Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam

[M_S]

M_S, if you know that the Ipod has native gapless playback, why not test it on your Ipod. Buy a copy of Dark Side of the Moon, Animals, or The Wall. Rip it with EAC in LAME 3.97b2 mp3 at any preferred quality. Now, import these files to Itunes (and don't join, that wouldn't be native), place the files in your Ipod, and finally play the album. Now, is the Ipod gapless natively? I would guess not since it is apparent that gaps will be there.

Oh God, now we need to get you a definition for native...

I guess when you are beat the only thing to do is step back and modify what you said originally to fit the criteria I put forth. Now it's a pain to choose a menu option to join tracks? Yes I have "The Wall" in iTunes I don't own an iPod, (but have purchased many for family and friends) and don't need to own one to tell you that "The Wall", which I ripped with joined tracks, plays with no gaps. You are mincing words and definitions to form to your view of what "gapless" should mean.

What part of "without gaps" does not equal "gapless"?

You understand what you are saying as do I, but those that are perhaps not quite as informed would read what you said and say "Oh, it must be impossible to play back any audio intended to be without gaps properly on the iPod"

Now that I have brought it up, you and others are starting to clarify your positions (only slighty), but before that you and the original author mislead the reader.

BTW, I recieved my B.A., with major/minor in music, in audio engineering from an accredited university. I just might be considered an "expert" as well.

M_S

An expert Troller maybe...

You are arguing semantics, they are talking about terminology pertaining to a specific object.

Yes "Gapless" in the dictionary simply means without gaps, but in the world of music players it has come to mean the transition between tracks without noticable pause.

You are in the wrong and are either too proud to admit it, or are intentionally trying to instigate.

It is not I arguing semantics, it is the other two (and now you) trying to fit a concise deifintion for your own purposes.

First of all "gapless" is not in the dictionary, but that's nitpicking on my part. I am using the definition as put forth by M-W and what you say it has "come to mean", as a transition between tracks w/o pause. In trying to make a point you have screwed it all up. Perhaps beacause you did not read the posts in their entirety as I suggested to others? If you did read them, maybe we have a comprehension problem.

Your opinion that I am wrong is blinded by your failure to read along and follow the story. I am not trying to instigate, only to keep those who read these posts for information from making incorrect judgments based on incomplete fact and failed opinion.

M_S

p.s. Again tell me how tracks that are joined and therefore without gaps not "gapless"?

 

[Syzler]

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless

"Gapless playback is the seamless playback of digital audio formats. It allows live music or consecutive tracks to be heard exactly as they are mastered, without gaps between tracks."

Seems to agree with us.......

(WTF is M-W)

 

[M_S]

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless

"Gapless playback is the seamless playback of digital audio formats. It allows live music or consecutive tracks to be heard exactly as they are mastered, without gaps between tracks."

Seems to agree with us.......

(WTF is M-W)

There seems to be some problem with reading comprehension in the group. Who disputed that "gapless" did not mean without gaps between the tracks?

Maybe the ability to read and understand coherent thoughts is the problem here?

Yet another poster disputing that which has not been disputed... Brilliant!

M_S

 

[Syzler]

Oh God, now we need to get you a definition for native...

I guess when you are beat the only thing to do is step back and modify what you said originally to fit the criteria I put forth. Now it's a pain to choose a menu option to join tracks? Yes I have "The Wall" in iTunes I don't own an iPod, (but have purchased many for family and friends) and don't need to own one to tell you that "The Wall", which I ripped with joined tracks, plays with no gaps. You are mincing words and definitions to form to your view of what "gapless" should mean.

What part of "without gaps" does not equal "gapless"?

Joined tracks does not equal gapless by the definition we all seem to be using besides yourself.

I concede that one track encompassing an entire album it technically without gap, but it is not what any of us consider useful.

 

[ghostface24]

As I said before, Ipod does not do gapless, it does with Rockbox but as in my earlier posts where I stated that I'm only arguing on the native features on the device itself. The Ipod is fully capable to play a single file album, but it does not have gapless capability. It is a function of the DAP itself, not the actual file in question. I think you must visit Hydrogen Audio, if you know about audio, you know that site. Karma is gapless, you don't need to make modifications to the actual album in question. My earlier example of The Happiest Days of Our Lives and Another Brick In The Wall (Part II) is a perfect example of which I can choose to listen to the first then it would play with no gaps when making a transition to the latter. And there is still an issue with the cache. Ipod is able to play single file albums, but it's not gapless. The file might be gapless, but the actual player is not.

Apple can put gapless on their players, Apple can also have Vorbis decoding. Why aren't they doing it? I wonder what would the answer be.

M_S, which is better, a digitally remastered CD of a classic or a 1980's release of the same CD? And when I mean Digitally Remastered, I mean recent releases that you find on the store shelves. And state why?

One must test another's credentials, eh?

 

[shortsharpshock]

I'll stick with my 99 cent Ebay cd's...touche' Mr Jobs and Recording Industry mongers!

 

[M_S]

As I said before, Ipod does not do gapless, it does with Rockbox but as in my earlier posts where I stated that I'm only arguing on the native features on the device itself. The Ipod is fully capable to play a single file album, but it does not have gapless capability. It is a function of the DAP itself, not the actual file in question. I think you must visit Hydrogen Audio, if you know about audio, you know that site. Karma is gapless, you don't need to make modifications to the actual album in question. My earlier example of The Happiest Days of Our Lives and Another Brick In The Wall (Part II) is a perfect example of which I can choose to listen to the first then it would play with no gaps when making a transition to the latter. And there is still an issue with the cache. Ipod is able to play single file albums, but it's not gapless. The file might be gapless, but the actual player is not.

Apple can put gapless on their players, Apple can also have Vorbis decoding. Why aren't they doing it? I wonder what would the answer be.

M_S, which is better, a digitally remastered CD of a classic or a 1980's release of the same CD? And when I mean Digitally Remastered, I mean recent releases that you find on the store shelves. And state why?

One must test another's credentials, eh?

If you meant to say that the iPod alone w/o modification would not seamlessly play tracks that were not joined in iTunes, then why did you (and others) not say that?

Do you see how the uninformed could be swayed by stating "the iPod will not do gapless", which is the exact (as I recall) statement that I countered. It will, you have to join tracks first, and that comes with consequences, but flat out saying it won't is dishonest and disingenuous unless that statement is clarified with further comment (as you are finally starting to do).

As for your "test" of my credentials, you will have to be more specific. I could argue that the 80's release is "better" because it might fetch more on Ebay if unopened or rare (but I don't think that's what you are going for). Without having (I am pretty sure I don't) a re-master of an 80's classic (pretty sure I have a bunch of those) and listening on my ancient monitor one near field's and comparing waveforms in ProTools my opinion on that would be of little value.

A better "test" would be to ask " did you really get your B.A. in music/audio engineering to which my answer would be "yes". A follow up question might be "have you ever worked in the music industry" to which I would say "no, not since leaving college" (and that was a long time ago). What reason would I have to lie about such things? I am sure that many of the posters here (and elsewhere on the net) construct persona that are less than accurate, I would have no reason for doing this. btw, credentials have little to do with being able to link to relevant sites (M-W, Apple, Wiki, etc.) and regurgetate that data. The problem seems to lie in the actions of some who omit some data and claim things that are "half-truths", possibly misleading those who are not able or not inclined to do the research themselves.

M_S

 

[M_S]

Oh God, now we need to get you a definition for native...

I guess when you are beat the only thing to do is step back and modify what you said originally to fit the criteria I put forth. Now it's a pain to choose a menu option to join tracks? Yes I have "The Wall" in iTunes I don't own an iPod, (but have purchased many for family and friends) and don't need to own one to tell you that "The Wall", which I ripped with joined tracks, plays with no gaps. You are mincing words and definitions to form to your view of what "gapless" should mean.

What part of "without gaps" does not equal "gapless"?

Joined tracks does not equal gapless by the definition we all seem to be using besides yourself.

I concede that one track encompassing an entire album it technically without gap, but it is not what any of us consider useful.

Yet another concedes (due to an incomplete definition).

It's not "technically" without gaps, if the tracks are joined they are "actually" without gaps. What you consider useful is not the point here, misleading others not as savy, is the point. Your (and others) statements are misleading. That is wrong.

And joined tracks = tracks w/o gaps does seem to be the concensus and rightly so (contrary to your comment).

It seems you are debating that which had already been beaten into the ground and agreed on in an attempt to form some sort of point (I cannot tell what it is), but you seem to be arguing points that are agreed in some vain attempt to prove that you are right. Even that task you fail (as I have already pointed out) by mis-stating what has already been agreed upon. Why do you do that?

M_S

 

[nilepez]

And joined tracks = tracks w/o gaps does seem to be the concensus and rightly so (contrary to your comment).
M_S

2 or more tracks joined into a single file = track without gaps. That is not what ANYBODY means by gapless, other than your concensus of 1.

 

[cyberDJ]

It's nice to find people who can see through Apple's BS.

While it's nice that Apple finally has a hit product on its hands, it came at a very high price.
Overnight, Apple became an Evil Empire. All of a sudden, Microsoft doesn't look like such a bad company after all.

Berry forgot to include the amusing fact that iScrew won't play WMA files even though it works on the Windows OS. Better still, iScrew copies the WMA files and converts the copies. This creates two versions of the same song file.
So much for innovation, Apple.

Personally, I demand more than the iPud can deliver. I use my cell phone as my media player. It plays my music file formats without DRM restrictions, uses the SD card for storage (4 GB), connects with the internet, syncs with Outlook apps and...handles phone calls.

I figure iPud owners either don't know about its limitations or just don't care.
Either way, I know I have the better product.
Best of all, it's not mired in hype and BS. It just works..with everything.

Thanks Apple for showing the world that you're just as greedy and selfish as the bigger corporations you made fun of.
Who designed this crap? Apple Computer.

After 30 years, this is all we get.

 

[hondaplaza]

Morons...

Apple makes less than a cent on each songs it sells for 99 cents. The real money is in the iPods! It's the record companies making the big bucks off of music.

 

[ghostface24]

Are you totally sure with that? If Apple made a penny for each song, and I'm not sure on the total amount of sales, but if these sales are like 10 Billion+ (not sure, but you can see where I'm coming from), that's a lot of pennies.

 

[killersnowman]

Morons...

Apple makes less than a cent on each songs it sells for 99 cents. The real money is in the iPods! It's the record companies making the big bucks off of music.

i really highly doubt it but i want to give you a chance to back up your claim before every one starts to tear into it. so.... give some evidence!

 

[franksargent]

It's nice to find people who can see through Microsoft's BS.

While it's nice that Microsoft finally has a hit product on its hands, it came at a very high price.
Overnight, Microsoft became an Evil Empire. All of a sudden, Apple doesn't look like such a bad company after all.

Berry forgot to include the amusing fact that iDOS won't play ACC files even though it works on the Mac OS. Better still, iFUD copies the ACC files and converts the copies. This creates two versions of the same song file.
So much for innovation, Microsoft.

Personally, I demand more than the iFUD can deliver. I use my rotary phone as my media player. It plays my music file formats without DRM restrictions, uses the SD card for storage (4 GB), connects with the internet, syncs with Mail apps and...handles phone calls. And has a really, Really, REALLY long extension cord!

I figure iFUD owners either don't know about its limitations or just don't care.
Either way, I know I have the better product.
Best of all, it's not mired in hype and BS. It just works..with everything.

Thanks Microsoft for showing the world that you're just as greedy and selfish as the bigger corporations you made fun of.
Who designed this crap? Microsoft

After 30 years, this is all we get.

:tongue:

There, fixed that!

Envy, it's a bitch, ain't it!

A certain song comes to mind, "I fell good, ....

Of course, this song is playing on my NANO (DId I sid spell it right according to this brain iFarticle?) headphones as I do the pencil sharpener motion (hand behind my back) while walking down the street, and encounter a DOS fanboi listening to music on their 0.00000000000001% market share player!

:tongue:

 

[mbmcavoy]

Wow, that is such a cruel ploy... Take a perfectly appropriate word for a product, then twist it by putting a cutesy "i" in front. Everyone will just have to have one. I feel totally conned into spending my cash on a product that works as advertised and looks good.

I am so glad that the author even provided us a link to these Forumz so that all of us gullible iPod owners could rant about how awful it is to be duped by such a heinous scam! :roll:

Branding (successful or not) may be annoying at times, but it's a part of modern consumer life, not a scam.

 

[theDudeAbides]

OMG. This discussion is getting pretty dumb.

Having a whole album as one mp3 has nothing to do with gapless playback. That's like saying "my ipod plays track 1 on this album with perfect gapless playback, then it has to change to track 2 but it plays that one without gaps as well, for the whole length of the track. Of course it has to pause before track 3...."
That argument is retarded from even a mildly technical point of view. If you can't play 2 different tracks one after the other without gaps then your player doesn't do gapless playback. Full stop.

Can we stop being lame now and move on please?

phew
theDudeAbides

 

[ExaByte]

So, what is the bottom line?
iTunes is a good thing...let me explain:
the i in iTunes stands for:
inferior (the quality of the music)
ignorent (the ppl who buy it and think DRM is a good thing)
idiots (who are happy about nothing)
Being happy about nothing is an art, and I admit I envy the idiots cause I wish I could be happy about nothing.

 

[franksargent]

So, what is the bottom line?
iTunes is a good thing...let me explain:
the i in iTunes stands for:
inferior (the quality of the music)
ignorent (the ppl who buy it and think DRM is a good thing)
idiots (who are happy about nothing)
Being happy about nothing is an art, and I admit I envy the idiots cause I wish I could be happy about nothing.

:tongue:

iThink therefore iAm!

uThink therefore uStink!

or in Latin,

Cogito ergo sum!

Infitialis cogito ergo Mephitis macroura!

:tongue:

 

[ryanodine]

I will completely agree with you on this.... ipod and virtually all other MP3 players ive used do this unfortunately

it's a problem that when a CD is written, they can say, hey.. no gap between the songs

when you rip them to file.. the tracks are still considered individual files. the player has no way of knowing if it's all meant to be one album or not

I think they should just add the option to the firmware to allow for didfferent gap sizes

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

 

[mpasternak]

I will completely agree with you on this.... ipod and virtually all other MP3 players ive used do this unfortunately

it's a problem that when a CD is written, they can say, hey.. no gap between the songs

when you rip them to file.. the tracks are still considered individual files. the player has no way of knowing if it's all meant to be one album or not

I think they should just add the option to the firmware to allow for didfferent gap sizes

Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced Tab -> Burning -> Gap Between Songs

.

NO SHIT SHIRLOCK. i said for CD's its' not a problem

but many MP3 players don't know when not to put a gap. with CD's you can change the gaps for each track. CD's can do this because CD's are statically written. the data is dumped and thats it. it wites the tracks and it writes the gaps exactly as you tell it to.

MP3 players are dynamic. they dynamically read their playlists and data files when they're needed. there is no real place to say "when playing trace A to B don't gap, but everything else is ok to gap". the only options are either completely gapless play for every track or gapped play for every track.

personally. yes a .2 second gap between songs is sometimes an annoyance to me. but never is it a make or break issue.

however, after looking at the files on my iPOD i'll admit the format they've used to save the music is retarded at best.

it keeps them in the native MP3 format i've chosen, but it completely garbles the names of the files so you can't copy them off. I never saw this before. now to ME, this is a make or break issue. the inability to retreive my MP3's off my ipod in case of my system failing at home worries me. This comes new to me because I used to have a 3rd Gen Ipod and it did NOT do it this way. it didnt organize the mp3's but it didnt change the names.

too bad i just bought this. if i realized this new ipod would do this i probably wouldn't have.