If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
doggie - one thing about Apple's DRM and Itunes - they do give you an option to burn the DRM's content to a CD. Once burned, it can be re-ripped and encoded to a non DRM'd MP3.
Not saying it isn't a great format, but the most common most would encode there music to is .wma and .mp3.
Aslo, wmas are smaller then .mp3s and sound just as good.
Well the disadvantage is when you encode all your music to them, then you decide one day that you might want to purchase a different player, you have a bunch or songs you can't use or have to recode.
Mp3s and WMA will always be two of the best formats. MP3 because it is so universal and wma because most people own PCs.
Again wma and mp3 are the most widely used and most accessable to everyone.
The argument you make in support of wma ("it's better because most people own PCs") is pretty silly. Using the same logic, I could state that AAC is better because most people own iPods.
It does support mp3s and that is a good thing, but it should support .wma as well. The default is Apple format, so it is not REQUIRED, just encouraged.
No, the default is AAC without DRM, which is not an Apple format. And it's simple to pick whatever format you wish as your default format. I wonder why the folks at Creative Labs decided not to include it? I mean, Microsoft's new Zune includes the AAC codec, so they're obviously not against using it.
It matters because the trend is moving toward video and music players. I do reencode so shrink the flie size, but most will play exactly as they are.
As I said earlier, if you're reencoding the video files, then the variety of supported video is a lot less important. I do agree that it's convenient to be able to play lots of different formats without reencoding. But since you're loading the videos from your computer anyway, it really isn't a big deal. Converting video (or audio, for that matter) is a one-click task. At least it is on a Mac. ;-)
I was talking about the device you actually have (the 30gb Vision). If you want to compare that to the 30gb iPod, then you you're talking about a device that has the same amount of storage as the Vision, longer battery life, a smaller form factor, compatibility with the iTunes store, plays TiVo to Go, and costs about $60 less than the Vision.
Last edited by Larsky; February 15, 2007, 01:11 PM.
"To alcohol! The cause of—and solution to—all of life's problems." —Homer Simpson, 1997
I'm in Michigan today--flew in yesterday to visit my brother and see the Dave Holland Big Band at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor tonight. Then it's off to Boston to visit some more old friends, then back to Oakland on Tuesday.
For my last three flights, I've brought my Sennheiser PXC-250 Noise-Cancelling headphones, and I can't believe the difference they make. Usually I just wear them and don't plug into anything. They cut the roaring background noise by more than half. I really notice the difference at the end of the flight; I'm happier, less fatigued, etc. I also used them to plug into my Palm Zire 72s (which, as I've mentioned before, I've repurposed into a handheld video player), and listened to the iPod using them. It's nice because, otherwise, I'd have to crank of the volume to hear over the background noise, possibly damaging my hearing.
I don't think I'll ever fly again without noise-cancelling headphones. The problem is, there are a lot of crappy quality headphones out there that claim to be "noise-cancelling," but just don't work that well. Bose makes some nice ones, but they cost $300 to $350 apiece, and they're the full "cup over the ear" design, meaning (1) they're really isolating, and (2) they're not as portable. The Sennheisers fold up easily, you can buy them now for under $100, and many people say they work almost as well as the Bose.
Bose just came out with the QC3 that isn't a cup over the ear. I just ordered these to replace QC2s, cup over the ear. They are a bit pricey but quality usually is.
How noise cancelling are they? Do they block out really loud noises, or just the white noise of life? (i.e. airplane engines, faxes in the next office, printers, etc..)
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
From what I remember reading about them, they create the anti-noise faster than it can reach your ear - so they are capable of quieting a gunshot, for example.
The only thing missing from that Marvin Jones touchdown reversal is that it wasn't a first round playoff game.
That's right, but the over-the-ear closed models physically block out a lot of the other noise, along with the filtered "anti-noise."
The Sennheisers I use just filter out the constant background noise. On my flight from DFW to Detroit, I was in the back of a plane that has rear mounted engines (a McDonnell S-80, I believe), so I was right next to the engine. It was quite loud. The Sennheisers did a great job of filtering out the noise, so much so that I could actually hear the guy talking next to me more clearly, even though I was wearing headphones!
Bose is the acknowledged leader in the noise-cancelling HF market, but Sennheisers are the acknowledged not-too-far-behind runner-ups. At 1/3 of the price, I'll take the Sennheisers. But if I was doing air travel weekly, I might spring for the Bose, but everything I've read indicates that there not that much better than the Sennheisers.
"To alcohol! The cause of—and solution to—all of life's problems." —Homer Simpson, 1997
Comment