iPod or Zen?

I have an order structure as well so the only iPod I'd use would be the shuffle if it allows for drag and drop in windows and not iTunes.

Can someone answer my question please?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The shuffle requires iTunes. That being said, it would be pointless to have a directory structure for your files when using a device where you can't actually select the song you want. You can set it to play music in suffle mode or in order, and you can go forward and back, but that's it. You couldn't just change directories and go to a different album.

I was speaking idiomatically.

My mum and sister both have iPod's, and ask me to upload all the music and organise it and such and I find iTunes to be very tedious and annoying. I personally have a Zen micro, which only packed in after I dropped it for the millionth time. As far as i'm aware the recent Zen with colour etc was voted the best mp3 player, so i'd definitely go with Zen. I prefer the look of Zen's too, iPod's just look boring to me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Thank you Sian, you are the exact same as me lol, I find iPods boring too.

FELIPE NO

How about neither? Zune is due soon... wait for the big market switch before buying, IMHO.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Zune? Zune will probably be a miserable failure. MS really needs to stop with the "Me too!" mentality.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I still have yet to see a single justification for how someone organizes music in folders that isn't possible with ID3 tag organization.

Also, the iPod does not only support H.264. Its primary format is H.264 at 320 x 240 w/ a video bitrate of up to 768Kbps, but it can also play MPEG-4 (which can be generated using the XviD codec) at 480 x 480 (a misnomer, it's actually MPEG-4 whose width and height are mod16 and whose total area is less than or equal to 230,400) and up to 2.5Mbit. I've made some widescreen 640 x 352 MPEG-4 encodes of anime for playback off a 5G iPod and not only do they look great on the screen, they look great on a standard-def TV. There are plenty of iPod-focused video converters that'll help you make videos that will play well on it.

Furthermore, the iPod's battery life on video is pretty much 2 hours, not 1 as someone claimed, especially if you're using MPEG-4 instead of H.264 (since it's less computationally intensive). And the 60GB iPod has 3 hours on video, since it also has a bigger battery.

And yes, the iPod has supported Unicode since the first gen, and still does, but it seems most other players do now as well, which is good.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Stealth

Zune? Zune will probably be a miserable failure. MS really needs to stop with the "Me too!" mentality.

Did you know microsoft will "buy out" apple subscribers? They will buy any song you've bought off ITunes for yoru Zune player free of charge.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

I still have yet to see a single justification for how someone organizes music in folders that isn't possible with ID3 tag organization.

Because it simply isn't?

Here is how I like to organize my music:

My iPod's root directory is my top-level domain. And then everything is organized like this:

Mp3\Genre\Album Name\ (And Disc number, if applicable.) Everything is organized exactly like this, always. If a song is from a video game, it will always be under \Video Game Music\. If it is from an anime show, it will always be under \Anime\. All electronic music that isn't from an anime show or video game goes under \Techno\. I don't bother to divide that by sub-genre. Any kind of classical music (you know what I'm talking about) goes under \Classical\. I also do not divide this by sub-genre. \Rock\ is for rock, and \Pop\ is kind of a catchall folder for anything that doesn't fit in the other folders. Knowing this, and, of course, having all of the album names memorized, and what genre they belong to, I can find anything I want in seconds.

This kind of organization scheme simply isn't possible with the default iPod OS. But Rockbox makes it a reality.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

My iPod's root directory is my top-level domain. And then everything is organized like this:

Mp3\Genre\Album Name\ (And Disc number, if applicable.) Everything is organized exactly like this, always. If a song is from a video game, it will always be under \Video Game Music\. If it is from an anime show, it will always be under \Anime\. All electronic music that isn't from an anime show or video game goes under \Techno\. I don't bother to divide that by sub-genre. Any kind of classical music (you know what I'm talking about) goes under \Classical\. I also do not divide this by sub-genre. \Rock\ is for rock, and \Pop\ is kind of a catchall folder for anything that doesn't fit in the other folders. Knowing this, and, of course, having all of the album names memorized, and what genre they belong to, I can find anything I want in seconds.

This kind of organization scheme simply isn't possible with the default iPod OS. But Rockbox makes it a reality.

So when I go to Genre > Game and all my game soundtracks are there, or I go to Genre > Anime and all my anime soundtracks/singles are there... etc., what's different about that?

And what if I just want to get to an album really fast? With your system, I have to go to a genre first. With an iPod, I could do a genre first, OR I could just go Album > [Album name]. Done.

I think ID3 tags allow more flexibility, and folders are just too rigid. Database-like organization allows for way more possibilities.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I just prefer to nagivate my hierarchal directory structure. I've been doing it that exact way ever since I encoded my very first Mp3 file, and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I like to know exactly where everything is, what is in each folder, how they're named and labeled, etc. I like to be in full control of my files and my iPod is no exception. I'm really very anal about how my files are organized.

The biggest thing that bothered me was trying to organize multi-disc OSTs. With my system, I can just click on the album name and navigae to \Disc 1\, \Disc 2\, etc, but I couldn't find an easy way to do this with iTunes and the default iPod OS, so I ended up having to make each disc into its own album, which just cluttered up my list.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The main problem I have with iTunes is when I just want to add a single track (without creating a new album). Normally, I just take a second and change the album title to either "Random" or "Anime Vocal Collection" (since I pluck a lot of these off the internet and don't want to make directories for every little single I come across). Having a folder to dump them in would save a couple seconds, but I've learned to deal with that over the last few months.

I like using iTunes overall, but I can't say I haven't wished for a more traditional "drop file in folder" setup a couple times (like, say, when I download an album with zero tag information filled in...ugh...Or when I have "Seiken Densetsu 3" vs "Seiken Densetsu 3" or "Me & Satan King OST" vs "Me and Satan King Original Soundtrack" vs "Me and Satan King OST")

Edit: Doesn't show up in the actual post, but there should be an extra space between "Seiken" and "3". That little extra space creates a new directory.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

I just prefer to nagivate my hierarchal directory structure. I've been doing it that exact way ever since I encoded my very first Mp3 file, and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I like to know exactly where everything is, what is in each folder, how they're named and labeled, etc. I like to be in full control of my files and my iPod is no exception. I'm really very anal about how my files are organized.

See, that's the thing. You think that "folders = organized." You need to make the shift, like I did, that "indexed, searchable metadata = organized." Because, in the end, if your files are tagged correctly and you use an application that uses those tags to organize your files, not only do you know exactly "where" they are, you can navigate and use them in many more flexible ways. It took BeOS' brilliant BFS filesystem to teach me this, and finally the rest of the computer industry is moving towards what Be realized years and years ago: folders are rigid and inflexible. They're good as loose organization tools, but the real power of information lies in instantly searchable metadata and saved queries (or, as OS X calls them, "smart folders").

So, basically... I used to use folders to organize too. Then, by using a different system, I was opened up to a whole world of things I could do that I couldn't do before, which really didn't have any downsides. And besides all that, tagging my files means that iTunes automatically organizes them into files, so that if for some reason I need to get to the underlying files, they're grouped in the filesystem. I'd imagine in the future, even that will become superfluous—iTunes could just pass a specific query to Finder/Spotlight and it'd return the files in question. And this isn't just on the Mac—Windows is (slowly, painfully) moving in the same direction. Whenever WinFS debuts, believe you and me they'll be trying to de-emphasize the folder as the basic unit of organization.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Maybe for you, but not for me. I've never had any problems with my system. It's fast, smooth, clean, and efficient, and I will never give it up. I don't even want to be bothered with tagging files. I've never done it, have never felt the need to do it, and wouldn't care at all if ID3 tags had never been invented.

To me, file-tree is more intuitive and people who are in control of their PCs will have no problems controlling what's where on them.

Besides, iTunes is the exact opposite of organized, regardless of how well your files are tagged. It puts all of the files in random directories like F00 or A03 and gives the files random names like A0204.mp3, and mixes files from different albums into single folders. You call that organized? I prefer inflexible and rigid; rigid like the internal structure of a diamond, because in the end, it's easier for me to remember where everything is located and how to find it.

Quote:

Whenever WinFS debuts, believe you and me they'll be trying to de-emphasize the folder as the basic unit of organization.

That will be the day I will have to start weaning myself off of my computer, hah!

I just had a thought. I wonder if one's preference for metadata-based or file-tree based organization is a result of that person's memory? I have a very good memory and I know where everything is on my computer. Navigating to any one file or directory isn't ever a problem, and never has been, which is why tagging files is a moot point for me. There's no need for me to, and it would only be a waste of time.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Storm Petrel

First of all, if you don't even know what SNR is, RABicle, then you should go do your research before coming here and saying things like you know what you are talking about, because I have done my share of the research, I spent 2 weeks researching before purchasing my Zen Touch.

And to neothone, Zen Touch DOES HAVE Unicode Tag support, my Zen Touch is the living proof, I have songs that are in Manderin Chinese, German, French etc and they all get displayed properly on the Zen Touch.

Enlighten me. What ID3 tags did you use, and what firmware version? It just occured to me that Unicode is probably supported in Firmware 2.x, but I didn't feel that wiping my entire library to upgrade from 1.x to 2.x was worth it.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

I just prefer to nagivate my hierarchal directory structure. I've been doing it that exact way ever since I encoded my very first Mp3 file, and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I like to know exactly where everything is, what is in each folder, how they're named and labeled, etc. I like to be in full control of my files and my iPod is no exception. I'm really very anal about how my files are organized.

The biggest thing that bothered me was trying to organize multi-disc OSTs. With my system, I can just click on the album name and navigae to \Disc 1\, \Disc 2\, etc, but I couldn't find an easy way to do this with iTunes and the default iPod OS, so I ended up having to make each disc into its own album, which just cluttered up my list.

You've never used iTunes, have you? iTunes easily handles disc numbers without having to change the album name, whereas Windows Media Player doesn't, and is a major frustration for me with my Zen Vision:M and game soundtracks.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It worked with firmware 1.x, right out of the box, now I have the upgraded 2.10.05 firmware. By ID3 tag I meant the information that you can edit when you go into Properties of the file, I hope that's what you meant. And some of my files have Chinese, French and German characters in them and they all get displayed correctly.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

You've never used iTunes, have you? iTunes easily handles disc numbers without having to change the album name, whereas Windows Media Player doesn't, and is a major frustration for me with my Zen Vision:M and game soundtracks.

I used iTunes for a long, long time before I installed Rockbox. I am aware of the "Disc Number X of X" entry, but I still couldn't find a way to organize an album into separate discs, like this:

Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection\
\Disc 1
\Disc 2
\Disc 3
\Disc 4

I tried everything and never could get it to work the way I wanted. I tried tagging my Chrono Trigger songs with Disc 1 of 3, 3 of 3, etc tags, but it didn't work. Perhaps I was doing something wrong. In any case, even if it had worked perfectly, I would still have installed Rockbox, because iTunes is clunky and messes up my organization.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by ORLY

neothe0ne left out a couple of features that the Zen Vision:M has over the iPod in what was otherwise a great breakdown of the pros and cons between the two players.

First is that the Vision:M has a FM radio... In addition to that, the Vision:M has voice recording.

I did mention that.. it's one of the last sentences in the second to last paragraph. It's just that my post was so cluttered you probably missed it

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

I used iTunes for a long, long time before I installed Rockbox. I am aware of the "Disc Number X of X" entry, but I still couldn't find a way to organize an album into separate discs, like this:

Cardcaptor Sakura Complete Vocal Collection\
\Disc 1
\Disc 2
\Disc 3
\Disc 4

I tried everything and never could get it to work the way I wanted. Perhaps I was doing something wrong. In any case, even if it had worked perfectly, I would still have installed Rockbox, because iTunes is clunky and messes up my organization.

If you actually wanted to separate the discs as if they were seperate albums, then no, you can't do that without changing the album name. But still.. why would you want to do that anyways?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Why? Because that's how I organize my albums. If there is more than one disc, I create a subdirectory for each disc, instead of lumping them all together in the same folder.

Like this:



What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Maybe for you, but not for me. I've never had any problems with my system. It's fast, smooth, clean, and efficient, and I will never give it up. I don't even want to be bothered with tagging files. I've never done it, have never felt the need to do it, and wouldn't care at all if ID3 tags had never been invented.

To me, file-tree is more intuitive and people who are in control of their PCs will have no problems controlling what's where on them.

Gah! Terrifying.

Lack of tagging aside, file-tree is not at all intuitive. It's completely learned. Think of how your brain works—the way it connects pieces of information together. The categories we create for things aren't concrete within our own heads. That's why we can make mix CDs, to continue using music as an example: we can see relationships between things that are fluid and flexible. The whole point of digital music is to get all our stuff OFF discrete discs and INTO one big playground where it's more accessible, flexible.

This is why metadata-focused filesystems (especially once these become networked, which will happen both with Leopard and whenever WinFS arrives) will be infinitely superior. We can use the folder as a rough form of organization, but true power will come with saved queries, especially once adding metadata to our files becomes semi-automated or just an automatic behavior. Network-searchable metadata indexes mean that our particular method of organization (which might not jive with someone else's) will be unimportant—we can still find stuff as we think of it.

As desktop/network filesystem search technology becomes more and more refined and technology progresses, I think we'll find that the searchable metadata world really is easier—because it more closely mimics how we think. The folder/file analogy came from the hierarchical organization systems of yesteryear. As we've moved forward, we've found that information which becomes not statically categorized but searchable and contextually linked to other similar information to be MUCH more useful! Think: the web. Think: wikis. And this is only scratching the surface.

Quote:

Besides, iTunes is the exact opposite of organized, regardless of how well your files are tagged. It puts all of the files in random directories like F00 or A03 and gives the files random names like A0204.mp3, and mixes files from different albums into single folders.

Uh, maybe in the hidden folders on the iPod, and that's just to discourage using their music player as a mass-piracy device. Remember that they were creating the iPod at the same time they were trying to woo the record labels into allowing for online music selling. Some concessions had to be made. On my computer (and on any other computer), iTunes organizes my files into Artist/Album/## Title.ext. Or, Compilations/Album for things I've marked as being... compilations.

Quote:

That will be the day I will have to start weaning myself off of my computer, hah!

I just had a thought. I wonder if one's preference for metadata-based or file-tree based organization is a result of that person's memory? I have a very good memory and I know where everything is on my computer. Navigating to any one file or directory isn't ever a problem, and never has been, which is why tagging files is a moot point for me. There's no need for me to, and it would only be a waste of time.

It really just has to do with whether you're capable of storing that hierarchy in your head. If you are, that's great. Not everyone is, and even if they are, some would rather not, like me. Why should I have to set up and remember a structure? Why waste that capacity when I can just search for things, or set up saved queries to group similar files? I think that the static file hierarchy is one of those "old guard-isms," something that "technologically literate" people hold onto and (intentionally or no) lord over those who can't or don't want to be bothered.

I mean, there are people who lament the demise of the punch card. Why? Because it made technology more inscrutable and less accessible? Fuck that. And in 10 years, I'm sure we'll look back on the file/folder-only system of computer navigation as similarly antiquated and silly. "Why did we ever do it that way?" we'll ask ourselves. And the long-haired tech geeks will go "I LIKED IT BETTER THAT WAY!" and the more normal among us will just keep using what will be, I believe, a better, easier, and more efficient system.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by killmoms

Gah! Terrifying.

Lack of tagging aside, file-tree is not at all intuitive. It's completely learned. Think of how your brain works—the way it connects pieces of information together. The categories we create for things aren't concrete within our own heads. That's why we can make mix CDs, to continue using music as an example: we can see relationships between things that are fluid and flexible. The whole point of digital music is to get all our stuff OFF discrete discs and INTO one big playground where it's more accessible, flexible.

This is why metadata-focused filesystems (especially once these become networked, which will happen both with Leopard and whenever WinFS arrives) will be infinitely superior. We can use the folder as a rough form of organization, but true power will come with saved queries, especially once adding metadata to our files becomes semi-automated or just an automatic behavior. Network-searchable metadata indexes mean that our particular method of organization (which might not jive with someone else's) will be unimportant—we can still find stuff as we think of it.

As desktop/network filesystem search technology becomes more and more refined and technology progresses, I think we'll find that the searchable metadata world really is easier—because it more closely mimics how we think. The folder/file analogy came from the hierarchical organization systems of yesteryear. As we've moved forward, we've found that information which becomes not statically categorized but searchable and contextually linked to other similar information to be MUCH more useful! Think: the web. Think: wikis. And this is only scratching the surface.

Maybe how your brain works... I can't say I've ever thought this way in relation to my computer's files. I tend to think about things, well, more... sequentially? ABCDEFG man, not ABCG. There is a place for everything and everything has its place, that's what I always say. Not only is my computer organized as such, but so is my house, my workspace, my room, and everything around me.

Quote:

It really just has to do with whether you're capable of storing that hierarchy in your head. If you are, that's great. Not everyone is, and even if they are, some would rather not, like me. Why should I have to set up and remember a structure? Why waste that capacity when I can just search for things, or set up saved queries to group similar files? I think that the static file hierarchy is one of those "old guard-isms," something that "technologically literate" people hold onto and (intentionally or no) lord over those who can't or don't want to be bothered.

I've never bothered to remember a hierarchy. It just happens. If I install a program into a certain directory, I never forget where it is. If I put a certain album into a certain part of the structure, I will always remember where it is. (Because anime music always goes in the anime folder, and the same for other genres and their folders, and of course, I would never forget the album name either.) Once the initial structure is set up, you know that everything from that point on will always follow that structure. You only have to memorize it once.

Quote:

And in 10 years, I'm sure we'll look back on the file/folder-only system of computer navigation as similarly antiquated and silly. "Why did we ever do it that way?" we'll ask ourselves. And the long-haired tech geeks will go "I LIKED IT BETTER THAT WAY!" and the more normal among us will just keep using what will be, I believe, a better, easier, and more efficient system.

Hehe, maybe you'll look back on it as silly, but I will still be using it as long as it is allowed. Hopefully, searching for files using metadata will be optional, and people like me can completely disregard it. Then everyone is happy and we can all be friends.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Maybe how your brain works... I can't say I've ever thought this way in relation to my computer's files. I tend to think about things, well, more... sequentially? ABCDEFG man, not ABCG. There is a place for everything and everything has its place, that's what I always say. Not only is my computer organized as such, but so is my house, my workspace, my room, and everything around me.

I guess that's the difference between essentially analytical brains vs. creative brains. The possibility for new ways of interacting with and organizing information that could reveal new possibilities or connections between it all excites me.

I guess it comes down to personal taste.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah. I hope nobody took my inane ramblings personally, heh.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by neothe0ne

I did mention that.. it's one of the last sentences in the second to last paragraph. It's just that my post was so cluttered you probably missed it

Ah, I see it now. Sorry about that. I was at work so I was reading really fast since I'm technically not supposed to be posting or doing anything else non-work related.

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Yeah. I hope nobody took my inane ramblings personally, heh.

Don't worry, I do things almost the same way.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

Because it simply isn't?

Here is how I like to organize my music:

My iPod's root directory is my top-level domain. And then everything is organized like this:

Mp3\Genre\Album Name\ (And Disc number, if applicable.) Everything is organized exactly like this, always. If a song is from a video game, it will always be under \Video Game Music\. If it is from an anime show, it will always be under \Anime\. All electronic music that isn't from an anime show or video game goes under \Techno\. I don't bother to divide that by sub-genre. Any kind of classical music (you know what I'm talking about) goes under \Classical\. I also do not divide this by sub-genre. \Rock\ is for rock, and \Pop\ is kind of a catchall folder for anything that doesn't fit in the other folders. Knowing this, and, of course, having all of the album names memorized, and what genre they belong to, I can find anything I want in seconds.

This kind of organization scheme simply isn't possible with the default iPod OS. But Rockbox makes it a reality.

Umm... sorry, but you're wrong. You can do exactly that with an iPod. Trust me, that's how I find the music that I want to play.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek

The biggest thing that bothered me was trying to organize multi-disc OSTs. With my system, I can just click on the album name and navigae to \Disc 1\, \Disc 2\, etc, but I couldn't find an easy way to do this with iTunes and the default iPod OS, so I ended up having to make each disc into its own album, which just cluttered up my list.

Add a disc number to the Id4 tags and the iPod will sort the stuff by Disc/Track #s.

How ya doing, buddy?