It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

iPod Songs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Ok I was wondering if anyone has acutally maxed out the amount of space on their iPod. I have an old 3rd generation iPod 15 gigs and I have never been ale to fill it, and if someone has filled their ipod (other than the shuffle) post here I wanna see how many people here have that broad of a music selection.




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I have a 20 gig iPod and I filled it a long time ago. I have to keep deleting stuff to put more on!



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
What type of music do you listen to? And do you actually listen to all of those songs are do you shove them on cuase you can?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Every album I have on my iPod, I listen to!

My favorite bands are: Tool, Isis, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, Meshuggah, Pearl Jam, A Perfect Circle, Radiohead, Muse, Nirvana, Mad Season, Sonic Youth, Nine Inch Nails, Kyuss, Queens of the Stoneage, Foo Fighters... list goes on..

Of all the bands I really enjoy, I usually have all of their albums on the iPod. For the other bands, I just have a couple of albums.

Total amount of songs on iPod = 2981. (I listen to a lot of metal, so the average song is over 5mins.)



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Oh yea I used to like the Mars Volta, and some of thier song were like 12 mins+ it was honestly crazy wasted waaay too much space. The most I ever got up to on my iPod i think was about 4k can't remember tho.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Also, most of the mp3s on my iPod are @320 bitrate



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
yea same here I have all my stuff at 320, cept the like 10 songs I bought on Itunes that I dwlded to see how it worked those pieces are at 128k



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
well, I don't know too much about Ipods and don't own one, but I am glad to see at least that you guys are sensitive to the quality. Obviously, 320 sounds way better than 128. As a recording engineer and producer, I can tell you we go to extreme lengths to achieve a high quality sound. And to watch it dwindle right down to crap with people running 64 and 128 mp3's really sucks. Mp3 is a "lossy" compression, meaning that the more you compress it down, the worse the quality. So kudos to you that try to listen to the productions at the highest quality!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
well, I don't know too much about Ipods and don't own one, but I am glad to see at least that you guys are sensitive to the quality. Obviously, 320 sounds way better than 128. As a recording engineer and producer, I can tell you we go to extreme lengths to achieve a high quality sound. And to watch it dwindle right down to crap with people running 64 and 128 mp3's really sucks. Mp3 is a "lossy" compression, meaning that the more you compress it down, the worse the quality. So kudos to you that try to listen to the productions at the highest quality!


Haha thanks, my friends older brother showed me this a few years ago, and I notice it now if its anything lower than perfect since I am currently running a 580 watt stero system hooked up to my speaker so I can tell when I am listening to a 128 kb piece. Why is it that our computers/cds are set to 128 instead of 320? Just a question since it seems that you are well qualified to answer it.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Final
...Why is it that our computers/cds are set to 128 instead of 320? Just a question since it seems that you are well qualified to answer it.


I think it's a space saving issue, mostly. Also upload download times. And much of the 128 thing originated from mp3.com, back when it first came out. I guess someone somewhere decided that 128 was a good trade off between speed and qulaity, and their top bitrate allowed was 128. Later they instituted 196 for artists that wanted to pay them to put up higher quality sound.

But also note that 44.1 cd quality now is not the best end user rate available. With the advent of DVD, standard converters on most players will reproduce 24-bit, 96Khz audio. Now this of course caused a major domino effect down the industry and into the recording studios, where producers, engineers and studio owners have either already upgraded or are in the process of upgrading their equipment to be able to mix and master to a 24/96 format. Same old story: it's gonna take a while before 24/96 becomes the new stardard for the end user, and the best thing you guys can do to help that is to seek out 24/96 quality whenever possible and create demand for it. You won't be dissapointed, as music mixed and mastered to 24/96 sounds deeper, richer, better bass, better highs, all those things. Just better. Anyway, lol, that's about it.

Regards,
TA

[edit on 19-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Thanks man, me and my friends ( we love music, the quality everything about it) and we are always pissed to see that the only true way to listen to a CD is to convert it and change this blah blah blah....well thats good to hear that everything is being changed, the only problem is by the time that, that standard is in effect....they will be onto the next thing:bnghd: Although I have to admitt that the difference in space that a 320 takes compared to a 128 is IMMENSE, like a song that might take me 3 mbs for 128 would take me 9+ on 320, but I have plenty of space on my computer and would rather have better quality music. Didn't want to put my new stero system on the back shelf. Sorry but you have to admitt that 580 watts for a computer speaker system is



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
lol final, funny. Yeah 580 watts is enough to just about
any home stereo speaker system. Careful there bro, don't hurt your ears, for you can NEVER get that back.

If you think you got space problems, check this: the average song in this studio takes about 2 GB to record in a multitrack format. I had one song that reached almost 20 GB!

And this still ain't jack, compared to the kind of space video productions use!

[edit on 19-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If you think you got space problems, check this: the average song in this studio takes about 2 GB to record in a multitrack format. I had one song that reached almost 20 GB!


Why does it take 2gigs in a studio when it only takes me 11mbs on my comp?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I used to have a 30 gig harddrive, and was limited to about 15gigs of music, which is what my iPod holds.

In the past month or so, I've moved up to about 18 or 19, so, yeah, I'm maxed. I know people with 80 gigs of music. It's nuts.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

I know people with 80 gigs of music.


How is that even possible...I mean think about that you would have to have like every song ever made...and put them all to 320.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Not even close. You could fill an entire harddrive just with all the crappy, cookie-cutter pop that comes out in three-months.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Not even close. You could fill an entire harddrive just with all the crappy, cookie-cutter pop that comes out in three-months.


Oh yea I totaly forgot, takes up all the damn shelf room so I have to walk to the back of the store to find real music.




top topics



 
0

log in

join