You know what, you have told me that I should go read it for myself. Why don't you revise your arguments in one post so that I can be "disproved" as you may see it. You're full of something, and it's not water nor blood.
Here it is simply (since you apparantly lack the desire to read back and find out for yourself)...
Posts were made (by many) that the iPod will not do gapless. We went round and round and came to the conclusion that M-W's definition of gapless was not good enough and that it was the "opinion" that gapless only meant DAP's which could perform this on the fly (i.e. not joined tracks)
My contention was, and always has been, that it is unfair to make such statements w/o qualification. An uninformed reader might come to the conclusion that there is "no" gapless playback and leave it at that. Leaving with nothing but less than the truth.
There, I did the work for you.
M_S
What qualification? Are you trying to be serious? Look, Ipod = no gapless playback. The Ipod can play a gapless file, but it's not gapless. I would never trust M-W, they wouldn't understand it in technical terms. May I see this definition, it's not showing up on their site.
You see, with this workaround, and the labelling of it being gapless creates a false statement aswell. If, as you say, the ipod is gapless, than what is the Karma? It doesn't need to join files, is it like super-gapless (that's a joke, I hope you know that).
And why do you care about what others know, eh? It's their fault that they didn't study the subject thoroughly.
I paraphrased the entire discussion and spoon fed it to you, even though I requested you look back for all of your answers as they have already been discussed. Why do you persist in demanding verification of that which has been verified but are only too lazy to look up?
Why do you call it a "workaround" when it is clearly an implemented "feature" of the software?
I never said they didn't study the subject thoughly, in fact I said the opposite (had you read back you would know this). I said they did not tell the entire truth. I have said that repeatedly and am continually misquoted. The reading comprehension of some is apalling.
Too bad about not trusting M-W, how about Wiki? They mirrored the definition. Of course it does not show up on their site (M-W), this has already been covered (did you read to discover that for yourself, no).
So, you have drudged up topics already covered. Why, because you did not read. Then you have the audacity to question what I have summed up for you.... why? Because you did not read. I guess if you ever got poor grades you would say it was the teachers fault for not going home with you and helping with your homework?
Go read, come back, discuss.
M_S