S O S )))) [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : S O S ))))



droid
06-01-2006, 03:22 AM
Hi there!
I've bought mp3 player to listen to my music downloaded online... :6:
But a trouble happened - it's impossinle to transfer it to iPod!!!!!!!
Any suggestions???

:cornut:

Feanor
06-01-2006, 04:29 AM
Hi there!
I've bought mp3 player to listen to my music downloaded online... :6:
But a trouble happened - it's impossinle to transfer it to iPod!!!!!!!
Any suggestions???

:cornut:

Yes, it's possible to transfer mp3's to your iPod. You do this by first importing the files into you iTunes Library.

In iTunes, go to the menu; select Files > Add File to Library, Add Folder to Library, or Import; select the desired files or folder and iTunes will import them to your Library. From there you can copy them manually to your iPod, or iTunes will do it automatically depending on your Preference settings.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 04:45 AM
That's why I bought a Sandisk Sansa instead of an iPod..no proprietary software and it's not limited to just one format :)

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 06:04 AM
Ok, I hope you're joking NA. It's not limited to one format. It supports AIFF, WAV, MP3, and Apples AAC and Lossless. And although the software is propriatary, it is distributed FREE. Its FREEWARE! Free for everybody.

And, if you don't have an iPod you can still use this FREE iTunes program to manage your own MP3 library, whether downloaded from other sites or created yourself, or to rip your own CDs to any of the above formats at your choice of bitrates where applicable.

That's not to say i wouldn't greatly appreciate drag and drop copying of nested directories like you have with your Sansa. But the difference is really pretty trivial.

Just fighting the forces of ignorance and mis-information, which ever is applicable.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 07:08 AM
I just don't like the fact that Apple forces you to use iTunes. No thanks.

I've never heard of AIFF, and I don't have a Mac so AAC is out also.

That leaves WAV and MP3. I don't have any MP3's. WMA sounds much better so I support that format. Putting WAV's on a iPod defeats the purpose, no? Besides, how many WAV files can you put on a 512k iPod? Part of 1 CD's worth?

Forced propreitary software.
Propreitary battery.
No WMA support.
No iPod for me!

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 07:39 AM
A few more minor corrections/informations...

AAC is supported on the Windows version as well, it is not Mac specific. If you own a PC you can download AAC files from the iTunes Store and load them on your iPod. You can also use iTunes to encode your CD’s to AAC.

AIFF is the Mac equivalent of WAV. For all practical purposes they are identical, and iTunes supports both AIFF and WAV.

Apple would support WMA, except that WMA is a PROPRIETARY format and Microsoft forces every vendor that incorporates it to pay licensing fees. Apple has chosen not to license. Flip a coin as to whose the 'bad' guy.

That said, you're right- You need to use iTunes to manage the music you put on your iPod. But that music can come from any source.

On a Mac, WMA sucks because Microsoft doesn't produce decent software to support it for the Mac platform. But that's Ok because AAC is equally good if not superior. You, on the other hand, can't really claim to know WMA sounds better because you've never heard AAC. At least I can claim to have heard and used both formats on my Mac. Indistinguishable to my ears.

I can see why a PC user would possibly find WMA more useful. But that's all due to Microsoft’s intentions to dominate that market segment by strong-arming the adoption of WMA and profiting from the licensing fees that they earn from their proprietary format. Nothing wrong with that, that's how corporations work.

So, it's perfectly fine to support one kind of proprietary format (WMA) over another (AAC). But, try to realize that's what you are doing. It's also fine to prefer a portable device that you can drag files over to using the same interface you do for other disk transfers. But, in reality there's little difference in the number of keystrokes/drags/clicks using the iTunes interface. It just looks different.

droid
06-01-2006, 08:06 AM
Thanks so much....... I'll try )))))))

wantbeer
06-01-2006, 08:07 AM
I think your media is protected - i use drm-convertors... Soundaxi for example... :ihih:
http://www.soundtaxi.info/ It operates fast (up to 15x) & supports all popular media stores & music file formats.

droid
06-01-2006, 08:10 AM
That's why I bought a Sandisk Sansa instead of an iPod..no proprietary software and it's not limited to just one format :)

If this stupid ipod is so limited .......... perhaps a right decision ) :cornut: :cornut:
Thank u 2

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 08:27 AM
If this stupid ipod is so limited .......... perhaps a right decision ) :cornut: :cornut:
Thank u 2

If you can't get an unprotected MP3 onto your iPod the limitation is in the user, not in the iPod, as there are millions of iPod users who experience no difficulty doing exactly what you wish to do.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 08:28 AM
A few more minor corrections/informations...

AAC is supported on the Windows version as well, it is not Mac specific. If you own a PC you can download AAC files from the iTunes Store and load them on your iPod. You can also use iTunes to encode your CDís to AAC.


So it's not really supported by Windows, it's just supported by Apple's own iTunes software that works on Windows. Still..no thanks. None of my DVD or CD players support AAC. I don't really care at all for the iTunes store, I prefer the 15-20 different choices available through Windows Media Player.

As far as the sound quality I was comparing WMA to MP3, like you said I have not heard AAC so I was not comparing it to that. But again, I don't want a Mac and none of my music players support AAC so it's a non-issue for me. It's hard to beat the universal acceptance of WMA and MP3.

Sorry if I seem harsh, I've just been anti-iPod ever since I tried one and found out it would not support multiple formats, had a propreitary non replaceable battery, and forced you to use one software package to use it. Plus Apple's stupid new commercials are so misleading it just makes me laugh when I think that Bill Gates is the one keeping Apple alive these days just so he can have some competition :)

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 08:48 AM
You've got some valid reasons to prefer your Sanza. Nothing wrong with being harsh. There's been a lot of mis-information put out in the media (even publications like the NY Times) about iPod compatibility that simple fact checking would prove is not true. The battery issue is a legitamate gripe. I wish EVERYthing would run off AAA NiMH rechargables, frankly. But the iPod does support multiple formats just not WMA. But then Windoz doesn't support AAC.
Apple would have to pay Microsoft if they added WMA support. If they were hurting for sales, I'm sure they would add it. I understand the chip in the iPod will handle WMA, it's just not turned on...

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 09:08 AM
Yeah but the difference is...Windows doesn't need AAC. Windows has WMA, MP3, and of course WAV. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind letting AAC stay with the 4% of the market share that Apple has :)

Sorry. Couldn't resist!

paul_pci
06-01-2006, 10:00 AM
N. Absentia: you need to stop perpetuating misinformationn about the iPod and its software interface, iTunes. You've been corrected several times in several threads, yet you continue. It helps no one when you do this. If someone posts a technical question about the functionality of an iPod, it's not an occasion for you to articluate your disdain for this product. It will just further any confusion or frustration of a poster. You don't like iPod. We get it. You dn't like Apple. We get it. It's no reason to disseminate false information.

NoddinOff: good job. Would have been here earlier but I slept in today.

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 10:59 AM
Yeah but the difference is...Windows doesn't need AAC. Windows has WMA, MP3, and of course WAV. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't mind letting AAC stay with the 4% of the market share that Apple has :)

Sorry. Couldn't resist!

A sporting dig to be sure. A little fact checking and I'd point out that Apple has 80% market share for portable music players. And the following article highlights the Sanza players as the second leading device. Mac OS also 'has' MP3 and WAV as well as AAC and Lossless. While Microsoft doesn't need AAC, they sure want to be just like Apple in this case. It appears that the forces backing WMA are trying to lock everything up in one bundle, just like Apple has already so elegantly done. It basically looks like they are going to implement a very similar DRM strategy as the one Apple innovated years ago. They will however add a subscription service, something Apple doesn't currently have.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/15/BUG0VIR4AE1.DTL&type=business

audio_dude
06-01-2006, 11:51 AM
i love my iPod 5G, not because it expensive or the accesories, i just think it's really easy to use, integrates very well with my comps, and there are literally thousands of accesories, some good some bad, but w/e

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 01:33 PM
N. Absentia: you need to stop perpetuating misinformationn about the iPod and its software interface, iTunes. You've been corrected several times in several threads, yet you continue.


Soo...an iPod does NOT require iTunes? I can in fact drag & drop WMA files to it with Windows Explorer?

Methinks you might be in over your head here...

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 01:37 PM
A sporting dig to be sure. A little fact checking and I'd point out that Apple has 80% market share

Acutally I was talking about Apple as a whole, not just one of their products.

And I was acutally wrong by saying they have 4% market share, I was misinformed. It's closer to 2% according to Macworld!

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 02:05 PM
Acutally I was talking about Apple as a whole, not just one of their products.

And I was acutally wrong by saying they have 4% market share, I was misinformed. It's closer to 2% according to Macworld!

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php

Hey! Now your mis-representing rounding errors! That alleged 2% is really 2.88%, which should round up to 3%!

Jeez, no slack with you...:ciappa:

edit: but those are 2004 figures. A lot has changed. It might be a solid 3% world wide now. But in the US the numbers are easily double that!
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/technology/apple_earnings/

"While industry estimates place Apple's current percentage share of the personal computing market in the low single digits, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said that while 2005 was the year of the iPod, 2006 could be "the year of the Mac."

Doherty agrees, saying he thinks the company could double its market share of the worldwide personal computing market from an estimated 3 or 4 percent to 6 to 8 percent in 2006."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/technology/apple_earnings/

paul_pci
06-01-2006, 02:06 PM
Soo...an iPod does NOT require iTunes? I can in fact drag & drop WMA files to it with Windows Explorer?

Methinks you might be in over your head here...

iTunes is a drag and drop system; it can automate the process or the use can do it manually. I admit I am at a total loss over your complaint of iTunes. I jsut don't get it. Computer users across the board are required to utilize certain programs to achieve certain tasks and goals all the time. I just don't get what you have such contempt for. Should I complain that I have to use a word processing program to write a letter. Should I shake my fist at Microsoft and WordPerfect, etc. and declare: how dare they FORCE me to use their program to write a letter? Do you complain that you are FORCED to use a program to burn an audio, photo, or data disk? What about DVD shrink? Ed "The Herson" Gein can't thank you enough for turning him on to that program, yet not a word of contempt for that process. iTunes is free, a stable program with free updates, it's a complete asset for orgranizaing storing and having customized dominion over digital music files. I don't see one liability in using the program. Once again, I just don't get what you're so furious over. You're an intelligent man who contributes alot to this forum, but as soon as someone ask a question about an iPod, you throw off your garb of technical prowess and answer with disdain. How someone like you can complain about a free, functional, and highly advantageous program is beyond me. Sure that is your perogative, but I just ask, stop with the misinformation, and you know what that is. Don't try and toss me selective bits of your response as a mediocre attempt to throw me off guard.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 02:16 PM
Hey! Now your mis-representing rounding errors! That alleged 2% is really 2.88%, which should round up to 3%!

Jeez, no slack with you...:ciappa:

edit: but those are 2004 figures. A lot has changed. It might be a solid 3% world wide now. But in the US the numbers are easily double that!

I would actually have a Mac if they weren't so expensive and 'closed' systems. If the parts could be bought and a PC put together easily like with a PC I would have one. I actually think they're pretty cool, I just can't justify buying one.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 02:19 PM
Should I complain that I have to use a word processing program to write a letter. Should I shake my fist at Microsoft and WordPerfect

Well the difference is..if you don't like WordPerfect, you could use:

Word
Notepad
WordPad
OpenOffice
Star Office

Or any number of word processing programs that are available.

If you don't like iTunes, what are your options?

HAVIC
06-01-2006, 03:27 PM
[QUOTE=If you don't like iTunes, what are your options?[/QUOTE]

N. Abstentia, I agree with you on not liking the ipod.

My friend has a lot of songs he downloaded from itunes and will replace his ipod when it breaks again. He was on his 5th refurbed 4th gen. This last one went past the 90 day refurb warranty. When he gets another player it will not play itunes download music. Yes I know you can rip it off with a program, but the mass public will not.

I do not or Itunes and Quicktime on my computer. They install way to many memory resident programs and will slow your computer down.

AAC is a better sounding format than mp3 but locks you into an ipod. Coincidentally this is the best sounding lossy format on the ipod. No Ogg Vorbis support.

Comes with no extras. ex. FM radio, microphone, case. These are all extra. You have to make an appointment to bring your broken ipod in to an apple store, you just can walk in.

Market share means nothing. I can show you time and time again that better marketing will sell more than better product.

Itunes songs will kill your battery faster by up to 25% less battery life.

I agree with Apple, I would not pay to support WMA either.

Finally there are always better products out than the ones most consumers own. Look at your stereo equipment people.:cornut:

I will never own a iPod like I will never own a BOSE.

Greg

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 04:44 PM
I will never own a iPod like I will never own a BOSE.

Greg

You beat me to it. I was walking around today thinking about this whole iPod thing and it hit me...iPod = Bose!

Think about it...

1) Both are sold mainly because of the 'look cool' factor.
2) Both have more market share despite superior products that sell for less being readily available.
3) Sales driven my marketing instead of performance.
4) Closed systems..if it breaks, throw it away.
5) Rely on marketing.
6) Does not work with competitors products.
7) Lots of marketing.
8) Serious music listeners avoid them.
9) Did I mention marketing?

drgnfly
06-01-2006, 06:14 PM
... a 512k iPod? Part of 1 CD's worth?....

a 512K ipod??? strange... :confused5:

Mine is 40gigs... (well on my second 40gig, first one is all full)

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 07:05 PM
a 512K ipod??? strange... :confused5:



Yep.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7011832&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat10200050002&id=1099392727069

noddin0ff
06-01-2006, 07:22 PM
You beat me to it. I was walking around today thinking about this whole iPod thing and it hit me...iPod = Bose!

Think about it...

1) Both are sold mainly because of the 'look cool' factor.
2) Both have more market share despite superior products that sell for less being readily available.
3) Sales driven my marketing instead of performance.
4) Closed systems..if it breaks, throw it away.
5) Rely on marketing.
6) Does not work with competitors products.
7) Lots of marketing.
8) Serious music listeners avoid them.
9) Did I mention marketing?

Now you're talking complaints you can back up...or at least aren't completely factually wrong. Except for #8 and some of #3 (a lot of iPod owners are repeat buyers). I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs. That way people can easily fact check before they post completely wrong and often idiotic mis-information
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

paul_pci
06-01-2006, 08:05 PM
Yep.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7011832&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat10200050002&id=1099392727069


512 MB; Take a moment out from hating Apple and learn to read.

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 08:41 PM
512 MB; Take a moment out from hating Apple and learn to read.

Megabytes, kilobytes..whatever. Anyone with with sense knew what I meant. You gotta quit hanging around with Hershon. Next thing we know you'll be on your soapbox trying to talk us all into buying Tube iPods. Talk about a hot pocket!

N. Abstentia
06-01-2006, 08:44 PM
I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs.

Pretty bad when an iPod can produce a full 20-20k frequency response when a $1500 Bose speaker can't even come close :)

HAVIC
06-02-2006, 06:18 AM
I would also differentiate between Bose and iPod in that Apple publishes their specs. That way people can easily fact check before they post completely wrong and often idiotic mis-information
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

Well we all know that 95% of the population does not look at specs or even understand them. You could talk to a die hard BOSE fan about specs and they will ignore you. It is about Marketing and Brand Label, not SPECS. Apple spends more money marketing the Ipod than any other MP3 Player. Sounds familiar???

Therefore IPOD = BOSE.

teledynepost
06-02-2006, 08:21 PM
I just don't like the fact that Apple forces you to use iTunes. No thanks.

I've never heard of AIFF, and I don't have a Mac so AAC is out also.

That leaves WAV and MP3. I don't have any MP3's. WMA sounds much better so I support that format. Putting WAV's on a iPod defeats the purpose, no? Besides, how many WAV files can you put on a 512k iPod? Part of 1 CD's worth?

Forced propreitary software.
Propreitary battery.
No WMA support.
No iPod for me!

WMA better than MP3? Seriously, WHAT?

teledynepost
06-02-2006, 09:01 PM
All right well iPod is not for me but seriously I don't see anything that is much better. I would not get one because
1) I will not run iTunes on my PC, I do not like how it works, how buggy it is, and how it takes up resources.
2) It is not sturdy. I do not like to pay $300 for something that is not built to last more than 3 years.

iPod's, they look nice, there's nothing wrong with that, but they are still not designed to the full potential of the medium. I don't know if my needs are so much different from anybody else, but there aren't any players at this time that are worth spending a large chunk of money.
I don't need a 'digital media player'. I want a 'digital audio player', however all these newer models seem to be pushing video and all these colour screens, etc. I do not need a colour screen to navigate a directory of audio files! I do not care to watch videos on a 2" screen!

Criteria for a perfect digital audio player that I would buy:

-Uses removable flash cards: Looks like they have 8GB now. I think it will keep going up. No moving parts. Can always get more.

-Standard battery: Single AAA, or AA (you can buy rechargable). None of this "send it back when the battery stops recharging" for a $99 fee and a refurbished unit. Or this one: "don't open up your player and replace the battery yourself because it will void your warranty".

-Non-colour screen: Saves battery power- not needed if you only need audio.

-Drag and drop: Is Apple the only manufacturer who gets away with requiring software to transfer files, or have other companies done this? I wouldn't think it a good business strategy when competing against iPods. Anyway; don't force me to do something that is not necessitated by the technology just so you can increase revenue in your ****-hole online store of compressed music files for .99cents a piece.

-Physically moving wheel: I would prefer a smoothly rotating wheel for navigation rather than the touch pad. I have used iPod's with cold fingers and gotten no response. Just a preference though I guess. Well I prefer this over the 'stick' control or seperate buttons.

-FLAC support: Decodes easier, takes less resources, lossless, open source. Not quite as high compression as Apple Lossless but close.

-Sturdy please. Good shock absorption, something that small should be able to be pretty sturdy.

teledynepost
06-02-2006, 09:03 PM
Oh, and Apple format audio files can be played in Windows. Just download Winamp.

Ah and iPod marketing, something I forgot. Well at least they LOOK nice and set a precedent (unlike Bose has ever), but it's obvious that's all anyone cares about. Everyone wants everyone else to SEE what a cool toy they have. Bright white earphones. You can listen to your ****ty music WHEREVER YOU GO and pretend you are pretty cool ALL THE TIME. Yes so cool that you HOLD IT IN YOUR HAND when you walk OR RUN. Don't want to hold it but still want everyone to see so they also go out and buy one and increase Apple's revenue? WEAR IT ON YOUR ARM. That way if you bump into something when working out at the gym it will crack the screen. NEVER keep it in your pocket or in your backpack. ALWAYS keep the same bright white headphones that sound terrible and if you replace them MAKE SURE THEY ARE STILL WHITE ONES. Besides, you can spend this much money on looking trendy and all the accessories that go with it you can certainly afford to be ripped of, so, SURE let everyone who also wants one see that you have one so they can steal it. Super.

I'm not criticizing the iPod here, but, hell, people are stupid aren't they?

jrhymeammo
06-02-2006, 09:07 PM
Let me just say IPod sucks. I have a Nano that holds 450 songs at 320. It is good for walking around the town. Also, I dont see the point of spending $150 on earpieces for music that has NO dynamics. I tried it on my home gear and never plugged it back in. Battery doesnt last close to claimed 14 hours. I think what they do is turn it on at the lowerst possible volume on fixed tracks.

Also, stop downloading music illegally. I hope all of you swine get arrested. I may sound harsh but I really feel this way. Peace

N. Abstentia
06-03-2006, 06:13 AM
WMA better than MP3? Seriously, WHAT?

Yep. No matter what Apple says in their magazine ads, a 128k WMA file sounds like a 192k MP3. WMA...better sound, smaller file. No brainer.

paul_pci
06-03-2006, 11:09 AM
All right well iPod is not for me but seriously I don't see anything that is much better. I would not get one because
1) I will not run iTunes on my PC, I do not like how it works, how buggy it is, and how it takes up resources.
2) It is not sturdy. I do not like to pay $300 for something that is not built to last more than 3 years.



Actually it's Windows that is buggy. I've been running iTunes on my Apple even before it was iTunes, yes, Apple coopted an existing program whose name escapes me to build iTunes, and I've NEVER ever experienced even so much as a hiccup with iTunes. It does what it says it does, nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, I've had my iPod for about 3 years now, no problem, except battery life is always disappointing, but that can be equally said about cell phones, digital cameras, laptops, they all exaggerate battery life.

N. Abstentia
06-03-2006, 04:56 PM
Actually it's Windows that is buggy. .

Sounds more like Apple just did a poor job of porting it to Windows. I know when I installed it (had to because I needed Quicktime..thanks a lot for the forced apps, Apple) it ran painfully slow compared to similar Windows apps.

paul_pci
06-03-2006, 06:35 PM
Sounds more like Apple just did a poor job of porting it to Windows. I know when I installed it (had to because I needed Quicktime..thanks a lot for the forced apps, Apple) it ran painfully slow compared to similar Windows apps.

Of course, that remains to be seen, but in general, I have nothing but trouble with windows regardless of the app in question and nothing but smooth sailing on the Mac. Every time my father asks me to fix something on his Windows machine, it's like a Kafkaesque nightmare. Sure, maybe Apple made it buggy for Windows, a littlle middle finger to them, but I doubt it. History shows that Windows is one bug after another and Apple is more money but assured productivity.

N. Abstentia
06-03-2006, 07:03 PM
Apple is more money but assured productivity.

...that would explain why they own 3% of the market I guess.

Heck I work in IT and own a comptuer repair business and I have to drive 2 hours to the nearest CompUSA just to look at a Mac :ihih:

HAVIC
06-04-2006, 09:13 AM
History shows that Windows is one bug after another and Apple is more money but assured productivity.

Actually Windows XP is not that buggy. It crashes more due to Spyware/Adware/Viruses than anything else. I am in IT and have no issues with windows xp. Most computers I repair are crashing because of the above issues.

As Apple becomes more popular Apple will become a victim of these things as well. In the last month there were over 3 security bulletins pertaining to OS X 10.4.3 I believe because of exploits people found in the OS. The reason apple has been safe for a while was because they were not mainstream, but are becoming so.

All programming is done by humans and security holes will exist. Hackers tend to only attack what is popular and wide spread, ie. Windows. If MAC os did not have problems we would not have a mac department in my office.

I am by no means a MS lover. It is what I grew up on since I was 7. I like the ability to build my own systems from varied distibutors and repair my own machine if it has hardware problems. I don't like being forced into it. I don't like the way MS pushed some of their products into the world. I think their networking software is horrible, If they stuck with the desktop it would be a much better product today.

One last MAC gripe. I guess I don't have a gripe with MAC but the hardcore MAC users. They tend to be a self rightous group who think MAC is flawless. MAC has problems like every OS out their. MAC has not better at graphics processing and sound editing since since the early PC days around windows 3.1 and Win95. I can prove this because when MAC switched to intel process the speed of the mac increased 2.5x. So processing on the PC was faster.

I will analyze all products out there by any company and determine which is the best for my needs. I am not Brand Loyal, like I have to buy a Sony TV, I am product loyal, all companies make good and bad products, no one is perfect.

Greg

N. Abstentia
06-04-2006, 10:38 AM
Yep, Mac is hardly virus/spyware proof. It's just that since they only have 3% of the market you don't hear as much about it.