Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam

[theDudeAbides]

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

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

 

[killersnowman]

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:

i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together

 

[mpasternak]

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:

i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together

not true. i can understand the reasoning behind wanting a player that has market share..

in the computer field and others. companies with very poor market share tend to kill products and move elsewhere.. when they do this they often cut support to the existing products that had already been sold in the past.

buying a product with good market penetration sometimes asures that you will continue to receive adequate support from the company. as well more add on options from other companies trying to buy into the craze.

from a business standpoint, you will normally want to buy the device that has the support.

again with the MP3 player comparison. I bought an Apple ipod. my friend bought the Dell Jukebox. both had similar features except the dell's music import feature was itune's less. Dell has since stopped supporting the jukebox due to poor market penetration.... however ive still got full support for my ipod and new features, upgreades and 3rd party addons keep comming.

Hers.... will forever be exactly what she bought.. no new addons, no new firmwares nothing.

 

[ryanodine]

I'm on computer number 4 on my DRM, but I only have one computer, it's way easier to reach the limit of 5 than people think. I built a new rig, so this became number 2. I had a mobo go bad, so I got a new one, this became number 3. I got a nice large SATA HD to replace my IDE one and did a fesh OS install, this became computer number 4. Remember, a new mobo or HD counts as a new computer, so it's very easy to reach the limit of 5, I should be there at the end of the year when I build a new SLI rig. I love my ipod, but the limit of 5 is BS for people that have hardware problems or rebuild there rig every year and a half like I do.

If this is a critism of iTunes DRM then you can deauthorize a computer so you always have up to 5 machines at at time.

 

[jecastej]

Hello Barry Gerber:

You are what you criticize.
Have you done some research before you bought your stuff?
Or, YOU just compulsively bought your mp3 player to discover it did not fit your needs. And now you are making others believe that you have nightmares and blame OTHERS for your mistakes.

I own a MAC.
And I HAVE NOT bought and iPod.
Guess what!!!
I HAVE a MUVO.
Because I don’t need and iPod…

I say YOU wrote this CRAP, with crappy feelings that basically came from yourself
You, basically, wrote this CRAP to create controversy and to be in the center spot.

CRAP like this does nothing to help people make smart buying decisions
And CRAP like is just an incentive to hate, not to be rational.

Frankly, I am concerned with these GOD Vs EVIL characterizations.
Grow up!!!

Jose E Castejon

 

[killersnowman]

I'm on computer number 4 on my DRM, but I only have one computer, it's way easier to reach the limit of 5 than people think. I built a new rig, so this became number 2. I had a mobo go bad, so I got a new one, this became number 3. I got a nice large SATA HD to replace my IDE one and did a fesh OS install, this became computer number 4. Remember, a new mobo or HD counts as a new computer, so it's very easy to reach the limit of 5, I should be there at the end of the year when I build a new SLI rig. I love my ipod, but the limit of 5 is BS for people that have hardware problems or rebuild there rig every year and a half like I do.

If this is a critism of iTunes DRM then you can deauthorize a computer so you always have up to 5 machines at at time.

how is this done?

 

[mpasternak]

Hello Barry Gerber:

You are what you criticize.
Have you done some research before you bought your stuff?
Or, YOU just compulsively bought your mp3 player to discover it did not fit your needs. And now you are making others believe that you have nightmares and blame OTHERS for your mistakes.

I own a MAC.
And I HAVE NOT bought and iPod.
Guess what!!!
I HAVE a MUVO.
Because I don’t need and iPod…

I say YOU wrote this CRAP, with crappy feelings that basically came from yourself
You, basically, wrote this CRAP to create controversy and to be in the center spot.

CRAP like this does nothing to help people make smart buying decisions
And CRAP like is just an incentive to hate, not to be rational.

Frankly, I am concerned with these GOD Vs EVIL characterizations.
Grow up!!!

Jose E Castejon

don't you me he wrote this iCrap

 

[killersnowman]

Hello Barry Gerber:

You are what you criticize.
Have you done some research before you bought your stuff?
Or, YOU just compulsively bought your mp3 player to discover it did not fit your needs. And now you are making others believe that you have nightmares and blame OTHERS for your mistakes.

I own a MAC.
And I HAVE NOT bought and iPod.
Guess what!!!
I HAVE a MUVO.
Because I don’t need and iPod…

I say YOU wrote this CRAP, with crappy feelings that basically came from yourself
You, basically, wrote this CRAP to create controversy and to be in the center spot.

CRAP like this does nothing to help people make smart buying decisions
And CRAP like is just an incentive to hate, not to be rational.

Frankly, I am concerned with these GOD Vs EVIL characterizations.
Grow up!!!

Jose E Castejon

wow talk about crap

 

[franksargent]

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

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

:tongue:

iReebok

There I said what you said, IN ONE WORD!

But on a serious note, 99+% of people just want to listen to music, you start going techie on them and you put them to sleep, and I do mean this in the literal sense. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone techie with someone, and they start yawning, the eyes go shut, and the head starts to bobbing.

They don't care, they REALLY don't care!

But what really amazes my, is that you people go on, and on, and on, about gapless, Ogg Vorbis, Rockbox, yadda, yadda, yadda, ....

And it never sinks in to you, that 99+% of people JUST DON"T CARE, and they never will, no matter how much of a brow beating you inflict on them!

Most people want seemless ease of use, most people want simplicity, most people want a lowest common denominator, most people have much more important things to do with their lives then to fuss with all those techie details.

:tongue:

 

[Gwielgi]

So, let me see. The author dislikes iPods because they scratch, they make money for Apple, and their music system is proprietory. And people who use them are zombies. Old criticisms coupled with what is far too common in in "Forumz," taking the discussion down to name calling. (By the way, unhappy with the improper capitalization in iPod but writes material that is discussed in Forumz... :roll: Gee, lets get out our gangsta creds.)

Will there come a time when we can discuss technology without labeling everyone else (that is, everyone who does not agree) prejoritively?

Apple's iPod and iMusic are not popular because their users are incapable of independent thought and have had their brains highjacked by Steve Jobs (one possible exception - see below) but because design and appearance and ease of use DO matter (or there would be no computer case modding community). And it is not particularly shocking that Jobs and company are trying to make money.

What would be useful is an objective review of all aspects of iPod/iMusic, including the negatives, and a review of alternatives, including THEIR negatives. This diatribe doesn't do that; it just, with malice aforethought, deliberately seeks to antagonize so as to boost readership. Like much else in today's media (talking head political broadcasts, "reality TV," and so on), it has an immediate entertainment value of sorts in the short run. In the long run, it discredits the writer and TH. With this kind of chip on its shoulder revealed, can I really depend on TH for objective reviews and guidance?

And, oh, yeah, because the knee-jerk response is usually something flaming about being a "Mac fanatic": Current box is an AMD FX-55 on an Asus mobo with 2 gig RAM running XP, ATI X800, Creative sound card, and a bunch of other stuff. Past machines have been Dells, Apples (yep, I was brainwashed), Kaypro, CP/M, and machines that required entering binary code by flipping switches. I've used MS DOS, Windows 3.2, 95, 98, ME, XP, NT, and so on. Own an iPod with around 4300 songs on it and have used other MP3 players - prefer the iPod for sound quality, capacity, and ease of use. Of course, the drawback is I've lost several ounces of my prefrontal cortex and I've been roaming the countryside eating people's brains. Other than that, no problems.

Gwielgi

 

[M_S]

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

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

Let's see if I can do w/o flames and profanity (unlike all the others around here trying to make a point).

I am going to try and state this as simply as I can:

The problem is not the definition of the word gap.

The problem is not a single track vs. multiple.

The only problem (which, if the morons who refuse to re-read and comprehend my original post, will refer to...) is telling people they cannot listen to Dark Side (or whatever other album you wish to use for demonstration) w/o gaps using the iPod and iTunes.

btw, theDudeAbides get's quoted on this one because he (like so many others) misguidedly re-states what has already been said in an attempt, I guess, just to see his own words on the page.

So, There is nothing wrong with "your" definition of the word....

AS LONG AS YOU DEFINE THAT WORD!

All people were saying is that there was no way to do this on an iPod or no way to do that (I randomly choose gapless playback to rebutt), and saying "no way" is a very bad thing to do when there is a "way". Some might even consider that dishonest.

M_S

 

[mpasternak]

p. m_s

I understand what you mean. I KNOW by combining multiple Files into one file it will remove the gaps between the "tracks"

but this is not an option i'm willing to take. this is a work around issue. the ipod itself has been written to place a small measured gap between all played files. regardless if they're meant to or not.

every problem has a work around. some are more practical than others. This one is impractical and defeats the purpose of the mp3 player.

I want to be able to listen to the entire les Miserables play without the gaps and also as individual MP3 files so that i may skip ahead anytime i want

now explain to me how ipod does it without any hacks / modification of the existing MP3 files

 

[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:

i think that you are the epitomy of what is wrong with the ipod craze. you obviosly only care about market share and make your deciscisions based on such; even when the reason for the market share is the multi million ad campaign that is sponsored by the big recording institutions. so basicly you just follow the crowd. thats ok and all but you will all fall off the cliff together

:tongue:

No, you missed the basic point of my jab.

It's all about turning tables, metaphorically speaking!

Being an admitted Mac fanboi all these years, and listening to all those Apple whiners over the years, in the various Mac forums, to come here and listen to you all, is really, Really, REALLY fun!

Payback is a bitch, ain't it?

PS - If you really, Really, REALLY, knew me (as many others do), the very, Very, VERY last thought on your mind would be "LEMMING."

:tongue:

 

[M_S]

p. m_s

I understand what you mean. I KNOW by combining multiple Files into one file it will remove the gaps between the "tracks"

but this is not an option i'm willing to take. this is a work around issue. the ipod itself has been written to place a small measured gap between all played files. regardless if they're meant to or not.

every problem has a work around. some are more practical than others. This one is impractical and defeats the purpose of the mp3 player.

I want to be able to listen to the entire les Miserables play without the gaps and also as individual MP3 files so that i may skip ahead anytime i want

now explain to me how ipod does it without any hacks / modification of the existing MP3 files

Amazing, I think I figured out what the problem is. It's your own selfishness. You say you agree with me, you pose a problem you have, you ask "how do i get an iPod to do THAT for me?". Please re-read my above post, try to get just a glimpse of what I put forth. If that is impossible for you, I dismiss any further comment from your side of the court as self-serving.

It's not about YOU! It's about others reading who might not understand that when YOU say there is NO WAY, you mean to say "well, there's no way unless you use this simple menu option over here"

Let me guess, you still don't get it?

M_S

p.s. name calling is a great way to get your point across.

 

[theDudeAbides]

p. m_s

I understand what you mean. I KNOW by combining multiple Files into one file it will remove the gaps between the "tracks"

but this is not an option i'm willing to take. this is a work around issue. the ipod itself has been written to place a small measured gap between all played files. regardless if they're meant to or not.

every problem has a work around. some are more practical than others. This one is impractical and defeats the purpose of the mp3 player.

I want to be able to listen to the entire les Miserables play without the gaps and also as individual MP3 files so that i may skip ahead anytime i want

now explain to me how ipod does it without any hacks / modification of the existing MP3 files

Amazing, I think I figured out what the problem is. It's your own selfishness. You say you agree with me, you pose a problem you have, you ask "how do i get an iPod to do THAT for me?". Please re-read my above post, try to get just a glimpse of what I put forth. If that is impossible for you, I dismiss any further comment from your side of the court as self-serving.

It's not about YOU! It's about others reading who might not understand that when YOU say there is NO WAY, you mean to say "well, there's no way unless you use this simple menu option over here"

Let me guess, you still don't get it?

M_S

p.s. name calling is a great way to get your point across.

Oh dear. I think he was trying to establish that the iPod cannot do this. It is broken in that respect and should rightly be fixed, especially given the simplicity of the problem.
Joining your MP3 files together is a workaround but is hardly a workable solution, who wants to have to fast-forwards an entire album to get to 1 track at the end?
I think the assertion that the iPod cannot do this is fair and in this respect it has certainly been bettered by a number of players on the market.

 

[nilepez]

p. m_s

I understand what you mean. I KNOW by combining multiple Files into one file it will remove the gaps between the "tracks"

but this is not an option i'm willing to take. this is a work around issue. the ipod itself has been written to place a small measured gap between all played files. regardless if they're meant to or not.

every problem has a work around. some are more practical than others. This one is impractical and defeats the purpose of the mp3 player.

I want to be able to listen to the entire les Miserables play without the gaps and also as individual MP3 files so that i may skip ahead anytime i want

now explain to me how ipod does it without any hacks / modification of the existing MP3 files

Amazing, I think I figured out what the problem is. It's your own selfishness. You say you agree with me, you pose a problem you have, you ask "how do i get an iPod to do THAT for me?". Please re-read my above post, try to get just a glimpse of what I put forth. If that is impossible for you, I dismiss any further comment from your side of the court as self-serving.

It's not about YOU! It's about others reading who might not understand that when YOU say there is NO WAY, you mean to say "well, there's no way unless you use this simple menu option over here"

Let me guess, you still don't get it?

M_S

p.s. name calling is a great way to get your point across.

When you bought The Wall on iTunes, for whomever, was it 4 files, (side one, side 2, side 3 and side 4) or was it 26 files (1 for each song)?

If not, could the iPod you bought the album for play THOSE files back without gaps? Yes or No

 

[theDudeAbides]

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

.

The gaps (if done properly) are inter-track-gaps and not part of the audio stream. On a good CD player you can tell because it will say -00:02 (or however long the gap is) at the start of the gap and count down to 00:00 before starting the track. Hence this is not audio data but a gap in the data stream before the next track is burnt. So when you rip the CD, with EAC or nero or abcde or whatever you use you should not be ripping any silence at all.
I know that you can use iPods with winamp and a winamp plugin ( http://www.winamp.com/plugins/details.php?id=138888) so for windows users there's really no excuse for going through the pain of using iTunes and imposing these crazy limits on your music burning and copying. That's presuming that you buy CDs instead of DRM files of course.
There are plenty of good MP3 players that can play AAC and iTunes isn't the nicest of library utilities by a long way, vis poor codec support, limited vis and awkward import/export options. Leave iTunes alone and it will fade away like other unloved software.

But why iPod in the first place? It doesn't do that much more than any other MP3 player, it forces you to use iTunes rather than acting as a removable hard drive, it doesn't support many codecs other than MP3 and AAC, it hasn't got an LCD remote, you can't replace the battery yourself.
Why is it popular?

When you look at the above argument there is only one reason left: Simplicity. iPod is a simple tool for simple people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know much about computers. It's like a microwave ready meal- you pay money and get something that says its lasagne, and if you've never had proper lasagne you think "that was easy, I like that, sorted" and all is cool, you're happy and you've had a meal in 5 minutes. But if you know how to cook you spit it out saying "horrible salty textureless pulp!" and you'd rather spend an hour or so doing it properly so you can enjoy it as you know it should taste. So it is with iPods and those who don't know computers vs those who do.

Can we please get a bit back on topic vis the ipod debate and spend less time flaming each other like kids? Thanks everyone.

laters dudes

theDudeAbides

Let's see if I can do w/o flames and profanity (unlike all the others around here trying to make a point).

I am going to try and state this as simply as I can:

The problem is not the definition of the word gap.

The problem is not a single track vs. multiple.

The only problem (which, if the morons who refuse to re-read and comprehend my original post, will refer to...) is telling people they cannot listen to Dark Side (or whatever other album you wish to use for demonstration) w/o gaps using the iPod and iTunes.

btw, theDudeAbides get's quoted on this one because he (like so many others) misguidedly re-states what has already been said in an attempt, I guess, just to see his own words on the page.

So, There is nothing wrong with "your" definition of the word....

AS LONG AS YOU DEFINE THAT WORD!

All people were saying is that there was no way to do this on an iPod or no way to do that (I randomly choose gapless playback to rebutt), and saying "no way" is a very bad thing to do when there is a "way". Some might even consider that dishonest.

M_S

Jeez, its not that there is no way to do this, its that such a stupidly simple feature should be included on every major MP3 player. I'm trying to have a discussion on music management software, not boost my own ego. Mr M__S appears to be ranting a fair bit without much content so I'm going to reply to the patently obvious problem of "how do I listen to an album without gaps when my player puts in pauses between tracks". Please can we shut the hell up about it now?

Yes, you rip it as a single track.

Well done, you've told everyone something totally self-evident. Now why don't you talk about something useful.

What I want to know is why the most popular player on the market with a huge development team cannot implement a feature that others have reliably managed to do while programming in their spare time. For iPod not to have gapless playback is a joke, and should be fixed.

Surely the prevailing MP3 player should be the one with the most advanced feature set and capabilities that out-shine the competition. Gapless playback is the basics, MP3 player design 101.

 

[mpasternak]

as the dude says and the dude abides


I'm a former Network Manager. I do coding and design for real world applications


if a user calls me and says he can't do something i don't go "oh shit, i forgot to put that in my program... well. do these 10 steps to accomplish it. even though i could quickly write a fix to do it too" is not a viable answer in most workplaces.

when a problem arises, i fix it. I don't create a work around and expect the users to do extra effort that they shouldn't.

my question i posed you is do it without doing some form of work around. you can't. ipod just wasn't designed that way.

it would be a simple firmware upgrade to add a mennu option to add a no gap or gap menu. for some reason apple just hasn't. they havnt' prioritized it i guess. as i said, to me this isn't a make or break issue.

however, combining all tracks into one file to avoid the gap is NOT a reasonable work around to expect your entire user base to do when a simple patch would do it too

i understand that you're saying that it's TECHNICALLY possible to do gapless. it is. but as i said. it requires a work around that shouldn't be neceesary

 

[Lord-Ilpolazzo]

Many can no longer live without Apple's Ipods and Itunes? Some need a daily Itunes fix. Others lust after the money to be made by getting on the "I" bandwagon. Not Barry Gerber. He's fed up with Ipods and Itunes and argues that the world might have been a better place if they never saw the light of day. Hey, what's with this capital "I" in "iPod" and "iTunes" stuff?

I was really expecting this article to be more informative and entertaining. As one that has owned a variety of MP3 players over the years, I did not find your criticisms to be very analytically useful. Perhaps your nightmares have infiltrated your daytime sensibilities.

I thouroughly agree. That was a frankly pointless rant.. somewhat below the otherwise high standard of content on this site is known for. Im dissapointed.

This aside though. Whats this with people going on and on and on about scratching their nanos? I wonder how many of these are the retards (excuse me) that put them in pockets with metal objects and expect them to sustain no damage?! Thers few products that would manage that, or maybe if it wer some cheap crappy mp3 player one would not care if it were scratched. I know of plenty of nano owners whose ipods are just fine when traeted normaly. i.e. kept in a pocket free of keys and the like, and not sat on. I would agree then they do a seem a little fragile, but they look soo nice...

 

[M_S]

p. m_s

I understand what you mean. I KNOW by combining multiple Files into one file it will remove the gaps between the "tracks"

but this is not an option i'm willing to take. this is a work around issue. the ipod itself has been written to place a small measured gap between all played files. regardless if they're meant to or not.

every problem has a work around. some are more practical than others. This one is impractical and defeats the purpose of the mp3 player.

I want to be able to listen to the entire les Miserables play without the gaps and also as individual MP3 files so that i may skip ahead anytime i want

now explain to me how ipod does it without any hacks / modification of the existing MP3 files

Amazing, I think I figured out what the problem is. It's your own selfishness. You say you agree with me, you pose a problem you have, you ask "how do i get an iPod to do THAT for me?". Please re-read my above post, try to get just a glimpse of what I put forth. If that is impossible for you, I dismiss any further comment from your side of the court as self-serving.

It's not about YOU! It's about others reading who might not understand that when YOU say there is NO WAY, you mean to say "well, there's no way unless you use this simple menu option over here"

Let me guess, you still don't get it?

M_S

p.s. name calling is a great way to get your point across.

Oh dear. I think he was trying to establish that the iPod cannot do this. It is broken in that respect and should rightly be fixed, especially given the simplicity of the problem.
Joining your MP3 files together is a workaround but is hardly a workable solution, who wants to have to fast-forwards an entire album to get to 1 track at the end?
I think the assertion that the iPod cannot do this is fair and in this respect it has certainly been bettered by a number of players on the market.

If you think the "assertion" that a product cannot do something, when it can, only because it does not (in your opinion) become a "workable" solution, is very much less than fair. What is unfair is you (and others) saying this is not a "workable" solution and therfore stating that the iPod and iTunes are incapable of it (which has been re-hashed so many times I find it laughable people still do not get it). Hell, the opposition to this argument even provided a link to Apple's site explaining how to remedy the problem as well as mentioning (what I assume) is a firmware or software fix to make the iPod conform to "your" definition of "gapless".

Yes, to say that it will not without further explanation (as so many did) is a bit more than unfair.

M_S