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

Toshiba to Introduce 60GB 1.8

Tulse said:
60GB seems rather large for the vast majority of music libraries. It's hard to imagine that enough people have such huge collections to make it worthwhile producing.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize I had a huge collection, but with 27GB in iTunes I have barely one quarter of my CDs in my library, and my gen2 20GB iPod has been full for a long time.

Not to mention the other uses I have for it: in terms of portable HD storage and possibly video functionality.

Bring on the 60GB iPod -- I can't wait to get one.
 
stoid said:
I wouldn't say 'never'. Technology is always advancing, always getting better, faster, smaller, (and hotter). It may not be in the next revision, but I'd wager that at some point in the not terribly distant future these smaller drive will start appearing in laptops. Remember though that these drives are even MORE expensive than the 2.5 inch drives that laptops currently house, so for right now it's cost prohibitive. It would be awesome if Apple would RAID together two 40GB drives and you'd have a ultra fast 80GB internal drive at about the same physical size as current laptop HDs!
Click to expand...

True, true - they'll probably be the norm in a couple of years; but with the spectre of G5 PBs arriving fairly soon, my favourite form factor may die a neglectful, overheated death.

Sure it's cost-prohibitive for the base model, but a BTO option would cover both those with deep, and those with deeper pockets very well...
 
Mantat said:
60gig might be too much MP3s for most people but its about the right size to introduce "home on an iPod". SO I guess we can expect it to hit us soon, I just hope we will not have to wait for Tiger to get it...
Click to expand...

Heh. Honestly I wouldn't trust the iPod to store my home directory. I've read about too many failed iPod to trust it with my home directory. That and someone stealing your iPod is a heck of a lot easier then stealing your PowerMac or *book.
 
Wishful thinking....

I seriously doubt that the iPod will ever be used for video. The screen's too small.

Where I see the iPod heading is your computer in a pocket: It'll stay about the same size, probably end up with a G4 chip inside (once we get the G7), have about a .5 TB hard drive, and some sick mad nasty FW 32000 port.

Then you load your entire computer on it, go where ever you want, then just leech off some monitor.

Oh yeah, Bluetooth's grandchild too.

MrToast :cool:
 
MrToast said:
I seriously doubt that the iPod will ever be used for video. The screen's too small.
Click to expand...
If that was the only way it could be used for video, you would be right. But that's not how it would be used -- it would feed external display devices.

Indeed you can use it that way right now: copy a few DVDs to your iPod, and then plug in to any Mac and play them using Apple's DVD Player.

It's a practical thing to do on trips -- instead of carying DVDs with you, or filling up your PowerBook/iBook HD with them, you can copy them to you iPod and play them with the iPod attached to your *book.
 
Using my Mac for video editing means I just can't spare the space to fill up my HD with CD's. I really think that is the main floor of the iPod. It would be nice if you could opt to just copy the CD's to the iPod without having to keep a copy on the Mac.

As things stand I use a Mini Disc.
 
I need 12h minimum of battery, why don`t apple get that?? But most people don`t have over 5Gigs of music. But I would not say no to a 60 + Ipod (gen4?)
 
Two questions:

If they're announced at WWDC would they be available for immediate delivery? I thought that unless its a totally new product Apple ships them upon announcement.

And secondly, would somebody please list or explain the different music encoding formats that Apple supports (and those it doesn't). I'm not too familiar with the new lossless format, and with what size it takes up.

Thanks, I need something to keep my mind pre-occupied until then. :D
 
No Screen But Still Video

Prediction:

it will be able to connect directly to DV video cameras, record TV shows, and output video, but, will not have a built in color screen.

Think about it you record to it to the camera, bring it home and edit right to the iPod HD save it then connect it to a TV for presentations. Plus you can use it as a DVR!
 
stoid said:
With 60GB I could re rip from CD some of my favorite tracks to Apple Lossless Codec to give me a better quality song on the go! :D
Click to expand...

The difference you hear between 128Kps AAC and lossless is only possible if you have ears like an owl and you are listening to it on a $20K sound system. Otherwise, the quality difference is completely lost by the time it comes out of your earbuds. That is of course, on the go means you carry your 100 lbs. hi-fi system on your back.
 
JW Pepper said:
Using my Mac for video editing means I just can't spare the space to fill up my HD with CD's. I really think that is the main floor of the iPod. It would be nice if you could opt to just copy the CD's to the iPod without having to keep a copy on the Mac.

As things stand I use a Mini Disc.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can do that - BUT trust me, that's one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. It's too easy for stuff to go wrong with them. The number of people who complain on the Apple discussion boards who've managed to lose their music from both their computer and an iPod, it's painful. There's so much more to go wrong with just an iPod.
 
Sir_Giggles said:
The difference you hear between 128Kps AAC and lossless is only possible if you have ears like an owl and you are listening to it on a $20K sound system. Otherwise, the quality difference is completely lost by the time it comes out of your earbuds. That is of course, on the go means you carry your 100 lbs. hi-fi system on your back.
Click to expand...

Not true - have you ever actually compared? 128kbps loses a load of midrange bass, you'd be surprised. Plus, it's not high enough quality to eliminate compression arefacts. Check out Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes on iTMS, for a good example, if you don't believe me. The heavy-bass intro sounds laughably bad.

Of course, if you listen on PowerBook speakers, you couldn't tell. But, they're pretty crap, it's undeniable. Only the 12" has anything like decent sound...
 
bob_the_gorilla said:
Not true - have you ever actually compared? 128kbps loses a load of midrange bass, you'd be surprised. Plus, it's not high enough quality to eliminate compression arefacts. Check out Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes on iTMS, for a good example, if you don't believe me. The heavy-bass intro sounds laughably bad.

Of course, if you listen on PowerBook speakers, you couldn't tell. But, they're pretty crap, it's undeniable. Only the 12" has anything like decent sound...
Click to expand...

Can I ask. What bitrate does the diff start to become indistinguishable? I ask because I have my entire collection ripped at AAC\256bps\48Khz (With the exception of any orchestral music that is ripped and 320kbs.) and I can't tell the diff between the AAC file and the CD. Then again I don't have the world's most sensitive hearing so maybe I'm missing something. :p
 
SiliconAddict said:
Heh. Honestly I wouldn't trust the iPod to store my home directory. I've read about too many failed iPod to trust it with my home directory. That and someone stealing your iPod is a heck of a lot easier then stealing your PowerMac or *book.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it would be a *copy* of your home directory that would sync to your computer. So if your iPod blew up, you'd still have your home directory on your computer. I would also imagine that you could turn on filevault for your 'home on the iPod.' Otherwise, like you said, it would be too risky.
 
Sir_Giggles said:
The difference you hear between 128Kps AAC and lossless is only possible if you have ears like an owl and you are listening to it on a $20K sound system. Otherwise, the quality difference is completely lost by the time it comes out of your earbuds. That is of course, on the go means you carry your 100 lbs. hi-fi system on your back.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. Forget wacky audiophiles. Play some bass heavy music that's been ripped to a 128 AAC and listen. The bass just isn't there.

You may not be able to hear a difference, or see the difference between a DVD, TV and movie theatre image. Lots of us can though and I can hear it on my soundsticks.

As for earbuds - it depends on what you have. Apple's are truly horrible. Others aren't and some are excellent. Bass isn't that major when your listening through headphones though and that's why I keep my files in 2 formats - lossless for the house and AAC for portability.

128's pretty nasty sounding through speakers...
 
bob_the_gorilla said:
...128kbps loses a load of midrange bass, you'd be surprised. Plus, it's not high enough quality to eliminate compression arefacts. Check out Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes on iTMS, for a good example, if you don't believe me. The heavy-bass intro sounds laughably bad...
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my experience when comparing the original CDs to files that I've encoded in AAC at 128kbps. I do notice some loss in what I'd call the clarity or transparency in distant background sounds, but the bass line is nearly unaffected.

One thing that can make the bass seem weak is a simple change in the volume level. You really need to pay close attention to the relative volume levels when comparing two different audio sources. Very slight differences (which can have nothing to do with the encoding) can cause pretty significant changes in the perceived quality of the material. For most people if you turn the volume up even slightly they will say that the bass sounds "better." Similarly, if you turn the volume down, well, you get the idea. That's one reason loudness controls exist.

In fact, I'm not certain that you can accurately compare two different audio sources that may contain volume output changes without using instruments to calibrate the average sound levels. You can try to do it by ear alone but that can be difficult and error prone. The other option would be to run both copies of the music through a high-quality normalization function. But even normalization can introduce problems if it isn't done correctly (normalizing to a single peak sample can make a slight mismatch worse that it was to begin with).

In any case, what sounds good or bad to you is the only important issue and the technical details are unimportant for most. After all, beauty __is__ in the ear of the beholder. Thus, if you are happy with your "solution" that is all that matters.
 
Same Size?

I'm too lazy to check the specs...but is this drive the same size as the current 40GB?

While I will, of course, by a 4G iPod, I hope I don't have to also buy (and wait for) 3rd party cases. If somehow it could fit in the same size as a 40GB, that would be most welcome :)

Edit: I didn't mean to put that thumbs down...at first glance I thought it was a question mark! LOL
 
SiliconAddict said:
Can I ask. What bitrate does the diff start to become indistinguishable? I ask because I have my entire collection ripped at AAC\256bps\48Khz (With the exception of any orchestral music that is ripped and 320kbs.) and I can't tell the diff between the AAC file and the CD. Then again I don't have the world's most sensitive hearing so maybe I'm missing something. :p
Click to expand...

At that kind of level, the difference is pretty small. It's what I personally rip at, and whilst I wouldn't call myself an audiophile, I like to think I have slightly better ears than many.

I used to be satisfied with 128kbps MP3, like everyone else. But, as soon as I actually compared and realised how much was missing, and heard the "digital flutter", I began to notice it a lot more in my music. Now, I'm not saying every song needs it - some compress much better than others. But, I'm pretty happy with my 256kbps AAC collection. You'd need better equipment than I have to really tell the difference. Though, orchestral music still sounds muddy with any kind of lossy compression, whatever the bitrate. But that's probably in my mind :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back