Ipod not for Oldies

Posted by: Trevor on 06 April 2007

Am I getting to old for technology or is the Ipod the most irritating thing to copy a CD to.
The instructions tell you nothing and everything seems to have to go via iTunes even then it did not seem straight forward.
Why could it not be as simple to use as it's design implies.

Trevor

Posted on: 10 April 2007 by Guido Fawkes

quote:
Originally posted by Diode100:
... Maybe Luddite's just don't like music .......,

Hmm .... I'm a Luddite and I like music.

BTW, I've also got an iPod and it does what it does very well.

However, it'll never replace my trusty old Edison Disc Phonograph.

Posted on: 10 April 2007 by Diode100

quote:
Hmm .... I'm a Luddite and I like music.

BTW, I've also got an iPod and it does what it does very well.

However, it'll never replace my trusty old Edison Disc Phonograph.

A fine machine indeed ROTF, stylistically not dis-similar to an early iRiver, but for the little chain at the top, - is this a belt attachment for use in the gym ?

Posted on: 10 April 2007 by u5227470736789439

Cylinder Phongraph! Flat disc players came a little later... Fredrik

Posted on: 10 April 2007 by Guido Fawkes

quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Cylinder Phongraph! Flat disc players came a little later... Fredrik

Sorry wrong picture - you are right, of course, Fredrik, this is indeed the Cylinder version. I wonder if Cylinders really do sound better than Discs?

Posted on: 10 April 2007 by Guido Fawkes

quote:
Originally posted by Diode100:
A fine machine indeed ROTF, stylistically not dis-similar to an early iRiver, but for the little chain at the top, - is this a belt attachment for use in the gym ?

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Rockingdoc

quote:
Originally posted by Trevor:
. All I wanted it for was to listen to audio books whilst I am travelling around at workTrevor

Any of you i-tunes wizards able to explain (in simple words)how I can rip a CD audiobook into itunes and and get it into the audiobook section on the i-pod please?

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Derek Wright

I have just entered the world of iPodisation of my CD collection.

I decided to buy the 80GB iPod and in anticipation of the iPod arriving I started loading CDs onto the dual G5. Within a few hours I had 654 tracks loaded onto iTunes - which gives me 2.3 days of music - the iPod arrived and I connected it up and after 3 hours 24 tracks has been transferred over. So sometime tomorrow I will be able to listen to stuff on the iPod. I had hoped that the transfer rate would be a little swifter. The elapsed time in filling the large capacity iPod will be quite significant.

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Sloop John B

Derek,
Are you using compression or apple lossless?

24 tracks in 3 hours signifies something is wrong. It is much quicker to synchronise tracks to the ipod than to rip to ITunes by a factor of maybe 10.

Are you using fierwire or USB to transfer.
If USB and it's USB1 that may account for it, but firewire and USB are super-quick.

SJB

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by fred simon

quote:
Originally posted by Sloop John B:

24 tracks in 3 hours signifies something is wrong ... Are you using fierwire or USB to transfer. If USB and it's USB1 that may account for it, but firewire and USB are super-quick.

24 tracks in 3 hours is wrong no matter what method of transfer.

As far as I know, current iPods don't do Firewire, just USB 1 and 2. Even using USB 1 transfer should be much, much quicker ... should be a minute or so. Certainly a matter of minutes, definitely not hours. Even if you ripped CDs as uncompressed AIFFs.

Troubleshooting is in order. If your iPod is less than 90 days old, call Apple for free tech support.

All best,
Fred

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Rasher

I've just swiped a Ry Cooder album off itunes onto my ipod, and the transfer of 11 tracks took 33 seconds.

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Deane F

quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:

I connected it up and after 3 hours 24 tracks has been transferred over.

Cool.
It just..........................................................................................................................................................works!

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Derek Wright

It has moved 500 odd mb of iTunes held data from the Mac to the iPod in about 7 hours.

I am using a USB 2socket on the front of the Mac.

However looking at the Details of the connection the speed of the connection is rated at 480mb/sec also on the USB 2 bus is an Epson Scanner which is rated at upto 480mb/sec.

I have had problems with the USB connectivity on other occasions even when I have removed all the other components.

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by garyi

Something sounds wrong. The first thing would be to try the USB sockets on the back, I think these are not on the same bus as the front.

Transfer should be swift, back in the day when I had a 40 gig one, I could fill it up entirely in less than an hour.

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Derek Wright

Reboot the G5, unplug the Ipod and it now appears to be transferring the data quite fast - now transferred 150gb - thanks for confirming that it was not performing correctly

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by garyi

Wow derek, now you have over filled the iPod, be sure its not pouring on the floor

Posted on: 11 April 2007 by Derek Wright

error - divide by 10 - transfer went OK

Gary - your comment re over filling the iPod reminded me of the mythical bit bucket under the raised floor of the computer room where all the missing data went <g>

Posted on: 13 April 2007 by Jono 13

[/QUOTE]

garyi

You are right of course, and I was just having a dig. I was taken aback by the tone of your first post.

I don't want or need an iPod because, well, they sound like shit. Plus I really don't want to spend the same amount as the bloody iPod costs to get fancy plugs to jam in my ears. Expensive iPod comes with cheap earphones? Why is that?

Deane[/QUOTE]

Same reason decent bicycles come without pedals, so that you can use your favourite man/machine interface!

Jono

Posted on: 16 April 2007 by Hobbit

quote:
Originally posted by Diode100:
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:

It must be crap, just the mind drugs making people buy.

The same mind-drugs that caused betamax to lose the videotape war?

No, it was the video rental market picking up VHS as a standard that caused betamax to loose out. There was a great Lenny Henry gag at the time, 'Every house in my street has been broken into and had the video stolen, except me - I've got Betamax !!!!

I had a Sony C9, a truly fabulous machine, as long as you didn't want to hire the latest blockbuster.

But back to the thread, why does the word iPod bring out the Luddite is what I had always presumed to be an open minded, forward thinking group of people ? Maybe Luddite's just don't like music ......., or maybe anything mass market has to be bad in the Little Book of Lud. Now if only the iPod had been designed and marketed by an iconic firm in Salisbury, cost fifteen hundred pounds, and maybe even had a waiting list - perhaps that might endow the it with more appealto some members of this board. The expression contempt before investigation comes to mind.

I was under the impression that it was SONY themselves who sunk BETAMAX. As far as the story goes Sony were asking for royalties from other manufacturers to use the Betamax system in their recroders whilst JVC just said that ANY manufacturer could use it for nothing...If this WAS tha case (from a reliable source) then who were the clever ones? certainly not Sony!
Sad thing was that BOTH systems were beaten 'hands down' by Philips Video 2000. I remeber the tests we did many years ago with all three, couldn't beleive how much better the Video 2000 was!
Bloody hell, that ages me!!

Posted on: 16 April 2007 by Hobbit

....sorry..should have read 'JVC just said that any manufacturer could use their VHS system for nothing'.

Posted on: 16 April 2007 by Rockingdoc

quote:
Originally posted by Hobbit:
Sad thing was that BOTH systems were beaten 'hands down' by Philips Video 2000. I remeber the tests we did many years ago with all three, couldn't beleive how much better the Video 2000 was!
Bloody hell, that ages me!!

You should worry, I actually bought a Philips 2000 machine! Perhaps that is why I've bought iPods rather than "better" machines, lesson learnt.

Posted on: 19 April 2007 by Nick_S

It's a shame none of the current MP3 machines will use the DAC in the SuperNAIT amplifier. I'm looking forward to trying my old iRiver H140 with its optical connection.

Nick

Posted on: 03 May 2007 by JamieWednesday

Got one of these the other day to replace the Logic3 dock I had.

rdock

Blimey. What a difference. OK so it's no 555 and the dock and a chord cable cost more than the ipod and it's being played through several thousand quids worth of amps and speakers but as a lazy, jukebox stylee thing it's great.

Posted on: 03 May 2007 by Rockingdoc

I can't see how this device with can better the sound achieved by buying an i-Pod connector plug from e-Bay and soldering it to a short length of Chord cable. The soldering is fiddly, but the plugs only cost a couple of quid so you can afford to make mistakes.

The only real upgrade possible is to access the digital output, but that is way beyond my soldering skills.

Posted on: 03 May 2007 by JamieWednesday

I don't know anything that can access the digital output (c'mon Apple) but I can tell you this is way, way better that using the headphone amp of the Ipod (via an ichord say) and way better than the other docks tried to date. And I have a Chord Cobra coming out of the back of it. Which helps.

Posted on: 03 May 2007 by Rockingdoc

I'd be interested to know how it works. Surely it is just the same as the passive i-pod dock in design, or does it have any active electonics?