I'm heading to Apple tomorrow so if you have any burning questions about the new iPhone, post them here...
Going to see Apple - any questions?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
I'd guess because an iPod Touch is a one-off purchase - with the iPhone, I suspect Apple is getting a cut from O2's ongoing contract revenues! (As well as a huge wad for it being the exclusive network provider in UK for iPhone users).
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,143
- 117
- 19,370
I dont know how relevant this will be since you are asking for questions about the iphone, but....... are there any plans to allow more products to act as the Wadia itransport and bypass the ipod's DAC? A DAC with an ipod port on top of it would be my perfect bit of kit to sit on my amp.
Thanks.
Thanks.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Clare Newsome:I'd guess because an iPod Touch is a one-off purchase - with the iPhone, I suspect Apple is getting a cut from O2's ongoing contract revenues! (As well as a huge wad for it being the exclusive network provider in UK for iPhone users).
Yeah, I guess. Still doesn't stop me grimbling
Yeah, I guess. Still doesn't stop me grimbling
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Ooo, I've got a proper one - will Apple allow iTunes users to choose a different format when adding songs to a normal iPod from the library like they do with the Shuffle e.g. store all music in your Library in Apple Lossless and then automatically convert to say 320 Kbps MP3 / AAC when transferring to iPod?
Also, any plans to allow wireless streaming of music stored on iPhone / iPod Touch direct to Airport Express i.e. bypassing iTunes?
Thanks
Also, any plans to allow wireless streaming of music stored on iPhone / iPod Touch direct to Airport Express i.e. bypassing iTunes?
Thanks
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
professorhat:Ooo, I've got a proper one - will Apple allow iTunes users to choose a different format when adding songs to a normal iPod from the library like they do with the Shuffle e.g. store all music in your Library in Apple Lossless and then automatically convert to say 320 Kbps MP3 / AAC when transferring to iPod?
Ooo yeah good call. Include the phrase "like you do on the Shuffle..."
Ooo yeah good call. Include the phrase "like you do on the Shuffle..."
manicm:
Why does the current iPod classic sound so rubbish, and will the next one sound better?
What was wrong with the iPod classic sound?
Why does the current iPod classic sound so rubbish, and will the next one sound better?
What was wrong with the iPod classic sound?
thx manicm - I have just got the iPhone 3Gs 32GB phone - I shall upload some lossless files onto there and see if I can hear a difference. If my Sennheiser IE8 headphones sound better than they already do - I really am in for a treat. Ill report back.....
After a quick listen - they both sound great for what they are. I agree the Classic can be slightly slow - but lets not forget its a dated model now and will be replaced soon.
The iPhone is more advanced sonically. The main difference would be the fact the sound is cleaner than the Classic, as a result - vocals sound realistic, individual notes are easier to pick out, small difference in macro dynamics, big difference in the micro dynamics & detail, bass notes are more controlled.
The difference is small in my opinion though - a 5% increase in sonic capabilities.
Although the sound is still great from both units & most of all still musical. Id love to hear the Sony NWZ-X1050 - Sound is meant to be a slight improvement on the existing iPod Touch.
May I ask what headphones you are using and what sort of material you play on your respective units. Never listened to an iPod thats been Dull & Lifeless....
Thx
The iPhone is more advanced sonically. The main difference would be the fact the sound is cleaner than the Classic, as a result - vocals sound realistic, individual notes are easier to pick out, small difference in macro dynamics, big difference in the micro dynamics & detail, bass notes are more controlled.
The difference is small in my opinion though - a 5% increase in sonic capabilities.
Although the sound is still great from both units & most of all still musical. Id love to hear the Sony NWZ-X1050 - Sound is meant to be a slight improvement on the existing iPod Touch.
May I ask what headphones you are using and what sort of material you play on your respective units. Never listened to an iPod thats been Dull & Lifeless....
Thx
Vinny7:
After a quick listen - they both sound great for what they are. I agree the Classic can be slightly slow - but lets not forget its a dated model now and will be replaced soon.
The iPhone is more advanced sonically. The main difference would be the fact the sound is cleaner than the Classic, as a result - vocals sound realistic, individual notes are easier to pick out, small difference in macro dynamics, big difference in the micro dynamics & detail, bass notes are more controlled.
The difference is small in my opinion though - a 5% increase in sonic capabilities.
Although the sound is still great from both units & most of all still musical. Id love to hear the Sony NWZ-X1050 - Sound is meant to be a slight improvement on the existing iPod Touch.
May I ask what headphones you are using and what sort of material you play on your respective units. Never listened to an iPod thats been Dull & Lifeless....
Thx
Hi Vinny, on both my Nano 3g and Classic 120 I used my Sennheiser CX300s. On the Nano I loaded 256k AAC rips and purchased 320k MP3s. On the Classic the same MP3s and Apple Lossless rips. The Nano sounded holographic in comparison.
I listen to classical, rock and everything in-between.
After a quick listen - they both sound great for what they are. I agree the Classic can be slightly slow - but lets not forget its a dated model now and will be replaced soon.
The iPhone is more advanced sonically. The main difference would be the fact the sound is cleaner than the Classic, as a result - vocals sound realistic, individual notes are easier to pick out, small difference in macro dynamics, big difference in the micro dynamics & detail, bass notes are more controlled.
The difference is small in my opinion though - a 5% increase in sonic capabilities.
Although the sound is still great from both units & most of all still musical. Id love to hear the Sony NWZ-X1050 - Sound is meant to be a slight improvement on the existing iPod Touch.
May I ask what headphones you are using and what sort of material you play on your respective units. Never listened to an iPod thats been Dull & Lifeless....
Thx
Hi Vinny, on both my Nano 3g and Classic 120 I used my Sennheiser CX300s. On the Nano I loaded 256k AAC rips and purchased 320k MP3s. On the Classic the same MP3s and Apple Lossless rips. The Nano sounded holographic in comparison.
I listen to classical, rock and everything in-between.
Can I run OSX on my home PC? Always messes with their heads, say why a few times when they make excuses
Havent heard the nano3g manicm, so my view can be limitied. But from the sound of things - it seems that the Nano is an excellent unit
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram