Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

200gb Hack for iPod Nano

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-thats-just-plain-silly dept.

romka1 writes "For people who think their Nano doesn't have enought space for their music there is a hack walkthrough to get 200 gigs on your Nano. Warning some assembly required" For some reason this tickled my funny bone this morning. Enjoy.

13 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Coral cache by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try this link.

  2. Coral cache by rock217 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Coral Cache

    --
    Wah Sig!
  3. Site already slowing down! by nubbie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google cache!
    http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:i22oAfgJYvgJ:u ncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ipod_Nano_200gb_Instructions+ &hl=en&client=firefox-a

    --
    'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
  4. Stupid me by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought this was a serious article for 5 whole seconds. I feel stupid now.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  5. Re:/.ed: Oh My God, They Killed Uncyclopedia! by nazsco · · Score: 2, Informative

    hehe, i'd mod you up, but since i have no mod points, i will earn some karma :)

    coral cache:
    http://uncyclopedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wiki/Ipod_Na no_200gb_Instructions

  6. Other iPod Hacks by wehe · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are many other hacks for the Apple iPod family available already. From the first generation iPods as well as for the iPod Shuffle and iPod mini. You may also find links to hacks for accessories like cables and headphones and batteries.

  7. Re:Only 200GB? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Properly redundant RAID array" would be fine though, since RAID is the technology. It's like "ASP Page" actually turns into "Active Server Pages Page", but that's OK because RAID is only the technology.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  8. Uncyclopedia vs. Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the spring, I saw a "Coming Soon" announcement for Uncyclopedia which said It's like Wikipedia, only you can make shit up!

  9. Re:all recording is lossy by the_wesman · · Score: 2, Informative

    forget playback, forget the imperfections in the equipment, just think of this in purely theoretical terms for a moment....

    when you have a sine wave it is continuous and smooth - now picture a digital representation of that (for this example, we'll talk CD-quality - 16-bit, 44.1KHz) - in the digital representation, you don't have a smooth curve, you have a stair step (I'm not sure if you've taken calc, but think of all those 'area under the curve' problems) - the sine wave gets samples 44,100 times every second which causes the stair step, as the sampling rate increases, the stair steps get smaller and as the limit (of the sampling rate) approaches infinity, the steps get infinitely small, but there will always be a stair-step/jaggy effect - this is the nature of the beast....

    in theory, you can get the stair-steps small enough that "no one" call tell the difference, but the poster is right on, digital is "lossy" in this respect as you can never fully 100% represent an analogue curve. the poster is not talking about long-time signal degredation, but rather the raw mathematical concepts involved in digital simulations of "real world" concepts....

    --
    calling all destroyers
  10. Shannon Sampling Theorem by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Your argument is compelling, intuitive and dead wrong.

    The Shannon Sampling Theorem states:

    When sampling a signal (e.g., converting from an analog signal to digital), the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the bandwidth of the input signal in order to be able to reconstruct the original perfectly from the sampled version.
    To put it into term that you can understand, if your ear cannot detect frequencies higher than 22.05 kilohertz then a sampling rate of 44.1 samples per second can perfectly reproduce any sound you can hear.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Shannon Sampling Theorem by DrJimbo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Your argument is based on jumping around between three different domains:
      • Mathematics
      • Physics
      • Engineering

      You raise the problem of quantization error without mentioning signal to noise ratio. In the real world the signal to noise ratio is never infinite in analog systems. If the quantization errors are random and are well below the noise level in the analog parts of a system then they can be treated as a small component of the analog noise and they don't significantly contribute to any imperfections in the signal.

      You say "humans have limited response to frequencies over 20 [k]Hz". My own tests and tons of scientific studies have shown that humans have a limited response to signals over 15 kHz and no response to signals over 20 kHz.

      You go on to say " [...] even with band limited signals". All signals in the physical universe are time limited and band limited. The real world signals dealt with in audio engineering are even more limited. The only realm where non-band-limited signals exist is in abstract mathematics such as the field of Measure Theory. I've studied Measure Theory and AFAIK, it has no practical application in the real world, either in physics or engineering.

      Your point that all analog systems are eventually non-linear is a good one. Unfortunately that is one of the key arguments why digital computation and reproduction is superior to analog. Your point is also misleading because you do not include the fact that all analog systems also have a finite signal to noise ratio and deal with a limited dynamic range of signals.

      Finally your point that it is often useful to use a sampling rate that is greater than 2x the maximum frequency in the signal is totally valid. This issue is discussed in the article I linked to in my original post. I'm not 100% certain, but I am pretty sure that this engineering limitation is one of the reasons a 44.1 kHz sampling rate was chosen for CDs even though to top range of human hearing was 20 kHz. That extra 10% was to allow for anti-alias filters with a gentle enough slope so that they did not significantly distort the signal in the time domain.

      I agree with you that anti-alias filters (on both input and output) are an essential part of a well designed digital recording system.

      My key point is that claims that physical real-world digital recording systems can't record abstract, mathematically perfect analog signals are misleading and perhaps meaningless.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    2. Re:Shannon Sampling Theorem by anethema · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to let the lazy ones know (since it shows this in the wikipedia link) this is nearly ALWAYS refered to as the nyquist theorum.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  11. Re:illegal warez? by Grotus · · Score: 2, Informative

    He just jumped to the smallest length possible, the Planck length. You pretty much asked for that, since you mentioned quantum mechanics.

    --
    "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH