|
|
Still waiting for crossfade
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
No one talks about it anymore; i guess we have all given up. Do any of the new iPods have crossfade playback ability.?
If not, what are the reasons given for having that capability only on iTunes itself??
Rob
|
Rob
2.1 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro 2 GB RAM, OS X 10.5
16 Gig iPod Touch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I believe the audio decoder chip in the iPod runs at only 80Mhz to preserve battery life, cross fading would probably take a hell of a lot more processor power, and as such we would see iPod battery performance going down considerably, as well as production costs of the unit going up.
The reason iTunes can do it is that it has a lot of system resources to play with, and now power usage concerns. Thats the difference between a computer, and a hand-held consumer electronics device.
|
F is for Fooyork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Decatur, GA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't know, iPod is starting to look more and more like a palmtop to me. There must be hardware constraints, as said earlier, because they've thrown everything else in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
80MHz is plenty to do a crossfade: remember that it wouldn't even need to be rendered in real-time: it could be rendered in the background in the CPU, plopped into RAM, and then just sent to the audio chip when the time came.
Considering how infrequently crossfades are done, adding them would have a negligible effect on the battery, at worst.
It would take no extra components, so it would not raise production costs.
Frankly, I can't understand why Apple hasn't done it already.
tooki
P.S. iCol, your signature is not compliant with the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
oh, whats wrong with it? I remember making it as small as possible to apply, but that was a couple of years back.
[edit] yeah, what is wrong with it? It's less than 140 pixels wide, it's 40 pixels high, it's less than 10KB and it's static.... what am I doing wrong?
Image: 140 pixels wide maximum. 40 pixels high maximum. Not animated. 10KB or less.
This is a slight increase in dimensions over the old guidelines.
Text: No more than 4 lines of text. Or no more than one image and 2 lines of text. Yes, it's difficult to tell "lines" with browser window sizes and all, but no huge paragraphs of text in your sigs please.
Overall: These guidelines exist to make browsing the boards enjoyable for everybody. The filesize restrictions make modem users happy. The dimension restrictions make everyone else happy. I want to read the text of a post, not have to scroll past the same old 400x400 sig image everytime some user posts. Animated sigs are distracting and also not allowed.
If your image is outside our new restrictions, we'll send you a warning (although we'd all prefer if you'd change it on your own after reading this). Check your Private Messages and registered email address often if you think your signature may be outside our parameters. If you're not sure if your sig violates our Terms of Service (the restrictions above as well as it being decent), then ask us. It's that easy.
(
Last edited by iCol; Nov 7, 2005 at 11:50 AM.
)
|
F is for Fooyork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|