ... Of course I don't know what You are used to.....
My 'headphones are Creative 'zen' can't actually remember the all of the name.. but I paid around 180 Us dollars ( I live in Denmark)... so they aren't that bad
You said music player so I am going to focus mainly on the music side of it. Cowon D2 - has been easily rated one of the best sounding mp3 players on the market. A nice touch screen with some external controls. The ability to power, headphones that are power hungry. 40+ hour for audio. Then there is the fact that you can play a whole list of audio files. If you want a pure audio player this one of the best on the market and easily best the touch on music, which for many this is still key. If you want to count space also device max out at 16gb but it has an SDHC card slot so, 32gb+16gb means a 48gb at this point in time and even more once 48gb+ cards come out.
Sony a610 series, a710 series(a610 with noise canceling built in), a720 series and a820 series(a720 with bluetooth and bt headphones). Again going based on music playing ability it is much better than the touch. Granted it has the same audio codec support as the ipod the sound is way better. Again the sound is very highly rated and the stock ear buds have been rated as some of the best on the market. These device are perfect for those who just want a simple, easy using music player but don't want to sacrifice on sound, not to mention 34 hours of audio.
There aren't many 3.5in devices on the market that have 8gb or more space, with wifi. However, there are full fledged HD devices like the larger Archos 605 with a 4in screen. They are good devices as they can go up to 160gb in space, but sound quality and the fact that you have to pay $20 for the wifi codec takes it down a notch. There is also the 5in Cowon Q5 and the just announced P5 with the wifi accessory. These Cowon devices would be a better all around device compared to the Touch, but with a 5in screen it is more UMPCish(as it also has GPS, 3G support, and battery life like a UMPC) than Touch competitor. Just saying for pure audio there are more than a few devices better than all the ipods, but for wifi(internet) music player with all around portability the Touch has no real competition.
btw I own a rockbox ipod mini, Sony A728 and Cowon A2, and have used a Touch for a while. I compared them all using the same headphones(the stock sony headphones, and Sennheisers).
Well, I'm 43 (I remember records too
) and a professional musician and I think my recently purchased 16GB Touch has the best sound quality of all of the iPods I've owned thus far. Previously, that honor went to my prior 5.5G 30GB Video iPod.Of course I don't use the stock headphones but have a really nice pair of a Sony monitor-style in-ear headphones. I don't do MP3 much though. I almost always encode my CDs with Apple lossless compression for the iPod preferring sound quality over quantity.
I have not tried any other MP3 players recently so I can't speak to your claim that the iPod is poor in comparison but to my ears I don't see how it can improve all that much.
What player/players is it that you find to be so far superior in sound quality?
I've never seen the Cowon here in Japan. Is it Korean-made? That could be why. I remember using the Cowon Jet Audio player software back in Windows and that was a Korean product. I'll give the Sony a listen next time I see it in the store but really I have no complaints with the sound quality of my Touch and I'm a musician by trade.
Yes, they are Korean company. I would think they would be in Japan. Cowon is know for great sound(with the exception of a few players that just sound good, but not as good as their other players) and the fact that included every codec for audio and video so you rarely need converting.
Yeah I was surprise how well Sony sounded compared to my Mini(rockbox on). I dunno, most people were telling me the new Classic and Touch had lower sound quality compared to the previous generations. I personally could not tell a real difference between my Nano(on hte ipod os to be fair as rockbox is totally different) and Touch. Only thing I noticed was my Nano was a little clearer on the same headphones.
I don't think the new iPod touch will have a capacity upgrade, GPS, Bluetooth, or a camera, because of reasons others have already stated. Also, I think they will keep the back of the iPod the same as the other iPods. They want it to be an high-end iPod, not a low-end iPhone.
Things I hope to see are:
1. Price drop - 16GB for $300, 32GB for $400, 8GB dropped. They would drop the 8GB because an iPod touch at $199 would be too cheap.
2. Better battery - With more and more Wi-Fi usage through apps, a longer-lasting battery would be great.
3. Wireless library syncing - This could be easily done. Apple got it halfway there with the Remote app. Maybe they could make a "Sync" app.
I would like to see external buttons and disc usage, but that is probably not going to happen.
Things I hope to see are:
1. Price drop - 16GB for $300, 32GB for $400, 8GB dropped. They would drop the 8GB because an iPod touch at $199 would be too cheap.
2. Better battery - With more and more Wi-Fi usage through apps, a longer-lasting battery would be great.
3. Wireless library syncing - This could be easily done. Apple got it halfway there with the Remote app. Maybe they could make a "Sync" app.
I would like to see external buttons and disc usage, but that is probably not going to happen.
You realize that audio through Bluetooth AD2P is compressed in a worse fashion than older MP3 encoders, right? Most people compare Bluetooth AD2P to 128Kbps MP3 of years past.
If you want to say music through the iPod dock sucks, I dare you to go to head-fi.org and say that. You'll get laughed off that forum before you even hit the "post" button.
You sound like someone who cares more about volume than quality. The iPod dock is a line-level output. Its not meant to be loud, its meant to be wired up to an amplifier.
And no thanks, I don't need to go to your house and listen to music
I don't want to listen to the equivalent of 128kbps streaming over bluetooth from a non-iPod. I'm better off with my Koss KSC-75 for portable (universally praised for their quality), my ATH-A500 (and soon A900) headphones for "full range headphones" (a good set of headphones will beat most all "full range" speakers) and when I do want that speaker sound, I hook my MacBook up to my Onkyo TX-SR604 receiver via an optical cable that powers a few relatively nice Polk speakers and that wonderful 12" 250-watt Polk subwoofer that everyone just loves, all while playing Apple Lossless files controlled in iTunes wirelessly by the remote app on my iPhone
Anyway, as for the features people here are talking about..
Adding bluetooth, camera, GPS, FM tuner, any of that would make the unit thicker. People seem to forget that the current iPod touch is only slightly thicker than the iPod nano. Why would you want the thing to be bigger? Bluetooth is useless. Camera? Most people already have digital cameras or camera phones. Even a $100 point and shoot camera with optical zoom will mop the floor with ANY camera phone.
GPS? Again, it'll make it thicker. The wifi location finder is pretty accurate as it is.
Leave it the way it is and bump up the capacity and battery life or lower the price.
http://www.cowonjapan.com/
Hard to come by in your regular Yodobashi but just head down to the audiophile stores in Akiha etc.. ohh, and i just figured that they have a online shop on that page
Thanks, looks cool! Unfortunately, I live way out in the sticks of Shikoku but I will check them out on my next trip to Akiba or Nipponbashi in Osaka.
I've got 4 assorted ipod docks in my house, and since none of them have anything bigger than a 4" speaker in them none will express the bass tracks in my music. So music from "most" iPod docks sucks. Laugh all you want.
No, I care about hearing the full tonal range of my music.
You clearly have no idea how small the required components are. Of the things you list the camera is the only thing that needs some depth for good optics. Yet give the job to a talented optics engineer and I'll bet 8mm is possible.
Bluetooth is wireless. Wireless is convenience. You admit the joy of wirelessly controlling itunes with your Touch. I enjoy that too. I also have nothing against a cable from the source to the amp. Yet I listen to more music because I don't have to screw with cables. The quality of the music is more a function of the speakers it is played through than the compression used. My bluetooth players automatically reconnect with the dock or headphones or adapter on my stereo once turned on. My P2 also simultaneously pairs with my cell phone, so if a call comes in on my phone the P2 will pause the music and allow me to take the call through it. The phone can be 30 feet away and still connect. Do that with a cable, I dare you. And with bluetooth I can wirelessly transfer files (music, photos, text, and even videos) to and from my iMac, PC (with bluetooth) or any other samsung bluetooth enabled player.
You are contradicting yourself. A bad compression, which bluetooth signals have, will get rid of your beloved full tonal range! Compression, does cut off the audio depth as well as compressing the band partiality. Your speakers, even the best of them, won't magically give you back what you already lost.
I'm talking about the real dock that you buy from Apple, or things like the Pocket Dock or Sik-Din that are all line-outs. Not those awful speaker docks that are more of a waste of money than simply flushing your cash down the toilet.
Which is kind of funny considering your stance on bluetooth audio
Which reminds me, you ignored everything I said about how people commonly refer to AD2P as sub-MP3 quality. Why is that?
Yeah if you want cellphone quality pictures. I'd rather leave the camera out and save $50 and just use my real digital camera. I use the camera on my iPhone almost never.
If they could fit GPS and FM in the unit without making it thicker or affecting battery life, then go ahead.
Ah but see, there is no quality loss when you have your Mac connected to an audio system with an optical cable and you control it with the Remote.app on your iPhone or iPod touch. However, there is a very noticeable quality loss when using bluetooth. So much so that even average people comment on it.
The best speakers or headphones in the world won't sound good if they're being fed sub-128Kbps MP3 quality audio via AD2P.
Thats neat. Too bad the quality is awful.
Again, thats all neat and all of that. Its a shame about the quality though. I'll take cabled quality over wireless and.. well, extremely low quality, any day.
All at a blazing 3Mbps, or roughly 375KB/sec. You know, my 5.5G 80GB iPod has a sustained write speed of about 14MB/sec. My 802.11g wifi network generally sustains the 54Mbps its rated for as well. So lets see, wired transfers that are 40x faster or more in the case of ethernet.. or wireless transfers that are about 4x slower than my own internet connection? Hmmm.
Exactly. And thanks to DRM thats a requirement of the AD2P spec, you generally can almost never connect and transmit the audio in its original codec, so its being recompressed from its already (presumably) lossy form to another lossy codec.
So you get the generation loss of going from lossy to lossy.
Bluetooth is just about the worst way to listen to music. Though Bluetooth headsets are quite handy for talking on the phone.
Somewhere you kids have gotten it in your heads that anything over bluetooth, thanks to it's compression technology, is absolutely awful. That's why I'm sure you've never listened to it. As such, your theories about the horrible quality loss are irrelivant. I hear perfectly well according to my audiologist. I can switch my home theater amp between a bluetooth adapter input and a RCA stereo cable input, with both sources being the same device at the same time. In essence, I can compare the audio pathways side-by-side. I hear a slight difference, but it is by no stretch of the word "awful". My subwoofer will still pulse out the bass line. The tweeters still sing. If I had to name the difference, I'd say the bluetooth audio is a little "crisper", with a tiny bit less sustain on each note.
The last thing to consider is that bluetooth doesn't become the ONLY way to get sound out of your device. You'll always have that earphone jack, and can ignore that irritating bluetooth feature all day long. You can even disable the bluetooth radio if you want to save a little battery life.
The last thing to consider is that bluetooth doesn't become the ONLY way to get sound out of your device. You'll always have that earphone jack, and can ignore that irritating bluetooth feature all day long.
You can even disable the bluetooth radio if you want to save a little battery life.