Didn't see a solution in any past threads, but was hoping one had been developed since this question was last asked...
― cdwill, Friday, 11 March 2005 21:17 (twenty years ago)
― earinfections (Nick Twisp), Friday, 11 March 2005 21:32 (twenty years ago)
― cdwill, Friday, 11 March 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)
If you want to keep the FLAC on the PC and play it in iTunes...you'll need this: http://damien.drix.free.fr/qtflac/ and some of the instructions from this: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=17290&st=0
― Edward Bax (EdBax), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:07 (twenty years ago)
― subgenius (subgenius), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)
― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Saturday, 12 March 2005 00:04 (twenty years ago)
― Edward Bax (EdBax), Saturday, 12 March 2005 00:33 (twenty years ago)
― earinfections (Nick Twisp), Saturday, 12 March 2005 04:00 (twenty years ago)
― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Saturday, 12 March 2005 05:22 (twenty years ago)
Are there any good mps players out there that play FLAC files? I know Rio Karma did, but it seems to be unavailable now. Same thing with iaudio m3. Apparently iaudio m5 does and is available but I don't need all it offers...
suggestions?
― Matt Sab (Matt Sab), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 16:03 (twenty years ago)
This "hits the disk" bullshit I've heard before. Are you saying there is some netherworld iPod state apart from the disk where lower fidelity audio plays on battery fumes? How does this work? Is this related to computer "memory" somehow? Does a computer load chunks of numbers and then play them from memory? If this is how it works, is it not running on battery power while it plays from memory? Does it take more battery power to collect data chunks and load them into memory than it does to play them from memory?
I don't understand computars.
― iPod Jackass, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 16:14 (twenty years ago)
― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)
The iPod, like most computers has two layers of storage: the RAM (short term) and the disk (short term). Retrieving data from either form of storage takes power from the battery. However, retrieving from the disk is more expensive in terms of power [it has to spin up the drive (which has been sleeping), and fetch the data] when compared to retrieving data from the RAM.
The iPod always pulls the music from the disc into the RAM and then it plays the music from the RAM. While the music is playing, the disk goes to sleep to preserve the battery. The more often that you fire up the disk and fetch data, the more quickly you run down the battery.
Let's imagine an example. In our example, this iPod has 32MB of RAM. My numbers will be a little rough, but let's say each song is 3 minutes long. If you are playing MP3s, say with an average size of 3MB per song, the iPod will load up the memory buffer with about 10 songs. The disk will go to sleep and won't have to be fired up again until maybe 30 minutes later. Now, what if we load lossless files on this iPod, say with an average size of 15MB per song. In this scenario, the iPod would load about 2 songs in RAM. The disk would go to sleep. And about 6 minutes later, it would need to fire the disk back up to load the next two songs...
Does this help?
― Edward Bax (EdBax), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)
I also left out the following:Using the disk is so much more expensive in terms of battery power, that using the RAM as a buffer is essential. If the iPod only had a disk and no RAM, the battery would not last near as long.
These numbers are less relevant for iPods that do not have a disk and only have Flash RAM. However, the disk-less iPods don't really have the room to store much lossless data, so the discussion is moot.
― Edward Bax (EdBax), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 17:01 (twenty years ago)
― criminally obvious (mike h.), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)