JFreak said:
Well of course. But I was pointing that particular setup as a probable problem (if people then used the iPod's volume control instead of the stereo system).
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.
New iPod Details
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well of course. But I was pointing that particular setup as a probable problem (if people then used the iPod's volume control instead of the stereo system).
JFreak
macrumors 68040
centauratlas said:
apple has the most secure method of updating the store - sure, it could be done in such a way that apple put new images into the server and then just updated the pages when it would be the time. BUT... that would leave the door open for us to search for the images (which are usually named after plain english words) and thus opening the door for leaks.
apple now takes the store down, removes old images, inserts new images, tests it internally, and then opens the store when the user experience is what it is supposed to be.
i have nothing to complain about this.
Also if they didnt take down the store for so long we wouldnt be able to have these franticly growing threads whilst everyone gets in a bit of last minute speculation..... Would take away all of our fun 😛
JFreak said:
Can we please stay in the realm of normal users? Nobody in the public has access to a "production master CD". So *of course* I was implying "CD track vs Apple Lossless of the same CD track".
JFreak said:
Why are you saying the lossless file would sound worse? If you dump a CD track (I said "dump" not "sample"), you get a 100% exact copy. Then if you apply Apple Lossless to it, it's still the same 100% exact copy.
Here, you even say it yourself:
JFreak said:
So you clearly understand the Apple Lossless file would be 100% identical. But why did you imply otherwise earlier in your post? (see above)
The only way I can see is if you think CD-ripping is made via sampling instead of digital reading.
drlunanerd
macrumors 68000
FriarTuck
macrumors 6502
Somebody get the BadgersBadgersBadgers guy to do iPodsiPodsiPods, because the iPod is taking over. Sprouting like mushrooms, you might say.
No Dell or Sony snakes need apply.
No Dell or Sony snakes need apply.
JFreak
macrumors 68040
Yvan256 said:
i clearly stated how an audiophile can get a difference between same song played from cd and apple lossless file. that has nothing to do with the lossless method, but instead everything to do with the source of the end product. everyone knows that there is a possibility of a read error with optical discs, so it is very well possible that an apple lossless coded files repeats such a read error compared to faultless read of a cd track.
agreed, that is something a normal human ear will not normally notice, but it was the principle that was debated here.
it is possible that the same song is not 100% identical when two versions are compared. a cd is printed according to production master and an apple lossless file is likely encoded from that cd. because the source is different, it is possible that the apple lossless file has losed some resolution before the lossless encoding.
now if the lossless file was made from the same original than the cd, then the two versions of the same song would likely match. that is, if there is not a single write error during the manufacturing of cd production master and actually producing the cd, and not a single read error during the playback of the cd track.
understand? 99.9999% match is not 100% identical. and most likely it will not be 100% identical if it's made of different source.
Nothing especially surprising, a nice update, albeit minor.
Whilst pricewise the mini fits in with the other ipods, there is now a gap of 16GB between the mini and the lowest ipod.
I only need like 10, but 4 is not enough. if they beefed up the mini storage that would be nice, but as everyone correctly points out, why change a product when demand outstrips supply...sigh.
Whilst pricewise the mini fits in with the other ipods, there is now a gap of 16GB between the mini and the lowest ipod.
I only need like 10, but 4 is not enough. if they beefed up the mini storage that would be nice, but as everyone correctly points out, why change a product when demand outstrips supply...sigh.
christ, they used my line on the apple front page.
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=86756&size=big
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=86756&size=big
C-Mezak said:
It kinda surprises me that apple did that, but good for you. 🙂 Now the question is what will apple do with all of the 3G iPods that they had? Give them to HP to be re-branded?