NationStates Jolt Archive

Zounes blow up (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/mobile-tech/65698.html?wlc=1230764406)

fanboys, any thoughts?

this is why i still listen to cd's

Hey - at east it was not made by childslaves, like the first few generations of iPood ;)

Of course it still remains a piece of crap.

Y2K arrives 9 years late and hits a different product.

lol I heard about this and kept rubbing it in to my friend that has one that broke. He is envious of my iPod Touch.

I have an iPod classic myself. It was a present, I wouldn't buy such a thing myself (HD in a portable device, kinda fragile.)

Before it broke, I was not that happy with it anyway. Excellent battery life, nice screen -- but for fuck's sake, it's a music player and it isn't loud enough for what I would mainly use it for, which is drowning out noise while travelling on the train. I remixed a few of my mp3's for maximum volume (crushing the dynamic range in the process) and got the most responsive earpieces I could find. Still not fucking loud enough.

Jeez, guys. Don't ask the legal department how loud it should go. Ask a music fan. Their ears, their choice (and yeah, my ears are a bit old.)

That's even before we talk software. Apple honest to god couldn't do what they did with OS X, and adopt the rock-solid, resource-saving, free as beer BSD operating system for the iPod? They went and commissioned some mickey mouse shit which is quite frankly, logey. It's fucking slow.

And iTunes. Half-assed copy-protecting nonsense. Apple are fucking thick if they think providing a Windows version is all it takes to cover the market: their entire marketing strategy for the last decade has been "so you hate Windows? Get a Mac!" and they can't get their head out of that, and see that the Windows haters they couldn't provide a competetive alternative for have overwhelmingly gone over to Linux?

Crew o' morons. Rendered imbecile by corporate, stock-price paranoia. Thanks a lot, Mac. Go to hell.

On topic post follows.

I have a Microsoft keyboard. It's pretty damn good, actually, but I'm glad to say I didn't have to pay for it. I found it on the street, leaning against an old Pentium someone was throwing away.

I paid for Windows 95. Microsoft haven't had a cent out of me since.

I wouldn't in my wildest dreams buy a Microsoft music player. Everything about their attitude to intellectual property tells me that the moment it sees the internet it would try to snitch on me for pirating music ... perhaps not directly with a view to prosecuting someone, as Sony would (won't buy anything of theirs either*) but it would go into a database somewhere.

*Not so much for the IP attitude, as the technology-pushing attitude. Vinyl, cassette, video, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray -- all rubbish, difficult to upgrade, fragile technology adopted into computing because it was there already. HD, flash-RAM, even Zip -- sturdy, well-planned technologies with long upgrade lives, invented specifically for computers. If Sony had invented the Internet, it would cost a bomb and hardly work at all.

It apparently runs Media Player. That has to suck on such low-end hardware.

It falls over on a leap-year bug? Nine years after the mother of all date problems should have taught them to look at a damn calendar before defining the range of a date variable?

Ha fucking ha, I say. With their elephantine dexterity in patching bugs, I expect that the upgrade will probably do something even more horrendous, when they manage to get it out a week hence. There's a reason MS keep bugs secret until they have them fixed, apart from the obvious security concern: when they try to do anything in a hurry they fuck it up.

It broke over a problem with the date? Is that not something they really ought to have mastered by now?

Zunes have always been shit this is only a further excuse to gloat and play my iPod nano really smugly

79 percent of all Web users are now outside the U.S

I'm saving that statistic.

for fuck's sake, it's a music player and it isn't loud enough for what I would mainly use it for

did you turn off the safety sound thing in options? (the one designed to foil children >.>) if so it appears you live in some sort of bomb testing range or happen to be really really deaf

It broke over a problem with the date? Is that not something they really ought to have mastered by now?

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about it is that later versions of the device didn't have the problem.

I suppose it could have been a complete re-write, but more likely someone saw the problem and fixed it but the fix didn't get back to the firmware upgrade for earlier models.

Oops!

did you turn off the safety sound thing in options? (the one designed to foil children >.>)

Yes.

if so it appears you live in some sort of bomb testing range or happen to be really really deaf

I like classical music. It's generally mixed to sound as much like a live performance as possible (ie, an auditorium not a barn full of screaming fans.)

And yeah, my hearing isn't that great, but it's better than the hearing of a lot of young people now, let alone when they get to forty five.

Let's be sure we're both talking about the iPod classic, too.

I haven't even heard of Zunes before but oh well.

I would type more but after reading what NH says, I feel inafequate to say anything.

Though I don't understand his Sony rant. Are you talking about all products? Or are you just talking about stuff that is attempted to be copy protected such as CD's or something?

And yeah, my hearing isn't that great, but it's better than the hearing of a lot of young people now, let alone when they get to forty five.

hmm did you try replacing the headphones? never had a problem with the sound on the iPod but I had to change my PSP headphones from the ones they shipped out because presumably they wanted to protect me from myself

http://nelsonhaha.com/

I haven't even heard of Zunes before but oh well.

It is the player of choice for the new US president ;)

It is the player of choice for the new US president ;)

Actually, that's half true. He only uses it to listen to terrorist plans voiced by Bill Ayers, and to revise the anti-American speeches of his preacher. He also threw one at someone who was about to uncover his fake birth certificate, that person was killed, he went to Hawaii before election to hide the body.

These are the Zune users:
Zuuuuuuuuuuuune!!!! (http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/al-qaeda-endorses-the-zune-on-conan-obrien/) (79% of people won't be able to view this)

Zuuuuuuuuuuuune!!!! (http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/al-qaeda-endorses-the-zune-on-conan-obrien/) (79% of people won't be able to view this)

yay I'm American :)

*does thing pretty much to the same end but slightly different*

Someone actually used "Microsoft" and "quality" in the same sentence here?!?!?!

This would all make for a lovely little rant against Microsoft's quality until you actually look at the facts and find out it's a problem with the Toshiba designed clock circutry, and the reason it's only first generation Zunes that are affected is that Toshiba designed the hardware, whereas Microsoft designed later models. Whoops!

But who cares about reality?

It is the player of choice for the new US president ;)

Well his year is getting off to a great start.

This would all make for a lovely little rant against Microsoft's quality until you actually look at the facts and find out it's a problem with the Toshiba designed clock circutry, and the reason it's only first generation Zunes that are affected is that Toshiba designed the hardware, whereas Microsoft designed later models. Whoops!

But who cares about reality?

So basically, it's not MS' fault, it's Toshiba for selling it to MS? Where is all this info?

So basically, it's not MS' fault, it's Toshiba for selling it to MS? Where is all this info?

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fcc-reveals-toshiba-1089-and-its-looking-a-whole-lot-like-a/
http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/08/25/microsoft-zune-toshiba-1089/

The original Zune was actually a Toshiba product rebranded by Microsoft.

This would all make for a lovely little rant against Microsoft's quality until you actually look at the facts and find out it's a problem with the Toshiba designed clock circutry, and the reason it's only first generation Zunes that are affected is that Toshiba designed the hardware, whereas Microsoft designed later models. Whoops!

But who cares about reality?

Perhaps so, but it's a MICROSOFT product. Branded by Microsoft, sold by Microsoft, advertised by Microsoft, etc. They're responsible for the Q&A of their products, whether they're the developer of the technology or simply purchase it off of another company and incorporate it into their stuff.

You might just as well say it's a CompUSA, BestBuy, Amazon or <<enter the name of the store you purchased it from here>> problem because they decided to stock it.

Or it's your problem because you didn't run it through the necessary testing before purchasing it.

Edit: It's not like a leap year is a one-in-a-billion kind of event, after all.

Perhaps so, but it's a MICROSOFT product. Branded by Microsoft, sold by Microsoft, advertised by Microsoft, etc. They're responsible for the Q&A of their products, whether they're the developer of the technology or simply purchase it off of another company and incorporate it into their stuff.

You might just as well say it's a CompUSA, BestBuy, Amazon or <<enter the name of the store you purchased it from here>> problem because they decided to stock it.

Or it's your problem because you didn't run it through the necessary testing before purchasing it.

Except, you know, the testing of hardware is the responsibility of the producer of the hardware. Which was Toshiba, in this case. Your argument is as ridiculous as blaming your mother for giving you a gift that was manufactured - not by her, mind - with a defect. The manufacturer is at fault, not the reseller.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fcc-reveals-toshiba-1089-and-its-looking-a-whole-lot-like-a/
http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/08/25/microsoft-zune-toshiba-1089/

The original Zune was actually a Toshiba product rebranded by Microsoft.

And IE was originally Mosaic, a product by someone else rebranded by MS. And Windows was originally DOS, which was a product rebranded by MS. And other MS products which you'd presume are "real" MS products are actually made by contracted labs, like NT, the core of today's Windows. MS is a buyer, not a creator. Your point is moot, and this thingy that crashed is another of their products.

Except, you know, the testing of hardware is the responsibility of the producer of the hardware. Which was Toshiba, in this case. Your argument is as ridiculous as blaming your mother for giving you a gift that was manufactured - not by her, mind - with a defect. The manufacturer is at fault, not the reseller.

But the reseller is the one that the next customer has the contract with - not the manufacturer. So they are the ones that have to solve the problem.

Probably by boxing the manufacturers ears of course, but hey. It still is Microsofts problem as far as the law and customers are concerned.

Um - you might want to look at local legislation before saying that. In point of fact, here in the Netherlands the law states quite clearly that the reseller is at fault for not selling you a product that lives up to reasonable expectations. That would be the store you purchased it from - or your mother in your example. And it's the reseller's responsiblity to fix the issue. Your mom, for example. The reseller can't foist off responsibility onto the manufacturer.

The fact still remains Microsoft said "This is OUR product" and used their reputation to pass on stuff they bought from Toshiba to consumers. And it's Microsoft, not Toshiba, that's providing the support. Which, from what I've read so far, is basically wait until tomorrow, let your Zune run empty, recharge, and all should be fine.

All this for not testing a leap year issue.

Um, who really cares about laws. I think the more important thing to note here is a very clear instance among a trend. MS produces crappy stuff, and even before this, nobody liked the Zune because it sucked. The only real big deal with MS is their humongous investment capital. They make no money on things like these silly zunes or xbox. They can afford to burn cash throwing out all sorts of crap and hoping some of it sticks like Windows did.

It is the player of choice for the new US president ;)
Goddamn. This is some Roman prophecy type shit. Like a horse stumbling before a river into a new country or something.

Also, this is why I love only owning CDs and vinyl.

Goddamn. This is some Roman prophecy type shit. Like a horse stumbling before a river into a new country or something.

Also, this is why I love only owning CDs and vinyl.

What's vinyl?

*Young person flees*

What's vinyl?

Big black cds you can even play with your fingernails ;)

What's vinyl?

*Young person flees*
http://www.itransistor.com/img/vinyl-record.gif

:D

Happy days. Feels like music should in your hand.

Zounes blow up (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/mobile-tech/65698.html?wlc=1230764406)

fanboys, any thoughts?

so? Sony batteries were blowing up all last year, and Apple acknowledged a kill-switch for all iphone software. they're all big businesses out to screw you out of more money and cut costs wherever possib;e

Big black cds you can even play with your fingernails ;)

Oh the big CD's

http://www.itransistor.com/img/vinyl-record.gif

:D

Happy days. Feels like music should in your hand.

lol, actually I have been going through my dads collection and recording them on to the computer so I can place them on CD's (the car manufacturers don't have record players built in) and just to have an electronic copy of them on various things (computer, iPod, PS3, etc)

Well... I own an iPod and think Zune is a piece of shiite anyways sooo...

Well the Zunes are back online my 3 year old Zune that has played over 100000 songs has come back to life. A mere date change has unlocked it. Sorry to crush you ipod fanboys.

Well the Zunes are back online my 3 year old Zune that has played over 100000 songs has come back to life. A mere date change has unlocked it. Sorry to crush you ipod fanboys.

Apple thought they had won one then.

I find both iPod and Zune highly unpalatable. Both have the most bloated, clunky software that is useless and doesn't do as I want. I have music that's untagged and the software for these players treats it like horse manure. Even if I do have tags in, it refuses to follow my folder hierarchy system when I import. Never mind making playlists to achieve the play order I want... blah. I'll be sticking with my Zen (by Creative), thank you very much.

Lol. Microsoft. They still can't make an OS that works without rebooting - not even an embedded one.

I have one of those chip pods straight from china! Can't say I'm disappointed with it yet only cost me 25 euro.

Lol. Microsoft. They still can't make an OS that works without rebooting - not even an embedded one.
My copy of XP works fine just about all the time. And you know what? I can play new games on it without an emulator, as well as doing work for uni. Good times, really.

I haven't even heard of Zunes before but oh well.

I would type more but after reading what NH says, I feel inafequate to say anything.

*bows*
I do cover my vague grasp of facts rather well, don't I? Sure, it always ends up too long, but all the necessary qualifying phrases do tend to bulk it up.

I'd like to invent a new, succinct terminology for "in the majority of cases" and "you'd have to be an idiot to fall for that, though I can't actually disprove it" and such useful dodges ... :wink:

Though I don't understand his Sony rant. Are you talking about all products? Or are you just talking about stuff that is attempted to be copy protected such as CD's or something?

The whole thing was a rant. I'm surprised myself by how angry it sounds. Do I really hate computer software that much? I think so. When I try to delve into how operating systems work, I get to feeling really dumb and I don't like that. In Neil Stephenson's analogy, I'm an Eloi living in e-paradise, reacting with fear and bafflement to the Morlock machinery below.

Sony have a big place in the history of consumer electronics. You could say they popularized miniaturization, made it cool. They were there when Japanese products graduated from being "jap crap" to rivalling the best German and US products ... there was no mystery to that, they just spent big on quality control, R&D, design and responding to customer feedback. They really were a brilliant and innovative manufacturer.

But that was then. Now they're trying to run a "vertical integration" scam, having become a major copyright holder particularly in music. I really don't like the idea of copyright protection being built into hardware. And I'm exquisitly suspicious when the company trying to do it is one of the biggest investors in copyrights.

I think Sony learnt the wrong lesson from their defeat in the Betamax/VHS format war of the mid-seventies. That's pretty much when they turned into a baddie, and started buying copyrights (Sony Music etc) and decided that being a major owner of copyrights (and thus being able to dictate the format the copyrighted works could be distributed in) would give them the edge in the next format battle.

Well, they won Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. But they won it dirty, for mine. The historical view is that Betamax was better technology than VHS, and perhaps Blu-Ray is better technology than HD-DVD.

But I'd deeply suspicious of such marketing strategies. I'm of the old fashioned bent that you buy one product, your mate buys the competing product, and you watch your mate's machine and your mate watches yours ... and you argue about which is better. You're forced to examine critically the wizz-bang new technology you bought. You're a bit embarassed when yours spends a week at the repair shop under warranty, but you rejoice when theirs explodes in a shower of sparks and sets fire to the family dog.

Sony have apparently gone the way of not letting the consumer decide which technology is better. So right here, they lost a customer.

And I wouldn't much care if it was just movies. But because it plays movies, or music, it has a leg up into becoming computer technology ... and I can't stomach that. My computer does what I want it to do (within the severe limits of my competence) and I cannot accept that it is deliberately limited in its capacities by the commercial interests of one manufacturer who determines the standard for one component.

It's really not just movies. Computers have a lot of growth yet to come, they are tools of the mind. If we let current-day commercial interests dictate what they can't do, we let all future commercial interests dictate what we can and cannot think. Really. Even now, I'm smarter with the resources of the internet on my screen than I am up the pub with only beer and pretzels ... and there are expert systems to come, there are implants so I can talk knowledgeably in the pub too. I'll end my life in a nursing-home like any other old wreck, but most of me will be electronic by then. I want that to be mine, I want my computer to be limited only by the software I can get or pay for, and by my own wisdom in choosing it, and in configuring it to do my will. Not by some law out of the dark ages, when knowledge was private property.

No, Sony are not the Devil. A hundred years hence, Sony will be a laughing stock comparable to the prosecutors of the Darwin trial. Microsoft will be a more serious black mark in the course of liberty, a notch above or below the robber barons whose economic clout held government to ransom. And Apple/Macintosh will be the well-meaning losers, a sort of International Brigade whose bumbling incompetence gave heart to the bad guys.

Well the Zunes are back online my 3 year old Zune that has played over 100000 songs has come back to life. A mere date change has unlocked it. Sorry to crush you ipod fanboys.

Neat-oh! Unless you wanted to listen to music on New Year's Eve, your old Zune is fine.

*snicker* Until February 28, when it will think it's New Year's Eve, and send up some fireworks. :tongue:

Big black cds you can even play with your fingernails ;)

Yes indeed. A good friend of mine has a wind-up gramophone, with a steel needle which can be sharpened with a nail-file, and a collection of 78's to play on it.

The sound quality is crap -- because of the force required to vibrate the needle enough to make sound directly, the scratches or lumps of detritus on the old 78's make a far louder "pop" than on an electronically amplified record player.

But there is something very charming about the sound too. It isn't just analogue ... it's mechanical.

This might sound a bit trippy ... but you can feel a mechanical connection, physical objects which touched each other right back to a woman singing into a horn a century ago.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fcc-reveals-toshiba-1089-and-its-looking-a-whole-lot-like-a/
http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/08/25/microsoft-zune-toshiba-1089/

OK, thanks for that.

Actually, with thread winning research like that, you could perhaps be a little less smug.

The original Zune was actually a Toshiba product rebranded by Microsoft.

Heh, well that at least is true to form for MS.

"Freedom to innovate" == "enough money to buy other people's innovations and put the MS brand on them."

My copy of XP works fine just about all the time. And you know what? I can play new games on it without an emulator, as well as doing work for uni. Good times, really.

This, in a sense. Especially when it comes to working well. OS failures are usually less about the OS itself(though, of course, Microsoft's software is always riddled with lots of flaws, goofs, and exploits) and more about user error. If one knows what one is doing, one almost never has any sort of error.

I can count on one hand the number of problems I've had with Windows since installed it on this computer when I built it, and of those, every single one has been due to something stupid I did, whether it was accidentally cause malware to be installed, or overload a game's capability to handle things and cause it to crash, or what have you.

With that said, Microsoft's quality leaves a lot to be desired. I certainly will never touch Internet Explorer for example; if I could I'd remove it from the system entirely. I don't use Outlook(or any mail client at all, actually) or any other common Windows software like Media Player, or Messenger, or Word.

In fact, I only use XP because my computer is primarily a gaming platform.

So...yeah.

In fact, I only use XP because my computer is primarily a gaming platform.

Hardware drivers thanks. DirectX thanks. Gimme the RAM too. Right, get out of the way now.

*Windows slinks away and lets you and the game have the computer*

Goddamn. This is some Roman prophecy type shit. Like a horse stumbling before a river into a new country or something.

Also, this is why I love only owning CDs and vinyl.

I have all my music on this computer. Saves having to scrounge what you want to listen to. And a question: is it really better on vinyl?

Well, I have a 30gb zune, and it was not working yesterday, now it works just fine!

I have all my music on this computer. Saves having to scrounge what you want to listen to.
Pfft. The looking for records is the best bit. You find all kinds of stuff you'd forgotten about, and it's better than 'shuffle mode' or whatever because you get a whole album.
And a question: is it really better on vinyl?
*shrugs* It's certainly different. The audio is less clear, but I find that quite charming.

Pfft. The looking for records is the best bit. You find all kinds of stuff you'd forgotten about, and it's better than 'shuffle mode' or whatever because you get a whole album.

Or you don't have shuffle on.

*shrugs* It's certainly different. The audio is less clear, but I find that quite charming.

Why would you want to hear music with a lot of distortion?

I don't really care either way, iPod or Zune. I have a 5 Gb RCA player that does what I want it to (namely play MP3 and WMA files), and it cost far less than anything of comparable capacity from Apple or Microsoft.

Why would you want to hear music with a lot of distortion?

Because all records and analog music sounds so horrible, riiiiiiiiiiight.

I love how people say " Oh well my music is PURE digital. "

Its still an analog single no matter what way you look at it, check out some high end LP equipment, it'll blow away most Digital music.

Because all records and Analogue music sounds so horrible, riiiiiiiiiiight

Well, I can't say that I've ever heard any vinyl records.

AWWWWW, the word Microsoft and quality in the same sentence together, isnt that just the cutest thing.

Well, I can't say that I've ever heard any vinyl records.

Disclaimer: I'm not dissing digital, I use it for everything, just gonna point out some differences. I know its off topic, but w/e.

If your ever around high end LP equipment, its NOT your grandma's record player, sounds. If you can get yourself some very high end studio records, or tapes. The sound quality is amazing, and if you have high quality equipment, the difference is nice and day.

Analog Wave: http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/courses/TR502/images/fig4a%20analog%20signal.gif

Digital Wave: http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/courses/TR502/images/fig4b%20digital%20signal.gif

Simple break down:

Analog is the " real " music. There are no presets in the recording, its straight sound, so you get a very very nice and " full " sound.

Digital is just a bunch of 0s and 1s, so its not actually the " real " music, just an imitation.

Digital is simply better because its so much cheaper to get nice equipment, and it can be very small.

Why would you want to hear music with a lot of distortion?

It's an interesting question. Vinyl fanatics insist that the medium carries through some quality (warmth) which digital encoding loses. I wouldn't know though, never having been careful enough with the disks or had a good enough player.

I will point out though that there is no such thing as a lossless medium. What a CD or mp3 encoding chooses to discard is engineered to not be noticable ... but it's possible that some people notice it anyway. Perhaps they prefer the consistent and predictable loss of fidelity in an analogue medium.

Itunes just took over Walmart as the largest music distributor in the World.

Some people like vinyl because of the special effect, some call it "warmth". No sound reproduction is completely accurate, but digital is far more accurate than analog. If you're not looking for accuracy though, it doesn't really matter. Kind of like realistic photographs vs. HDR ones.

It's an interesting question. Vinyl fanatics insist that the medium carries through some quality (warmth) which digital encoding loses. I wouldn't know though, never having been careful enough with the disks or had a good enough player.

It's static. In accuracy, LPs have nothing against digital, but the minor distortions can actually make a record sound a little better, especially something like blues music. You could probably get the same effect on a CD if you added a tiny bit of white noise, but I can't see sellers advertising "extra fuzz."

Well, I can't say that I've ever heard any vinyl records.

Have you ever been in a club?

Have you ever been in a club?
He's 14.

Disclaimer: I'm not dissing digital, I use it for everything, just gonna point out some differences. I know its off topic, but w/e.

If your ever around high end LP equipment, its NOT your grandma's record player, sounds. If you can get yourself some very high end studio records, or tapes. The sound quality is amazing, and if you have high quality equipment, the difference is nice and day.

Analog Wave: http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/courses/TR502/images/fig4a%20analog%20signal.gif

Digital Wave: http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/courses/TR502/images/fig4b%20digital%20signal.gif

Simple break down:

Analog is the " real " music. There are no presets in the recording, its straight sound, so you get a very very nice and " full " sound.

Digital is just a bunch of 0s and 1s, so its not actually the " real " music, just an imitation.

Digital is simply better because its so much cheaper to get nice equipment, and it can be very small.

You're thinking 10 years ago, maybe, or comparing expensive analog equipment to a PC mic. Today it's no contest, digital equipment is better in too many ways over analog. Even movies are moving towards digital cameras and sound.

It's an interesting question. Vinyl fanatics insist that the medium carries through some quality (warmth) which digital encoding loses. I wouldn't know though, never having been careful enough with the disks or had a good enough player.

I will point out though that there is no such thing as a lossless medium. What a CD or mp3 encoding chooses to discard is engineered to not be noticable ... but it's possible that some people notice it anyway. Perhaps they prefer the consistent and predictable loss of fidelity in an analogue medium.

I find that rock music, stuff like zep, sounds better on vinyl, for one thing I don't think vinyl's were affected so much by the loudness wars but I may be wrong with that. But I actually find that some types of dance music sounds better from cd, it seems to have slightly more umph to it, even if vinyl is still very much used by club djs, although cdjs are becoming more and more popular.

He's 14.

Oh yeah... school disco then? :D

I find that rock music, stuff like zep, sounds better on vinyl, for one thing I don't think vinyl's were affected so much by the loudness wars but I may be wrong with that. But I actually find that some types of dance music sounds better from cd, it seems to have slightly more umph to it, even if vinyl is still very much used by club djs, although cdjs are becoming more and more popular.
Could it be you like music like Led Zeppelin on vinyl because that's how you originally heard it?

Could it be you like music like Led Zeppelin on vinyl because that's how you originally heard it?

Probably not, the one vinyl record player my family had when I was younger was mainly used for jazz and classical.

I find that rock music, stuff like zep, sounds better on vinyl, for one thing I don't think vinyl's were affected so much by the loudness wars but I may be wrong with that. But I actually find that some types of dance music sounds better from cd, it seems to have slightly more umph to it, even if vinyl is still very much used by club djs, although cdjs are becoming more and more popular.

i have to say that for years i couldn't imagine how vinyl could be better than CDs. obviously it has advantages over compressed digital formats like mp3, but i figured CD quality was the best. listening to a bunch of old rock records on a decent modern hi-fi has changed my mind... songs that i love on digital mediums have more vibrancy and richness of sound on vinyl. i can't explain it, but i'm now actively seeking out a bunch of albums to buy on vinyl just to listen to them again :wink:

You're thinking 10 years ago, maybe, or comparing expensive analog equipment to a PC mic. Today it's no contest, digital equipment is better in too many ways over analog. Even movies are moving towards digital cameras and sound.

But to get the quality picture a normal camera can provide from a digital camera costs a huge amount of money.

I'm still trying to digest the contradiction in terms that is the thread title.

Well, at least now I know I'm not the only one.

But to get the quality picture a normal camera can provide from a digital camera costs a huge amount of money.

Wouldn't it be so either way?

This reminds me that I still want to start a vinyl collection. My father used to have a bunch years ago and, regardless of whether or not it sounds better, I want to have it just because...well, there's a certain amount of class involved around it. It is the same with photography. There is something...better about the quality of a photo taken with a good film camera vs. a digital. I can't place my finger on it, but it just looks better to me.

i have to say that for years i couldn't imagine how vinyl could be better than CDs. obviously it has advantages over compressed digital formats like mp3, but i figured CD quality was the best.

Well, that's what the people selling them told us, isn't it?

First, there was the problem of re-releases being the vinyl mix, adjusted to compensate for something (less high frequency volume?) about the vinyl medium. They sounded tinny and nasty on CD. Remixes fixed that, but introduced other faults if the vinyl mix was the only surviving master.

Then there was the problem of the first generations of CD players having rather rubbish digital-to-analogue converters. OK for some music, but definitely inferior to good vinyl when the sound is densely layered.

Then there was the problem of digitally recording and mixing, which was very expensive at first. Just as you want the highest resolution possible before photoshopping a pic, even if you're going to scale it down when you're finished -- recording had to be done at a higher bitrate than the CD it would go on after mixing.

Without digital recording, you had the worst of both worlds, analogue AND digital losses and distortion of information. Again, a lot of re-releases sounded worse than the vinyl equivalent. Mixing could improve it, but not fix it entirely.

CD encoding improved, as did mp3 encoding. They got cleverer about what to discard to make it fit on CD, but the missing information might still be noticeable to some people.

Logic is enough to tell us that a live performance has infinite detail, and no medium can have infinite capacity. CD's were a trade-off between bitrate and playing time, the developers did the best they could with the technology they had. Rumour has it, that the playing time was eventually settled at 74 minutes to accommodate Beethoven's 9th Symphony. It's plausible, since the audiophiles they needed as early adopters are often classical buffs.

If there's one lesson from all this, it's that you can't believe a word the music recording industry says. They told us CD's were indestructible -- bullshit. They told us the sound quality was the best possible -- bullshit. They told us they would become much cheaper than vinyl had been -- bullshit. They're a crew of lying avaricious toads.

Wouldn't it be so either way?

Yeah. I owned a decent SLR film camera once. Shot about ten rolls on it, hardly enough to learn the tricks -- even with black-and-white and free use of a darkroom, film cost is a bitch.

I literally laughed, the day I dropped my SLR in a fountain. I was drunk of course, the intial "oh NO, I didn't just do that!" lasted about one second, and then it was "good riddance you bastard."

This reminds me that I still want to start a vinyl collection. My father used to have a bunch years ago and, regardless of whether or not it sounds better, I want to have it just because...well, there's a certain amount of class involved around it. It is the same with photography. There is something...better about the quality of a photo taken with a good film camera vs. a digital. I can't place my finger on it, but it just looks better to me.

I think it's more the energy you have to invest in a normal photograph than differences in the devices. A friend of mine uses an old glass plate camera for that reason; the picture quality is no different, but you act differently when you have only one shot (literally).

Well, that's what the people selling them told us, isn't it?

First, there was the problem of re-releases being the vinyl mix, adjusted to compensate for something (less high frequency volume?) about the vinyl medium. They sounded tinny and nasty on CD. Remixes fixed that, but introduced other faults if the vinyl mix was the only surviving master.

Then there was the problem of the first generations of CD players having rather rubbish digital-to-analogue converters. OK for some music, but definitely inferior to good vinyl when the sound is densely layered.

Then there was the problem of digitally recording and mixing, which was very expensive at first. Just as you want the highest resolution possible before photoshopping a pic, even if you're going to scale it down when you're finished -- recording had to be done at a higher bitrate than the CD it would go on after mixing.

Without digital recording, you had the worst of both worlds, analogue AND digital losses and distortion of information. Again, a lot of re-releases sounded worse than the vinyl equivalent. Mixing could improve it, but not fix it entirely.

CD encoding improved, as did mp3 encoding. They got cleverer about what to discard to make it fit on CD, but the missing information might still be noticeable to some people.

Logic is enough to tell us that a live performance has infinite detail, and no medium can have infinite capacity. CD's were a trade-off between bitrate and playing time, the developers did the best they could with the technology they had. Rumour has it, that the playing time was eventually settled at 74 minutes to accommodate Beethoven's 9th Symphony. It's plausible, since the audiophiles they needed as early adopters are often classical buffs.

If there's one lesson from all this, it's that you can't believe a word the music recording industry says. They told us CD's were indestructible -- bullshit. They told us the sound quality was the best possible -- bullshit. They told us they would become much cheaper than vinyl had been -- bullshit. They're a crew of lying avaricious toads.

Sure, the industry is greedy, always has been, always will be. Apart from that, the technical stuff you're trying to say doesn't make sense. You're speaking nonsense and contradict yourself. You imply vinyl has more "information" than CD? What are you talking about? CD has far more range than vinyl, so what is this info you speak of? It's all in the recording. You can't judge digital music based on analog conversions, that's moot. Judge pure digital vs analog only.

Oh yeah... school disco then? :D

Why would I go to the school disco when I could stay home and either be in NSG or play the 360?

Neat-oh! Unless you wanted to listen to music on New Year's Eve, your old Zune is fine.

*snicker* Until February 28, when it will think it's New Year's Eve, and send up some fireworks. :tongue:

The Zune locked up not my entire music collection.

They figured out the Zune problem. Apparently Zune doesnt do leap years well and this year had 366 days and it make Zunes head hurt.

Actually MS has done an excellent job making XP. It was, and is, the most useful, versatile and easy-to-use OS on the market. I'm not going to say it's perfect (it's clearly not), but neither am I going to jump ship because it doesn't do what I want it to.

My brother had a Zune 30gb for a while, until the software somehow stopped working properly. He eventually fixed the program, but decided to get something a little more open from Creative (a Zen), which doesn't require specific software to use.

Zounes blow up (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/mobile-tech/65698.html?wlc=1230764406)

fanboys, any thoughts?

Let's check their track record.

PC crashes as Bill Gates attaches Printer to PC during public demonstration.
X-Box gets string of complaints about the HDD and "Red Ring O Death"

Windows XP, Vista, ME, etc...

and this problem with Zune surprises people?

Actually MS has done an excellent job making XP. It was, and is, the most useful, versatile and easy-to-use OS on the market. I'm not going to say it's perfect (it's clearly not), but neither am I going to jump ship because it doesn't do what I want it to.

My brother had a Zune 30gb for a while, until the software somehow stopped working properly. He eventually fixed the program, but decided to get something a little more open from Creative (a Zen), which doesn't require specific software to use.

Not when XP first came out. Took them two Service Packs to get it right. I believe the SMOOTHEST program from lauchdate has been Win 3.1.

and YES... Creative ROCKS!

Let's check their track record.

PC crashes as Bill Gates attaches Printer to PC during public demonstration.
X-Box gets string of complaints about the HDD and "Red Ring O Death"

Windows XP, Vista, ME, etc...

and this problem with Zune surprises people?

the thing is, and I have to wonder, in the grand scheme of things, are microsoft products really THAT buggy, or is it just the damned scale of it?

and YES... Creative ROCKS!
Huh... tell that to thousands of Zen Touch owners.

Terrible, terrible after-sales support.

the thing is, and I have to wonder, in the grand scheme of things, are microsoft products really THAT buggy, or is it just the damned scale of it?

more like holes in Quality control.

For the most part, some of their glitches I put to being new. but for a company that is practically the home computer industry, they should be more carefull about some of the bugs that comes out. X-Box and Zune I credit to them being new in that feild.

the thing is, and I have to wonder, in the grand scheme of things, are microsoft products really THAT buggy, or is it just the damned scale of it?

Both. Unfortunately one also increases the other - because MS is so big, rich and influential it can afford to produce inferior products that nevertheless will get rid of competitors.

Huh... tell that to thousands of Zen Touch owners.

Terrible, terrible after-sales support.

which is why I have a MuVo!

which is why I have a MuVo!
Which is why I use 3rd Party firmware.

What's with all the gloating? It's just an mp3 player!

Of course they're all inferior to my Creative Zen Micro... it has a radio..

What's with all the gloating? It's just an mp3 player!

It's similar to this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/perspective.png

;)

What's with all the gloating? It's just an mp3 player!

Of course they're all inferior to my Creative Zen Micro... it has a radio..

Creative MuVo has a radio. came in very handy when our power goes out.

What's with all the gloating? It's just an mp3 player!

Of course they're all inferior to my Creative Zen Micro... it has a radio..

Its just good fun, I think ( stupid Apple Fanboy's wacking off to Steve jobs, I swear they'll buy a turd in a plastic bag if it said apple on it )

But anyway, my Zune is amazing, it has a Radio, and Unlimited Song downloads from the Zune store, for only 15 bucks a month.

Sure, the industry is greedy, always has been, always will be. Apart from that, the technical stuff you're trying to say doesn't make sense. You're speaking nonsense and contradict yourself. You imply vinyl has more "information" than CD?

Clearly the length of my post has overtaxed your patience. Sorry about that. :tongue:

I did not imply that vinyl has more information than CD. I said that both methods of encoding lose part of the essentially infinite information available in the live performance. They do it differently: vinyl by physical limitations of the plastic and the needle and the coil in the needle; CD by the bitrate limitation chosen for the format.

Most people find the CD to have better fidelity. I certainly prefer them. But some people can detect limitations in it which are not there in vinyl.

What are you talking about? CD has far more range than vinyl, so what is this info you speak of?

If you're going to call me for technical mistakes, you'll have to be a bit more precise in your terms. Define "range."

Dynamic range, the capacity of the medium to render quiet sounds above the noise level (and yes, digital amps have excellent signal-to-noise, but not infinite) while also rendering loud sounds accurately ... is one meaning of range.

I suspect you mean frequency response range: the ability to render low and high frequencies accurately. If I addressed your post as respectfully as you are addressing mine, I could really make you look silly here. But I won't.

You might want to look at the meaning of the word "bandwidth." That's the information carrying capacity of a medium.

CD's have a hard limit on bandwidth, it's 1411.2 kbit/s. 16-bit PCM.
Vinyl has limits, it depends on the quality of the pressing and the playing equipment. But if you digitized the signal from a good player (so you're comparing like with like) it would come out higher than CD's hard limit. There would also be distortions but that isn't my point: my point is that both media have limits and the limits are different.

It's all in the recording.

What? You honestly think the only limit on sound quality in the CD format is the recording?

You can't judge digital music based on analog conversions, that's moot. Judge pure digital vs analog only.

"Pure digital" is another vague term. Doesn't a singing voice need to be converted to digital in the studio, as it's recorded?

Look, my whole post was about the history of CD's.

If you're even remotely interested, you will see I'm not playing the same game as you. I'm not comparing pure digital vs. analog or engaging in some dick-waving contest about which one is better.

I'm talking about the decisions made in inventing the format. And the way those compromises were misrepresented as "perfect sound" when clearly they are not, and can't be.

If the inventers of CD had been a bit more open to the knowledge available in the computing world they were essentially entering by going digital, they could have used compression from the get-go, and made CD's the same size, the same playing time, but with at least twice the bandwidth. Perhaps some audiophiles would still quibble about the sound, but far fewer.

Clearly the length of my post has overtaxed your patience. Sorry about that. :tongue:

Some of us don't like wading thorugh rhetoric for it's sake. Different folks...

Most people find the CD to have better fidelity. I certainly prefer them. But some people can detect limitations in it which are not there in vinyl.

Some people imagine things. Now you're pulling away from "limitation" as a tangible term and trying to make it broad and subjective. There is no need for rhetoric to simply say that some people like how vinyl sounds, this much is obvious.

The point is that it's not because of anything other than the preference for a certain type of sound warping, if you want to call that a "limitation" of CD, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with higher technical sound specs.

I suspect you mean frequency response range: the ability to render low and high frequencies accurately. If I addressed your post as respectfully as you are addressing mine, I could really make you look silly here. But I won't.

Somebody spouting off rhetoric won't make me look silly to anyone I'd respect. And yes, I mean everything from dynamic range, to frequency response. In short, by any numerical basis, digital is better than vinyl.

You might want to look at the meaning of the word "bandwidth." That's the information carrying capacity of a medium.

CD's have a hard limit on bandwidth, it's 1411.2 kbit/s. 16-bit PCM.
Vinyl has limits, it depends on the quality of the pressing and the playing equipment. But if you digitized the signal from a good player (so you're comparing like with like) it would come out higher than CD's hard limit.

You're speaking nonsense, sorry. You are contradicting yourself. Obviously, analog is not quantized, but that doesn't mean it will equate to an infinite measure of it. If you are going to record vinyl into digital, that would be an arbitrary decision in frequency/quantization, not a 1:1 conversion. Saying the resulting digital format would come out "higher" than CD is meaningless because it would be your decision to record it higher.

We were talking about the analog sound itself vs digital. You can't measure the time/signal resolution of analog, and it is not higher nor better due to the physics of the media. That does have science behind it. And "analog" by definition makes it inaccurate.

There would also be distortions but that isn't my point: my point is that both media have limits and the limits are different.

Nice backpedal. My point was never against the idea that both are different. My point is that digital is better fidelity, more accurate, better in general. Vinyl has an effect some people like.



What? You honestly think the only limit on sound quality in the CD format is the recording?

No. But in the case of judging digital that was recorded on analog equipment, yes. It needed to be recorded on digital to be judged properly by your criteria.

"Pure digital" is another vague term. Doesn't a singing voice need to be converted to digital in the studio, as it's recorded?

Pedantry. I thought we were talking about sound reproduction, particularly vinyl, not vocal cords.

[..]

Nice backpedal. My point was never against the idea that both are different. My point is that digital is better fidelity, more accurate, better in general.

If you compare both high end analogue and digital equipment, any quantifiable difference in fidelity will almost certainly not be able to be picked up from a normal persons ears, unless you're really really trained to know the differences. Fidelity, once it gets to a certain point, is not particularly important, it's actually all about the 'effects people like'.

If you compare both high end analogue and digital equipment, any quantifiable difference in fidelity will almost certainly not be able to be picked up from a normal persons ears, unless you're really really trained to know the differences. Fidelity, once it gets to a certain point, is not particularly important, it's actually all about the 'effects people like'.

That's fine, but that's a matter of preference. I prefer accuracy, and so do other people. Also, the main issue here was vinyl vs cd anyways.

That's fine, but that's a matter of preference. I prefer accuracy, and so do other people.

Huh? What do you mean here?


Also, the main issue here was vinyl vs cd anyways.

When did I say it wasn't?

Some frantic Zune owners described a possible fix that requires a user to crack the device's case, disconnect the battery, wait at least 30 seconds, and reconnect it.

However, since cracking a Zune voids its warranty, perhaps the smartest course of action is to wait a while.
Wait, what? A player that you can't JUST DAMN RESET without voiding the warranty?

That's a piece of shit, whatever the circumstances.

If you compare both high end analogue and digital equipment, any quantifiable difference in fidelity will almost certainly not be able to be picked up from a normal persons ears, unless you're really really trained to know the differences. Fidelity, once it gets to a certain point, is not particularly important, it's actually all about the 'effects people like'.
That is true.

This point, where effects overtake quality, comes at about $2000 per electronic component, $3000 for a pair of loudspeakers. Until then, you get pretty solid quality rise with price, although some companies are better than others.

It's an interesting question. Vinyl fanatics insist that the medium carries through some quality (warmth) which digital encoding loses.
This has to do with frequency spectrum. Vinyl, properly played, entirely avoids DAC-caused distortions, which are mostly an unpleasant coloration at the top of the frequency range.


In accuracy, LPs have nothing against digital,
Only if by digital you mean SACD or DVD-A.

CDDA has quite crappy resolution - so poor in fact that even movie DVDs use a higher sample rate.


Today it's no contest, digital equipment is better in too many ways over analog.
Yes, there is such equipment, but you have never seen a single piece of it in person, and probably never will.

I'm not picking at you, no, it's just that you're more likely to drive a Ferrari than to have ever seen this equipment.

the only quality micro-swuft has that i know of is the quality of greed. the xp os i'm running seems reasonable enough. it serves, and came bundled with my current hardware.

i don't really have strong feelings one way or the other, although there are some things i find offensive. for one, i DON'T believe in anything i pay for in way having any right to lock me out of any part of it.

i know that's not the current philosophy about 'intellectual property' in the dominant culture, but then i don't entirely see eye to eye with that either.

i'm 100% in favor of universal public domain. period.

If the inventers of CD had been a bit more open to the knowledge available in the computing world they were essentially entering by going digital, they could have used compression from the get-go, and made CD's the same size, the same playing time, but with at least twice the bandwidth.
Yes, but:
- Not twice, about 1.4-1.6 times more.
- CDs would often "stumble" in playback, as CDDA has no correction bits.
- CD players would not be offered for any less than $2,000 until 1997-1999.
- Even now, they would start at $400. ANY CD players. Even portable ones.



I find that rock music, stuff like zep, sounds better on vinyl, for one thing I don't think vinyl's were affected so much by the loudness wars but I may be wrong with that.
That's correct. Vinyl has been positioned for people who actually do have audio equipment (not a plastic boom box for the price of a box of wine), so the recordings weren't ruined this way. It's a major factor alongside better frequency resolution and dynamic range.
The same thing helps SACD and to a lesser extent DVD-A.

The point is that it's not because of anything other than the preference for a certain type of sound warping, if you want to call that a "limitation" of CD, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with higher technical sound specs.
It's not a preference, and it has everything to do with the low specs of CDDA sound.



And yes, I mean everything from dynamic range, to frequency response. In short, by any numerical basis, digital is better than vinyl.
Digital SACD and DVD-A can be considered slightly better.

CDDA is a crappy low-resolution format and does not compare to vinyl in any way. If your sound says otherwise, you need to replace the needle on your turntable with something more decent.

Just download any decent 24/96 Vinyl-rip and listen to it. (I hope you don't use a Sound Blaster, Audigy or X-Fi soundcard, do you?)
It will come clear.

Just download any decent 24/96 Vinyl-rip and listen to it. (I hope you don't use a Sound Blaster, Audigy or X-Fi soundcard, do you?)
It will come clear.

You've taken your nice analogue vinyl and digitized it! Why would you do that???

What's with all the gloating? It's just an mp3 player!

Of course they're all inferior to my Creative Zen Micro... it has a radio..

So does the Zune. Does the Zen have wireless sync also?

You've taken your nice analogue vinyl and digitized it! Why would you do that???
To be able to transfer it through the bittorrent protocol to people not so lucky as to have proper LP equipment and certain rare vinyls.

While digitization into 24/96 FLAC does harm the sound somewhat, it's still a lot better than you get from any CD. Somewhere around DVD-A and SACD rather.

So does the Zune. Does the Zen have wireless sync also?

No but it is quite heavy. If you were to put it in a sock and swing it at someone they'd be less than appreciative.

This problem may have more complex origins. All of the Zune devices are based on the Windows CE OS.

aka Windows Castrated Edition. Lol...

Win2k (and even WinXP) still pwn all other Winversions.

Actually WinCE is more reliable than other Windows versions. It's even supposed to be a RTOS, although fails at serious applications.

Still, the big fail is in putting too much useless software into the device - while knowing that their software has a tendency to fail.

I own neither a Zune nor an iPod, I own a Sandisk Sansa Player. From having toyed around with both players, I do prefer the Zune over the iPod (largely because you can get a Brown Zune), but it's not a particularly stark difference.

As far as overall Microsoft quality, I've had good experiences with it in the realm of OS, Video Games and their Office Suite. I've generally considered them to be of a fairly high quality.

Actually WinCE is more reliable than other Windows versions. It's even supposed to be a RTOS, although fails at serious applications.

Still, the big fail is in putting too much useless software into the device - while knowing that their software has a tendency to fail.

Personally I have been happy to see the prorogation with XPe over WinCE lately ... The company I work for deals with a lot of Thin clients for customers and XPe has a much stronger feature set (and ability to deal with 3rd party applications) as well as more stable and better hardware support

To be able to transfer it through the bittorrent protocol to people not so lucky as to have proper LP equipment and certain rare vinyls.

While digitization into 24/96 FLAC does harm the sound somewhat, it's still a lot better than you get from any CD. Somewhere around DVD-A and SACD rather.

Yeah I have gone down the same path but more for my own personal listening, the ability to have it with me on my laptop or convert it to another format for use in car is beneficial to me as well as owning the actual vinyl for when I am at home

That and my collection has so many originals I want to reduce playtime on the actual vinyl if possible

Yes, there is such equipment, but you have never seen a single piece of it in person, and probably never will.

Incorrect. I've seen CDs vs vinyl records. CDs are better.

I'm not picking at you, no, it's just that you're more likely to drive a Ferrari than to have ever seen this equipment.

You're just picking your nether-region, it seems.

It's not a preference, and it has everything to do with the low specs of CDDA sound.

Digital SACD and DVD-A can be considered slightly better.

CDDA is a crappy low-resolution format and does not compare to vinyl in any way. If your sound says otherwise, you need to replace the needle on your turntable with something more decent.

Complete Bollocks™. Another self-proclaimed sound expert without any proof against technical facts.

Just download any decent 24/96 Vinyl-rip and listen to it. (I hope you don't use a Sound Blaster, Audigy or X-Fi soundcard, do you?)
It will come clear.

I have a record player and can play records, your claims about vinyl are fanboy nonsense outside of technical facts.

Its just good fun, I think ( stupid Apple Fanboy's wacking off to Steve jobs, I swear they'll buy a turd in a plastic bag if it said apple on it )

But anyway, my Zune is amazing, it has a Radio, and Unlimited Song downloads from the Zune store, for only 15 bucks a month.

You forgot to mention the liquidation specials. :)

Btw, Zune suckage aside, iPod isn't great either, and I agree with most of the complaints about it. I have a cowon, and it can play other formats besides wma, useful ones for a change, like ogg vorbis and flac, no crappy special software needed. My next player will be one of those cheap ones that are like flash drives with a little screen on the side, even more universal use. I don't get why they have to make special interfaces software that need special drivers for players that plug into usb anyways. Just make them act like flash drives, problem solved.

I've seen CDs vs vinyl records. CDs are better.
I even agree with you. They're shiny and produce that beautiful small rainbow.


Complete Bollocks™. Another self-proclaimed sound expert without any proof against technical facts.
Your proof, please.
Your "technical facts", please.


I have a record player and can play records, ...[flaming skipped]...
Models please.
Turntable, cartridge, phono preamp.

Also, would be preferable to include the general audio system info - preamp, crossover, power amps, cabling, loudspeakers.

Zounes blow up (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/mobile-tech/65698.html?wlc=1230764406)

fanboys, any thoughts?

Microsoft quality -- There's a real contradiction in terms. Assuming you mean high quality, that is.

Dimesa, Vault 10
Whichever is better between CD's or Vinyls is up to the listener. I love the 'warm hiss' that a Record produces, while CD's offer a longevity and portability that was once reserved for cassette tapes.

yes, I've transferred my Records to MP3's but I still play my Records.

That being said, I have vinyls and a record player. They still sell Records and players because DJ's use them in clubs.

Zune? Never heard of it, I have a Warfdale MP3 player which of course means that I am obligated to no one source for my mp3's and perhaps rather old fashionedly prefer to rip my music from my CD's. So neither Zune nor Ipod for me!