DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music: Recording

Ipod Recording!!

TnyjMuzic	Date: November 16, 2007 @ 8:57 PM I recently saw an ad for this mixing board docking station for your ipod. Has anyone seen this? I', probley the only person on earth who still does not own an ipod.
leedsquietman	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 2:29 AM http://www.belkin.com/tunestudio/ I don't own an ipod, I have an mp3 player but it is not an Apple device.
TnyjMuzic	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 7:28 AM Thats not the one i saw leeds. But that's it. The one i saw was made my Tascam but I guess other companies like Belkin are jumping on the band wagion too. the sound quality must be superb being that it's digital recording. Probley good for making demos but I don't think this will be the next big thing in recording since pro-tools has become the main thing nowadays.
leedsquietman	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 10:39 AM It is good for getting ideas down on the fly, but as it's limited to 4 tracks 16 bit 44.1 Khz, and requires memory from the Ipod (i.e. if you uploaded your 10,000 songs you might have about 45 seconds of recording time left) it isn't a total solution. It also only works on 5th generation video ipods.
zedsalt	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 11:12 AM "the sound quality must be superb being that it's digital recording" You forgot the or or that should've followed that one. With all due respect to digital, it's not "recording". It's "encoding", "reproducing" (even that's kind of stretching the truth), "making a song file", etc.
shadowself	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 12:37 PM Can you bounce tracks? Overdub? I personally think it's rather silly considering you can likely find a dedicated digital recorder for less than that price. Hell, I bought a portable 3-track with FX and drum machine built-in for just over $100, and it's about the size of a deck of cards. The docking station ($400) is totally useless without another $400 device. Don't be saying, "Well I already bought the iPod for my music and videos" because as leedsquietman brought up, you're not going to have room to do recording if you've loaded it with other media. So, if you want to feel smugly superior and spend $800+ for a four track recorder that has no effects, overdubbing, or bouncing abilites - buy Apple! Or, you know, spend less on a digital recorder that does far more.
leedsquietman	Date: November 17, 2007 @ 2:22 PM I definately agree, it's all just a buzz because it's linked to an Apple product and no doubt, some devotees to the tasty fruit will simply HAVE to have it. For the money you can buy much better dedicated digital recording devices, from Tascam, Fostex, Alesis, Zoom, Yamaha etc. albeit they might not playback your movie files on a tiny screen which requires the use of an electron microscope to truly enjoy or host your low bitrate pirate music collection - joking ! oo-arr
Thaspian	Date: December 30, 2007 @ 5:47 AM Some cheap ass at the place I work at used one of these things a month ago instead of taking my offer to roll and burn a rough mix of their rehearsal for an extra $10. the iPod froze. that thing so sucks balls for professional/mission critical/any kind of real recording situation. It's a toy. It'd be fine if it were $20, but it's $400. Fuck that! Get a real recorder.
evansorchid	Date: December 30, 2007 @ 8:58 AM When I was out Xmas shopping a few weeks ago, I walked into one of those 'Apple' outlets. It was filled with people listening to these iPods, and iPhones, and other fun electronic devices. I thought I'd see what the buzz was about so I entered the store and tried on numerous pairs of head phones. I was absolutely disappointed with the fidelity of the sound coming from these devices. When the 13 year old salesperson noticed me going from station to station trying on all the headphones, he asked me if there was something inparticular that I was looking for. I said just something that sounded good. He introduced me to the 'Shuffle', the 'Nano', the 'Classic', and the 'Touch'. None of them sounded good to me. I asked if he had a decent pair of headphones to listen through. He located a 90 dollar pair of Sennheiser's and plugged me in. Sennheiser's are normally pretty good, so I guess I can assume that the source signal was poor. I asked the clerk if there was a way to adjust the EQ. He didn't understand my question. I said the equalization. It sounds rather tinny and flat. He still didn't know. Needless to say, I didn't buy one.
pog	Date: December 30, 2007 @ 9:10 AM but but but... you can get soooo much more compression with a tinny, flat signal.
leedsquietman	Date: December 30, 2007 @ 1:31 PM The fact that Apple themselves haven't gotten into building this and marketing some kind of 'Garageband for Ipod' software to go with it speaks volumes. Those guys would be making these interfaces if they felt it and viable and profitable. I have to say Spike that the salespeople in most retail stores don't have a clue. As far as I know, there is an EQ on the Ipod (maybe not the cheap shuffle but the Nano and Classic have it) and the sound can be good if... a) You encode high bitrate files (and not the low bitrate suggested by the manufacturers they do this so they can boast their devices store X thousand number of songs) b) You get good headphones and tailor the EQ to taste. Sennheiser make excellent headphones but their 90 dollar ones are not much better than a 50 dollar pair of Panasonics. You have to remember that most people listen to Ipods on a subway train or in places where the background noise is so high that you can barely hear the music anyway, so the quality issue becomes negligible. I have an RCA mp3 player and it's quality is bad unless I use my 250 dollar Sennheiser headphones and then it can sound OK if you have 192 Kbps or better mp3, 128 Kbps or less sounds like
Thaspian	Date: December 30, 2007 @ 6:00 PM I still can't believe people use CBR instead of VBR. It's almost 2008 - why are we even discussing "below or above 192k" ?! I still remember the 64k WMA CD quality thing. What a joke.
leedsquietman	Date: December 31, 2007 @ 6:44 PM Some mp3 players don't support VBR. More of the newer kind do (some support ogg vorbis, which is a better codec and open source/license free) but support for VBR is still not universak. MP3 PRO at 64 kbps , WMA or anything else and anything at that quality is , variable or constant bitrate !
Thaspian	Date: January 3, 2008 @ 7:57 AM I tried an MP3 player that didn't support VBR once. I haven't seen any since 2000 though..
Thaspian	Date: January 3, 2008 @ 7:58 AM Maybe those codecs sound better at 64k by choosing differently what to take out. Like drawings of the waveform when ashlee simpson sings out of tune.