PDA

View Full Version : ****, sony



pannayar
11-06-2008, 01:09 AM
Bought a sony cdx-gt620ip. I am not a ipod guy but regular mp3/wma CDs.

There are quite a few good things about this unit, but holy crap I just discovered that it has a limitation of around 300 (file + folder names, including all intermediate folders that may not have any songs - like artist/thisfolder/song). I used to get about 300 songs at 64 kbps WMA (which is still ok for car environment) on a regular CD and my older alpine used to deal with it like a charm... but now only 150 of them are read in by the sony, sometimes it really gets on the nerves when great companies design some stupid limitations like this.

It is annoying when the CD has the capacity to hold that many songs, but the player cannot, handle, May have to resort to putting all files in a folder or something like that.

Moreover the manual says the number 300 will be reduced if you have file/folder names that are longer. Why in the world cant they have a bigger buffer inside to hold more file/folder names?! Sony, at some places you really ****.

Had to vent it out!

tEh koRnDog
11-06-2008, 01:11 AM
baahahahah


xplods

skittlesRgood
11-06-2008, 01:23 AM
Bought a sony cdx-gt620ip. I am not a ipod guy but regular mp3/wma CDs.

There are quite a few good things about this unit, but holy crap I just discovered that it has a limitation of around 300 (file + folder names, including all intermediate folders that may not have any songs - like artist/thisfolder/song). I used to get about 300 songs at 64 kbps WMA (which is still ok for car environment) on a regular CD and my older alpine used to deal with it like a charm... but now only 150 of them are read in by the sony, sometimes it really gets on the nerves when great companies design some stupid limitations like this.

It is annoying when the CD has the capacity to hold that many songs, but the player cannot, handle, May have to resort to putting all files in a folder or something like that.

Moreover the manual says the number 300 will be reduced if you have file/folder names that are longer. Why in the world cant they have a bigger buffer inside to hold more file/folder names?! Sony, at some places you really ****.
Had to vent it out!

DUUUHHHH dude sony ***** on everything car audio. sell that bish b4 it breaks.

AllDayMJ
11-06-2008, 01:24 AM
get=pay for.

Linkz
11-06-2008, 01:29 AM
I use on of the CDx HUs. **** *****. But, it gets the job done. I gave up with the mp3 cd's to much trouble. I just use my ipod.

joetama
11-06-2008, 01:33 AM
300 songs at 64 kbps?


Wow, you are a major fan of quality eh?

joetama
11-06-2008, 01:35 AM
Also, how is this Sony's fault?

That would be like me being pissed at Buick for not putting a big enough gas tank in my car because I wanted to drive 100000 miles on super crappy gasoline.

pannayar
11-06-2008, 02:55 PM
No Mr audiophile, it is like your Buick letting you carry only 2 big fat guys but cannot handle 4 slim guys.

joetama
11-06-2008, 04:47 PM
LOL. I like you example there. Creative.

I do see you point, it is always frustrating when a product doesn't do what you want it to do. However, it would be a simple fix to burn 2 CD with half as many songs at 2x the quality. You would have to carry around 2 CDs but that is only 15g and 1.2 mm more. I don't think that is a big deal.

Lil Poot
11-08-2008, 03:23 PM
64kbps??!!! wtf, i can't even stand a 128...

mtlhead
11-08-2008, 03:28 PM
64kbps? really? why not just ride around listening to old vinyls?

Buck
11-08-2008, 03:29 PM
I like my sony.

JK

bubbagumper6
11-08-2008, 03:30 PM
psh I bought a flip out Clarion DVD player and it can only read 500 songs...do you know how many MP3's I could fit on a dvd???? But it will only read 500...epic ****ing fail

GAM3OVR
11-08-2008, 03:34 PM
64kbps?

Who cares about signal to noise ratio right?

mtlhead
11-08-2008, 03:36 PM
64kbps?

Who cares about signal to noise ratio right?


you mean noise to signal ratio

IDSkoT
11-08-2008, 03:37 PM
300 songs at 64 kbps?


Wow, you are a major fan of quality eh?

x2

Anything under 192 I delete. 356kbps is my norm.

pannayar
11-09-2008, 04:02 AM
..

pannayar
11-09-2008, 04:08 AM
in a car/road noisy environment, 64kbps is good enuf for many songs that are somewhat vocal centric and dont have that many fine instrumental sounds...

the point of this thread is not about 64kbps, it is about some lousy limitation in sony's design which you can easily hit, say at 128 kbps, you have lots of 1 min tracks, and with a 2 deep folder structure, the player would end up handling only about 220 of those tracks on a cd, though the cd contains 600 of such songs....

it is like expecting a certain number of people in party, and not being able to handle more people because of all things you did not have some extra paper plates!

jmanpc
11-09-2008, 04:31 AM
64kbps? really? why not just ride around listening to old vinyls?

:hitbrick:

You must think that because it's older technology, it sounds bad.

pannayar
11-09-2008, 04:49 AM
x2

Anything under 192 I delete. 356kbps is my norm.

have you heard of the law of diminishing returns?

GAM3OVR
11-09-2008, 07:03 AM
you mean noise to signal ratio

bahahahahahaha

I lol'ed for a good minute there

probably at that quality noise > music

joetama
11-09-2008, 11:43 AM
64kbps? really? why not just ride around listening to old vinyls?

Compare 64kbps to vinyl?


Its more like infinity kbps to vinyl.

Lil Poot
11-09-2008, 01:13 PM
in a car/road noisy environment, 64kbps is good enuf for many songs that are somewhat vocal centric and dont have that many fine instrumental sounds...

the point of this thread is not about 64kbps, it is about some lousy limitation in sony's design which you can easily hit, say at 128 kbps, you have lots of 1 min tracks, and with a 2 deep folder structure, the player would end up handling only about 220 of those tracks on a cd, though the cd contains 600 of such songs....

it is like expecting a certain number of people in party, and not being able to handle more people because of all things you did not have some extra paper plates!

we get what you're saying, it ***** that cd player doesnt do what you want it to do. sounds like you need a new one if thats what you're after.

what we're sayin is that 64kbps is not even close to being good enough for a car environment. granted, the worse your speakers are, the harder it is to hear a difference. i dont know, maybe on some 20 yr old blown stock speakers, it sounds fine to you, but the fact of the matter is anyone with an upgraded system, which is going to be basically anyone on this site is going to hear the low quality in something with that low of a bitrate.

you can think what you want, tell us we're **** retentive audiophiles and that its all in our heads, but if i sat you in my truck, had 2 versions of the same song, 64k and 196k (which isnt even as high a quality as i normally like) played them back to back, you'd hear a massive difference you wouldnt be able to deny.

I Like Waffle
11-10-2008, 02:37 PM
I bought a sony gtx 210 like 5 years ago before i knew anything about car audio, and had it installed at CC. Not too long ago i passed it down to my little brother, and that mofo is still kicking. Plays mp3 cds like a charm, but ive never used a cd with more than 300 songs, because at that rate theyd have to be like 2 megs a piece, and mine are atleast 5-6 megs each :)

Toone
11-10-2008, 04:04 PM
Never had a problem with sony HU's