New iPods Announced · DIGIT-ARC

Well, the event in happening and Steve Jobs announced new iPods, that now look like the previous long ones but have aluminum on them.

*cache.gizmodo.com/assets/ipodletsrock/ipodletsrock42.jpg

^^ That is just a reference model. 8 colors released and shipping now

So they went back to the old design.

W

I loved the Mini, maybe will buy this one.

Proud Owner of iPod Classic 160 GB. I knew the axe on capacity was coming. Thank God I bought mine in time

I don’t get it though. Why axe the higher capacity iPod?

-------------------------

Apple Brings in a New iPod Nano, Touch and the iPhone Software 2.1
by Milind Alvares

*img329.imageshack.us/img329/7348/ipodsoftwareupdates1vb9.jpg

The rumours were spot on with this one, as Apple releases the iPod Nano 4G, the iPod Touch 2G, and to go along with that the iPhone software 2.1. The Macs were not even mentioned at the event.

The Nano departs from the fatty tag and goes back to the earlier long design, a stunning one at that. Featuring a curved body, a larger screen, and 9 different colours to choose from, the nano seems like an awesome upgrade. To add to that, it features a new spiced up UI, featuring the Genius Playlist feature introduced with iTunes 8. The nano also features an accelerometer for Coverflow mode and video. The nano comes in two sizes, 8GB and 16GB priced at $149 and $199 respectively. Read more…

[Via Smoking Apples]

^^nice avatar !

Damn it man. the new itunes software size is 64Mb.

Seems quite impressive!

Give me a single reason to Switch to iTunes 8 from WMP11 if I don't have an iPod.

Why?

T159 said:
^^nice avatar !

Thanks! Yours ain’t too shabby either (yes, I’m just returning the complement to be polite

).

desiibond said:
Damn it man. the new itunes software size is 64Mb.

The earlier versions were about the same size, 60-61 MB IIRC!

Hmmm... At first I thought the new Nano colours aren't all that great and looked more like a set of extra-large crayons than media players. But now I kinda like them.

Discontinuing the 160 GB Classic was silly though.

gx_saurav said:
Give me a single reason to Switch to iTunes 8 from WMP11 if I don't have an iPod.

If you are a Windows user and have no iPod or iPhone then you have absolutely no reason to have iTunes installed on your PC.

krazzy said:
If you are a Windows user and have no iPod or iPhone then you have absolutely no reason to have iTunes installed on your PC.

But its from APPLE...

gx_saurav said:
Give me a single reason to Switch to iTunes 8 from WMP11 if I don't have an iPod.

Coz it rips songs in AAC format not some crappy WMA format.. and its a better manager of music than WMP11 (IMO)..
---------------- Now playing: C21 - You Are Stuck in My Heart via FoxyTunes

^^and you have an apple too in avatar.

Btw many people just says its apple when I ask them why you like it...lolz

You’re asking the wrong people.

hellknight said:
Coz it rips songs in AAC format not some crappy WMA format.. and its a better manager of music than WMP11 (IMO)..

I wonder. I Tried to switch to iTunes here (used it in Virtual Machine as I don't want more of Apple poop in my PC) & I had no reason to switch. Everything iTunes provide I already have with WMP11. Like I said, I don't have iPod or iPhone & I didn't find a reason to switch.

About WMA, Who says it's crappy???? Ever tried WAM 10.2 Pro (in WMP11). I don't know about ripping as I don't rip much but I get songs from various places in MP3 format which I convert to Wave first & then WMA 10.2 pro at 256 kbps.

gx_saurav said:
I wonder. I Tried to switch to iTunes here (used it in Virtual Machine as I don't want more of Apple poop in my PC) & I had no reason to switch. Everything iTunes provide I already have with WMP11. Like I said, I don't have iPod or iPhone & I didn't find a reason to switch.

About WMA, Who says it's crappy???? Ever tried WAM 10.2 Pro (in WMP11). I don't know about ripping as I don't rip much but I get songs from various places in MP3 format which I convert to Wave first & then WMA 10.2 pro at 256 kbps.

You convert songs from MP3 to WMA whatever and they sound nice? Cool

@gx_saurav.. yeah.. WMA Pro in WMA 11.. try ripping an audio CD in AAC 96kbps and WMA 96kbps.. and hear it with a good quality headphones.. you'll notice the difference.. i've huge collection of Audio CD's and I ripped them previously with WMA and when i tested AAC i liked it and switched to it..

No regrets with WMP 11 though.. its a huge improvement over WMA 10..

^^ Ever heard of dbPowerAMP?

mail2and said:
You convert songs from MP3 to WMA whatever and they sound nice? Cool

Nope. I keep them at mp3 only now. But my old songs are in 256 kbps WMA. The only portable media player I got is my K750i & for that I convert all songs in 128 kbps mp4 (sounds better then 128 kbps mp3). Since I m not an Audiophile, I can hardly tell the difference & yeah, I do have good quality headphones. (Philips SHP 8900)

gx_saurav said:
I get songs from various places in MP3 format which I convert to Wave first & then WMA 10.2 pro at 256 kbps.

mail2and said:
You convert songs from MP3 to WMA whatever and they sound nice? Cool

gx_saurav said:
Nope. I keep them at mp3 only now.

Err..

nobody advocate ogg vorbis....doom 3 anyone ???? Those awesome sounds of maggots and trites.

Silly apple; why a cutdown. Classic 160Gb was a great and a selling model. :neutral:

gx_saurav said:
About WMA, Who says it's crappy???? Ever tried WAM 10.2 Pro (in WMP11). I don't know about ripping as I don't rip much but I get songs from various places in MP3 format which I convert to Wave first & then WMA 10.2 pro at 256 kbps.

Thats stupid. Converting MP3 to WMA 10.2 pro, even if you use wave in the middle, would result in actually a LOSS IN QUALITY. When you get audio in a certain low bitrate lossy format, its best to keep it the way it is. Or just download a copy ripped with your favourite encoder.

WMA 10.2 pro is for ripping directly from lossless sources like CDs, FLAC/WavPack, etc.

Remember: When it comes to audio, transcoding from lossy formats is EVIL.

I think the discussion is about the new iPods and not WMP/WMA or MP3!

The new iPod Touch looks great.. and is good bargain for $229!!

^^ And for the first time, cheaper than the iPod Classic.

I love the nano ad. Those melting colours are just so del.icio.us!

gx_saurav said:
Give me a single reason to Switch to iTunes 8 from WMP11 if I don't have an iPod.

Coverflow is SUperb !!!
works on windows also.
Just an Eye Candy.... On my iTunes [Same as on iPhone ]

*img141.imageshack.us/img141/4753/itunescoverflowzo2.jpg

if u dont have tagged them USE Media Monkey its the easyiest .....

MetalheadGautham said:
Thats stupid. Converting MP3 to WMA 10.2 pro, even if you use wave in the middle, would result in actually a LOSS IN QUALITY. When you get audio in a certain low bitrate lossy format, its best to keep it the way it is. Or just download a copy ripped with your favourite encoder.

WMA 10.2 pro is for ripping directly from lossless sources like CDs, FLAC/WavPack, etc.

Remember: When it comes to audio, transcoding from lossy formats is EVIL.

I'm amazed why such efficient formats like flac, and to an extent ogg vorbis(?); they dont get popular and into general use. The stupid 15 yr old mp3 is still showing its ugly face every time new songs come up.

Yeah. At 35MB per track, not so much.

AAC is good enough.

^^^ Is it?
A 320 kbps mp3 would take around 15 MB for the same.
But storage spaces have increased to a great extent. 10 years ago, the HDD drive bought by some people was around 5 GB. Now its around 500 GB. A 100 times increase. Cant we afford a 2.33 time increase in file size?

Dont know about ogg vorbis(though its lossy but better than mp3 I believe)? Also AAC is something that is gaining popularity, but dont know about it much. Wikipedia-ing now.

^^ You do realise this thread is about new iPods being launched right. Sure the Classic can fit your entire library with Apple Lossless tracks. But even on a 32GB Touch, space is limited.

dr_jimit said:
Coverflow is SUperb !!!
works on windows also.
Just an Eye Candy.... On my iTunes [Same as on iPhone ]

<A huge image you’d rather not see again. Trust me.>

if u dont have tagged them USE Media Monkey its the easyiest .....

You could’ve used better artwork and a smaller image though.

Like this:

*idisk.mac.com/aayush/Public/Pictures/Skitch/Cover_Flow-20080912-073213.jpg

I know I’m showing off. Is that a crime now?

IronManForever said:
I'm amazed why such efficient formats like flac, and to an extent ogg vorbis(?); they dont get popular and into general use. The stupid 15 yr old mp3 is still showing its ugly face every time new songs come up.

Because it is the most widely usable audio file format. You can not beat the fact that we have gadgets called mp3 players! Ever heard of AAC player or FLAC player or Ogg Vorbis player. Most of the people do not care about quality. They want the same file to be usable in widest possible areas, No transcoding and reencoding cr@p

When will the new ones be available in India?

goobimama said:
^^ You do realise this thread is about new iPods being launched right. Sure the Classic can fit your entire library with Apple Lossless tracks. But even on a 32GB Touch, space is limited.

Well, ALAC is just not right today (Its NOT apple lossless audio codec. Its Advanced lossless audio codec, and is owned by the same guys who made MP4 and MPEG. Apple just uses it...) . Since the lossless revolution was sphereheaded by FLAC, FLAC is the most popular lossless codec (even METALLICA uses it) and its damn fast with decent compression at level 5 (level 8 is useless) and actually HAS support in many PMPs and other hardware. And WavPack is the winner in terms of efficiency and uniqueness, with an awssome ripping mode called hybrid lossless, with it creating a lossy high quality around 320 kbps audio track and a "correction" file for it which makes the audio lossless. The two can be used together as lossless audio file, and its good for backup. The lossy part can be kept on the PMP for playback. This saves precious time spent on seperately ripping first to mp3/vorbis/aac, then to flac/tak/alac.

ALAC, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec (I don't care who invented it first, that's what iTunes uses) is very much the right way to go for Apple, if they choose to sell lossless audio that is.

The thing with selling lossless audio, is that most people don't give a damn about it. Busy listening to music on their default iPod earbuds, no one can tell the difference between a 128kbps aac and a 256kbps aac.

So why make someone buy a 35MB track when they can get the same one at 3MB? Also, offering 35MB tracks would also mean huge amount of bandwidth being used up on the Apple servers.

And Metallica is not god. They've lost it after they lost Jason Newstead and got that idiot Apeman bassist. And those irritating toms of Lars in St. Anger were just the limit

goobimama said:
ALAC, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec (I don't care who invented it first, that's what iTunes uses) is very much the right way to go for Apple, if they choose to sell lossless audio that is.

reason ?

The thing with selling lossless audio, is that most people don't give a damn about it. Busy listening to music on their default iPod earbuds, no one can tell the difference between a 128kbps aac and a 256kbps aac.

So why make someone buy a 35MB track when they can get the same one at 3MB? Also, offering 35MB tracks would also mean huge amount of bandwidth being used up on the Apple servers.

they are NOT the same. you can't transcode aac to whatever format you want without loosing quality.
lossless means freedom. you can do the same things with it as you do with a cd you bought.
how can you use your 128kbps aac from itunes store on your car's mp3 player which only supports mp3 ?
load on servers ? oh sh!t... they charge a ransom for their albums and they can't offer larger files ?

And Metallica is not god. They've lost it after they lost Jason Newstead and got that idiot Apeman bassist. And those irritating toms of Lars in St. Anger were just the limit

listen to Death Magnetic and you will eat your words.
wait for the review on my blog.

robert trujillo is NOT an idiot. he is one of the best bassists alive and pwns jason.

those metallic toms were kinda cool on just one or two songs, but they otherwise sucked. in dm, they appear only in 2 songs where they sound good.

and what the hell ? the topic is something and we are discussing something else

Hmmm ... I don't understand some people AT ALL. 35 friggin' MB for a song! LOL! Such comments are only to find outrageously stupid short-comings in a service provided. If one is so desperate to get songs that are 35MB in size each, then find another service.

I cannot afford to store songs that are 35MB in size on my iPod. It is 7 times the size of one song my iPod right now. Which essentially means that for every 1 song of some I_give_a_sh!t_about loss-less crap, I lose 7 songs of pretty decent quality at 256kbps. Which then translates to lesser no. of videos & portable applications & useful data.

No thank you. As much as I hate the iPod, I laugh at people who want a 35MB song.

To most people, a 256kbps AAC track is the same as the lossless one. Unlike in video, where HD really makes a difference, Audio bitrate hardly has any effect. As for car audio, you should very well know by now that most iTunes users don't plan on using CDs in their cars, at least those the US.

I haven't heard Death Magnetic. Its good is it? I'll check it out then.

@manan: Nice siggy

iMav said:
Hmmm ... I don't understand some people AT ALL. 35 friggin' MB for a song! LOL! Such comments are only to find outrageously stupid short-comings in a service provided. If one is so desperate to get songs that are 35MB in size each, then find another service.

I cannot afford to store songs that are 35MB in size on my iPod. It is 7 times the size of one song my iPod right now. Which essentially means that for every 1 song of some I_give_a_sh!t_about loss-less crap, I lose 7 songs of pretty decent quality at 256kbps. Which then translates to lesser no. of videos & portable applications & useful data.

No thank you. As much as I hate the iPod, I laugh at people who want a 35MB song.

Well, I am sorry that you don't know anything about the benifits of lossless audio.
Vist and register at www.hydrogenaudio.org if you want to know why people die for it.

goobimama said:
To most people, a 256kbps AAC track is the same as the lossless one. Unlike in video, where HD really makes a difference, Audio bitrate hardly has any effect. As for car audio, you should very well know by now that most iTunes users don't plan on using CDs in their cars, at least those the US.

I haven't heard Death Magnetic. Its good is it? I'll check it out then.

@manan: Nice siggy

To tell you the truth, the difference between 128KBPS and 256KBPS bitrates in Vorbis and AAC is almost zero to the human ear under normal circumstances. The apparent difference is largely placebo effect. Only mp3, with its horrible quality, has difference. Stuff like pre-echo are the things that need better encoding and 256 benifits them.

The benifit of lossless ? Well, see the link I gave manan.

And yeah, Death Magnetic is simply AWSSOME. I have not seen a better metallica album, and its certainly the top canditate for the best heavy metal album ever produced and it beats Slayer's Reign In Blood, Metallica's Ride The Lightning, ..And Justice for All and Master of Puppets, Megadeth's Rust In Peace, Iron Maiden's Powerslave, Killers and Number of the beast, and finally Black Sabbath's Paranoid as the best metal album ever made.

hydrogenaudio *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/81.png

Btw I like to have 320kbps and if it in flac then its awesome. Though for MP3 player I just encode them to mp3s at 320kbps.

128 kbps AAC sounds pretty darn good to my human ears. Any higher bitrate and I would just be wasting space. Especially considering I don't have that high end headphones or system to bring out the differences between them.

^^depends upon the audio too.
Try listening to some of the Akira Yamaoka and The Killers tracks. Makes a hell lot of difference.

POP songs generally sound good at 128 and no noticeable difference at higher bit-rates.

Oh btw I don't use high end head phones but Sony MDR Q22LP and MDR 10LP

Yes you are right. Music with just vocals and little instrumentation sound fine with low bit-rate files. But for songs with lots of instruments and intricate detailing, higher bit-rate files are a must or everything gets blended and sounds muddy. But still I find 128 kbps AAC to be quite capable in preserving most of the details. Something which can be achieved with MP3 only with bit-rates higher than 192 kbps.