Ultimate Solution to Small Storage iPods

Discussion in 'iPod' started by TheSpaz, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. TheSpaz macrumors 604

    TheSpaz

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    #1
    If Apple could create a new AAC codec that is only 1/3 of the size of an mp3 but, the same quality as the mp3, then we could put MUCH more music on a 16GB 'Touch. What do you think? This could be in the works. Instead of trying to make flash ram bigger, make the files smaller! It's perfect!

    The new AAC codec could be called AAC+ or something. The extension would be .apc or something. I dunno... just an idea. What do you all think?
     
  2. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

    just a reminder, wma and ra can be as small as <100kb for a 3 minutes music, of course you lose quality, big time.
     
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    there was talk of Apple allowing use of HE-AAC when the shuffles were first introduced due to their size, but nothing came of it.
     
  4. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #4
    I'd prefer to see :apple:TV style iTunes library streaming on the iPhone and iPod Touch. More space without loss of quality.

    B
     
  5. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    well, an SD slot would solve everything, truly unlimited.
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6
    yeah but not nearly as streamlined.
     
  7. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #7
    same pic I quoted in another post from wikipedia.

    [​IMG]
    Im sure apple can make it just as streamlined as current model.

    design and ability to compact stuff in a small volume are two things I am very confidant about apple.
     
  8. TheSpaz thread starter macrumors 604

    TheSpaz

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    #8
    Of course, I know but, I wanted comparable quality to that of a 160 kbps mp3 but, only 1/3 of the file size.
     
  9. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #9
    Don't you think that if getting better quality out of a smaller file was possible it would be done already? I'm sure they'll get some improvements as time goes on, but all in all compressed stereo audio is about as small as it's going to get.

    It's not really important in the long run anyways, as storage capacity is just going to get larger and cheaper as the years go on making smaller compressed music less important.

    What WOULD solve this problem for me is if Apple developed an audio container that stored two versions of a song in it, and tracked all the meta-data jointly. One version would be flagged as the "main" track and the other as the "portable" track. Both would be stored on your computer and managed in iTunes, when you played it on your machine it would playback the "Main" version, and update the playcount and other metadata for both. You could choose which one you wanted to sync to what device; so if you had an 80gb iPod classic you could have it get the "Main" version only (leaving the "Portable" track behind) so you got the best sound quality without "wasting" space on the portable device. Alternatively you could also have an iPod Shuffle or 8gb Touch and have the "Portable" version of the track sync, leaving the "Main" behind, letting you get the most onto the smaller device.

    There should also be a piece of meta-data that forces a track to behave differently than the standard option.

    I'd like it if you could set iTunes to rip CDs in both qualities that you defined at the same time (it would just do each track twice when you imported) and iTMS sell tracks like this by default. For iTMS, I could see them doing 160kbps AAC as the "Main" and 96kbps as the "Portable".

    For some people, this would be great as they want Lossless copies on their computers, but syncing that to an iPod is not always ideal, so having your CDs import in Lossless and 128kbps (or 256kbps, etc) would be great for the "audiophile" crowd who wants to have the best experience on their expensive home speakers, but also wants to take some music out for a jog.

    Personally, I'd set it for 192kbps and 96kbps. I have pretty crappy hearing, and can only hear the difference in 96kbps AAC to 128, or even 160, on some tracks and only if I listen really hard. On the other hand, having a higher quality master would be nice for transcoding to other formats, burning CDs for people with better ears, etc, is always nice.

    I suppose they wouldn't even need a single container for the joint files, but that would probably simplify managing your library...
     
  10. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #10
    A mate of mine has one of those in his iRiver. It bumps the storage up to 10GB, but startup is pathetically slow. I don't know if its the player or the card, but i'm weary of expandable memory now.
     
  11. emotion macrumors 68040

    emotion

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #11

    This is pretty streamlined. 16GB on board and a slot (it's Sandisk's SansaView):

    [​IMG]
     
  12. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #12
    some cards are slow, some are fast.
     
  13. milo macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #13
    Depends what you mean by streamlined.

    4.3 x 2 x 0.4 inches, 2.4 inch screen versus 2.75 x 2.06 x 0.26, 2 inch screen for the nano. I couldn't find a weight listed for the sansaview.

    I'd be really surprised if you could make a player as small and thin as the nano and fit in a card slot.
     
  14. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    the problem with the memory cards is this: its not simple. and lets face it, thats what the iPod is about.

    you then have to know whats on what card and switch them out. and it doesn't keep the design streamlined either.
     
  15. emotion macrumors 68040

    emotion

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #15
    The OP was talking about the Touch. That's 8mm, vs 6.5mm for the nano and 9mm for the above device. That's not that big a stretch to imagine it in a Touch. It's not Apple's style though. They don't want you to upgrade a thing, just buy a new one.
     
  16. TheSpaz thread starter macrumors 604

    TheSpaz

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    #16
    I agree!
     
  17. swwack91 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #17
    cards aren't unlimited space. the most more you have is like an extra 4 or 8 gigs maybe...

    still tho - when we're debating 16GB touch vs. 160GB Classic

    an extra card's not gonna change anything.
     

Share This Page