Posts by Ben Rose

@GregC - Re: @Ben

"From Google's point of view, how likely is someone who cares enough about quality to rip to a lossless format to buy any music from them, when they provide their music in an inferior (from your POV) format? And if the answer to that question is "not very", which I suspect it is, then where is the benefit to them of providing you with this free service?"

A good point well made.

The answer is that I currently pay both Spotify and Napster for service that doesn't meet my needs. Neither can handle my existing music. Google Play Music can, I never expected to get it for free. Quite happy to pay for a service I receive, I'm no freetard.

@AC 13:48 Re: @AC 12:29

"[anti-apple stuff]"

Google Play Music integrates well with iTunes. It imports playlist, podcast and (some) music. It will even maintain the link so as you rip new CDs they automatically get uploaded to Google Music. They aren't scared to work with Apple stuff, they just clearly don't know how it works.

@AC - Re: @AC Good idea, poorly executed

"FLAC halves the size of audio, at best. 320k mp3 is about 1/6th the size. It's a resources thing."

Indeed, ALAC is about the same size as FLAC.

"Demanding lossless quality for free, scaled to Google magnitudes just seems a bit shrill and moon on a stick at this juncture, I'm afraid. Give it N years until bandwidth and storage dwarfs audio by another order of magnitude, and then maybe it will be a reasonable expectation. Right now, it isn't."

Indeed, not demanding that. It should just transcode during upload, as it does for FLAC and apparently WMAL.

"Since you're obviously listening in a properly treated listening room with good quality monitors, or in a very quiet solitary room with open-backed cans, to actually merit this, surely you can afford to store your own stuff?"

Sure, but not on my Samsung S3. My lossless library is ~300GB. No mobile handset can handle that right now, hence my excitement in migrating the data to Google Music whilst maintaining my lossless library for home use.

@hokum Re: Good idea, poorly executed

I don't ONLY use Spotify. I ripped losslessly to enjoy my music at home direct from the ripped source.

On the move, I'd be happy with a 320kbps source, as I am with Spotify, but Google Play Music refuses to convert it.

Re: Good idea, poorly executed

"The only 2 options for not using ALAC are Piracy or apathy? I don't think that washes somehow...."

It's called a sensationalist post, but it wasn't far off the mark. Google have made a decision to not allow any iTunes users who ripped in ANY lossless codec to port their music. Not just ALAC, but AIFF and WAV aren't supported either. They excludes a massive proportion of the market.

"I wouldn't use ALAC (I am not sure if you knew this, but it isn't as widely supported as many other formats)"

For sure, but it has considerably better support than FLAC.

"and you appear to be cutting your nose off to spite your face if you are forcing yourself to pay an additional monthly fee rather than convert your tracks to suitable format."

I pay for Spotify for new music anyway, it's just not as convenient to have my library cluttered with stuff I already own. There are also massive gaps in their collections, for example The KLF deleted its back catalogue years ago - the only place to hear it is on my CD rips.

@Craigness Re: Good idea, poorly executed

"If only there were some way to convert them to some format Google understands."

I'm still looking for a way that will convert ALAC to another lossless codec and preserve all tags and album art. There are many tools that will create a FLAC version or similar, but they break the tagging.

Also, I then lose iTunes support...and all my playlists break.

@Tim Parker Re: Good idea, poorly executed

"It supports FLAC"

But FLAC doesn't work in iTunes. Sure, it works in dozens of music managers that were created since then but, when I ripped, they simply didn't exist.

@Mike Judge Re: Good idea, poorly executed

"Note the APPLE bit. You ripped all your music into a Apple proprietary format, and expect someone that's not Apple to care? I have recently come to the conclusion Apple owners are too stupid to understand the word "proprietary", and what the resulting problems are..."

Could you be more anti-Apple? You just make yourself sound like a tunnel visioned fool? I don't like Apple either, but at least I'm level headed on this stuff.

"You could of course ripped it into FLAC, and everything would have been fine. All Android devices like FLAC lossless, as does the music uploader..."

Even Android FLAC support was limited until recent times. Of course, Android phones didn't exist when I ripped, I was on a Nokia Communicator back then. FLAC is nice for you digital music n00Bs though.

@AC Re: Good idea, poorly executed

"Hey fanboi, why use a proprietary codec like ALAC, when there is FLAC, which has way more support, including your precious Sonos and Google Play Music Manager...?"

I ripped all my music in mp3 (192 var) and wasn't happy with the quality or the tagging. I decided if I was going to do it again, I was going to do it properly.

I know all you digital music n00Bs like to rave about FLAC but, back when I ripped, it sucked. Firstly, there was no hardware support. Actually, there still is very little support from any manufacturer. Almost no mp3 player on sale supports that codec.

I wanted a lossless codec that supported all the tags I required, embedded album art and gapless playback. FLAC simply couldn't do this. Apple Lossless could and had greater device compatibility.

I'm no Apple fan, never owned a Mac, never wanted an iPhone. The iPod (old, B&W screen) was a gift and led me to use iTunes. It worked. It worked well. I've never bought any music from Apple either, always CDs.

Fair to say that a massive majority of the market is currently taken up by Apple devices. Those who own them and ripped their CDs are being offered a migration path to Google Play Music, they even give you an option to automatically upload new music you add to iTunes. Sadly this migration path doesn't work as it only supports a couple of codecs.

I don't expect Google to store fall lossless rips, happy for them to transcode as they do for FLAC, but to not support codecs that have been around for donkeys years seems a bit short sighted and, from what I've seen searching the net, is losing them potential customers.

Re: @Stacy pedant alert...

Stacy,

I don't even know where to begin replying to that but you need to a) understand what an explosion is and b) appreciate that detonation also affect rotary engines that don't have any pistons.

You also need to appreciate that battery tech does exactly what you talk of now, it's ready, just not required.

@TeeCee - Re: Pointless

"Electrics and PHEVs have another trick up their sleeves. Your power station is an order of magnitude more efficient than your car's engine at turning fossil fuels into electricity. Even with all the losses thereafter getting it to your wheels, it still wins."

Depends how you measure efficiency. If you measure in terms of CO2 output, EV/PHV is not significantly better.

@Danny 14 Re: @Lee

@Danny 14,

You're believing hype I'm afraid.

"How much does a major 3 year service cost on a prius (with those batteries?)"

Batteries require no servicing, ever. They will last the lifetime of the car.

The Prius will also have a higher residual value over the same period.

Re: Yet more Uk Eco madness...

"Wow, I would love to see your battery - stopping a 1500kg car once from 100km/h is about 40kj - that's a lot of energy to store, let along dump into a battery (via a rubber belt, no less) over the few seconds when you're braking. And what's the point of doing so? Without electric drive, the battery is only used for starting - there's no requirement for that energy. Maybe things are different on stop/start cars (or you live in a seriously hot climate!), but once running, a car's electrics run on the alternator. I have a feeling you're out on this one, the physics just don't stack up."

Cars fitted with stop/start don't rely on a standard 12v. It would run flat far too quickly in a stop/start configuration. Instead they usually have an additionally battery in the boot charged from KERS.

There is a massive power draw on modern cars - A/C, stereo, GPS etc - this ticks over OK when the engine is running but when the engine goes off it kills a normal 12V very quickly.

"But whatever. Efficiency should be a concern anywhere the resource is limited, so if you believe oil is a limited resource (limited as in not made by pixies, not as in running out next month) then this stuff is worth pursuing."

Sure, oil is potentially limited and could run out in a couple of generations time. It would be a waste not to make use of what is there though, rather than deploy terribly poor alternatives.

"Batting it around here is pointless, there have been plenty of studies done on the whole cycle before and I'm not saying anything controversial or even new. Google "well to wheel efficiency", if you're genuininely interested in this stuff take a look"

Yes, I wrote many of those articles on-line and in print.

"Again, to reiterate, I'm just referring to efficiency (which is physics), not infrastructure (which is politics)."

Comparing the local efficiency of two different fuels in rather pointless. KInda like saying that boiling a kettle is more efficient than heating up an oven. You can't exactly bake a potato in a kettle.

@Stacy Re: pedant alert...

"Sorry, but I have to correct something. Engines do not 'explode' hydrocarbons. If you do (in a petrol engine) it has the name pinking, and can cause serious damage to the engine. You burn the fuel."

Actually, pinking isn't so bad. Detonation is the real issue. Even in controlled combustion, it is still explosive however...by definition...that's why the piston moves.

"However, I agree the internal combustion engine is old, inefficient technology. But until I can load up my V70 and set off on a 1600km journey knowing that when the battery is flat it's only a short stop and I'm moving again it won't be something usable."

Sounds like you're be buying the Volvo V60 plug-in hybrid.

"Plus I want the performance of the petrol car. They may not be efficient but they can provide a lot of power almost instantly. EV's are not there yet..."

Incorrect. EVs provide the most instant power possible. They go to max torque almost instantaneously.

"This Prius, despite being smaller, slipper and lighter, is still 4 seconds off of the V70 0-60 pace."

Don't have the figures to hand, but this is purely down to the chosen output of the vehicle. My old Lexus hybrid was the fastest production saloon at launch...largely due to the electric motor.

" Electric motors can be powerful enough, but if I understand correctly the batteries cannot release the power quick enough to propel a real sized car at any decent pace yet."

Incorrect. They just run out of juice too quickly for a practical application.

Re: VW Golf Twin Drive @TeeCee

"Intermittant usage of a diesel engine with mandatory DPF?"

DPFs are not mandatory. Just one of the few ways of making dirty engines appear to be clean at the tailpipe. It is possible to make a cleaner engine that doesn't require one.

Re: Elephant in the room

"I use LPG.

It saves me about £150 a month

As to fitting I prefer DIY"

Unless a certified install, it likely invalidates your insurance and is illegal.

All fitted parts must carry a logo for EU approval. They can only be purchased by legal installers. Unless you are one, you're likely a potential fireball on our roads.

Re: Elephant in the room

"LPG conversion costs about £1000 on your existing car, saves you half your money on petrol, and does the same (and also zero road tax, I believe)."

Except a decent conversion usually cost a bit more than that. It will also invalidate any warranty on your car, although the LPG installer may cover some bits. It will also take up a large proportion of your boot, or require you to lose your spare wheel if you already have one. It's also not always congetion charge exempt. It also won't usually give you zero road tax, but you may be eligible for a reduction. It's also not available for many modern cars due to incompatibility with fuel injectors. LPG is cheaper but you need more or it to go the same distance which, given the small gas tank, means you have to refuel a lot to get the full benefit. Apart from that, it's great ;)

Re: Other than the steering wheel on the wrong side...

"I sense engine creep, the Prius started with a 1.5L engine, now has 1.8L? Damn Americans and their quest for more power... other than those two items and the price, not bad."

Toyota swapped from a 1.5litre engine to a 1.8 when the 3rd gen Prius was released. Running a large engine at lower revs proved to be more efficient than the smaller power plant at higher revs for the same output.

The 1.8 is used in Prius, Prius+, Plug-in Prius, Auris Hybrid and Lexus CT200h. The smaller 1.5 is now in the Yaris hybrid.

Re: Yet more Uk Eco madness...

"Ben, I'm afraid you've missed most if not all of my points. Kinetic recovery on a modern car? Nope. On an electric hybrid yes, but not on a normal car - you need electric motors (=generators) on the wheels."

No, you need a modified alternator anywhere on the driveshaft. They very much exist on any modern car with stop/start functionality and provide the power required to restart the engine and power A/C whilst stationary.

"And I'm not claiming fuel burned in an IC engine would be otherwise "wasted" - that's a daft argument, clearly we're going to be burning oil for many years to come. But doing so on a small scale will never be as efficient as doing so in a centralised plant."

Centralising power generation has some efficiency improvements but there are massive losses on the supply network (circa 10-20%). Also, there is no efficient means of storing the generated power, so it can't really be used on the move.

"You could conceivably make the case for internal combustion based on the existing infrastructure, on energy density, or on ease of storage, but you can't make it based on efficiency. It is a markedly inferior technology."

Efficiency is only a concern when the waste product is a true loss. It isn't here.

Re: The other big elephant in the room

Indeed Jim, I touched on this above. In real terms, these are arguably less efficient than their non-plug predecessors.

Also, 525g CO2 is an average for power generation. The effective footprint for EVs is much higher, as all the low emissions output is already allocated to existing electricity users. Over 800g CO2/kWh for coal sourced power.

Re: Thank you Reg for the mileage comment

David,

That "pull a Saw" idea is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Captures pretty well how I feel, if you need help arranging it...count me in :-D

As for the turbine generator idea, maybe it will work one day. The closest thing to that in production is the Ampera/Volt but the charging power from its engine is insufficient to supply enough charge in the most demanding of situations. So, instead, it has to connect directly to the wheels sometimes. Until battery charging is somehow made more efficient, this will always be the case.

Re: Are they environmentally friendly?

"Very much so, my last one I had did 200mpg on a bad day back in the 70s

The 250cc bikes I used for years would do 60mpg being thrashed and 80mpg at 80mph."

Being enviromentally friendly isn't at all the same as having a high fuel economy. Common misconception.

Scooters are noisy because a lot of engine noise is allowed to escape. This is down to the straight through exhaust on the back which has minimal filters, no Catalytic converters etc.

Re: Why don't they make the cable lockable?

"Maybe make the standard cable that comes with the car lockable by closing the flap (it can always be unplugged the other end) and one at a communal top up station larger which doesn't allow for closing the flap?

Not too hard so I can't see that being the reason."

Any owner who used one full-time (not a magazine reviewer) would have a dedicated charging point installed in their home. Most of these allow the cable to be locked at the premises end to prevent theft.

The reviewer used an extension cable (not recommend my mnfr) which meant the domestic end of the plug was likely outside his premises and insecure.

Re: Ampera

But how much do you think the CVT transmisson of the Prius (is deos have one, the engine is not connected directly to the wheels) will cost to replace if it dies?

Pretty cheap, that's why CVT boxes were developed in the first place. They don't have separate gears like a conventional gearbox and therefore less moving parts required.

> Or the batteries?

Last the lifetime of the car.

Or the regenerative braking system?

They call that an alternator on most cars. Most modern diesels also have regenerative braking to recharge the stop/start system.

>Or the logic board that controls it all?

Clutching at straws? All vehicles have an ECU.

>Or the large LCD display?

Any car with sat nav has one of these.

>Or any other of the systems that your Diesel car didn't have?

It actually has much less. Modern diesel have many systems not fitted to standard petrol cars such as turbos, SCR and bigger catalytic converters.

>Cars cost money when they break - don't think that the Prius is a simple 'mechano' car that has nothing to go >wrong on you - I don't think it could be further from the truth!

It is one of the most reliable cars ever built and Toyota have less faults with them than anything else they've ever sold. Reliability is a genuine benefit here.

Re: Yet more Uk Eco madness...

"Regardless of the merits of this car, you really still think that the most energy efficient way to move a car around is the 120-year old internal combustion engine?"

Aha, another Robert Llewellyn reader?

"Even now it's 25% efficient at best."

Somewhat disagree with your figure but, even if it were true, efficiency isn't entirely important here. Crude oil has no use in the ground. When it comes out, it is used for many things such a plastic that is even used in electric cars. From those fractions, the fuel fractions have one use...as a fuel. So you claim it's 25% efficient? It's 25% efficient at converting oil that is not much use for anything else into motion. On the other hand, electricity has many uses...like powering this computer.

" You're exploding hydrocarbons but using only the expansion energy, wasting the generated heat."

The heat is used to warm the car, something electric cars are very inefficient at doing on a cold day. It's used to heat the catalytic converter, to reduce emissions and used to heat the oil to improve efficiency.

"The engines are small and relatively heavy, they are slow to power up which means you've got to leave them idling even when stationary."

Most modern cars have stop/start functions. They don't need to idle when stationary at all.

"They can only power acceleration, which means an equal amount of energy required to stop the car is wasted."

Most modern cars have kinetic energy recovery systems on board. In this model, it is used to charge the batteries. Enough energy is harvested to turn the engine off for 40% of a typical 40 miles journey.

"Finally, they're widely distributed and there are loads of them, which means improvement, or replacement with a better technology, is expensive and time-consuming"

Agreed, but the same can be said for battery improvements on EVs.

"None of this applies to electric"

It does.

"even if it's generated at a central station burning gas or oil - large plants are 60% efficient, and you can swap them out for renewables or nuclear as they come on line without modifying the car.

Efficiency in pure energy terms maybe but, as I said above, "wasting" energy stored in petrol isn't a waste. It's simply releasing energy from nature and putting it back into the world in another form. It will also be a long time before renewables/nuclear meet electricity demand and remove our dependence on fossil fuels.

"The only advantage internal combustion has is power-density, ease of storage and the existing distribution network for hydrocarbons, but that's a tick for convenience, not for efficiency."

Pretty much an advantage in every area then? There isn't much efficiency in not using oil supplies, considering their energy content.

" It's like claiming copper is better than fibre optic simply because it's already run to your house."

It's better if you don't have cable in your street ;O)

Re: What I find objectionable is

"Yes but why do mopeds pay it?"

Are they environmentally friendly?

Re: Yet more Uk Eco madness...

If only the TwinAir delivered anything like it's claimed economy in practice.

Agree with your first point, but hybrids do generally make things more efficient. In the case of the Prius anyway, the Ampera doesn't work too good in this area.

Re: Elephant in the room @Geoff

Geoff: "The battery is also charged by regenerative braking. Has anyone here except me ever driven one? The comments are suggesting not."

And where does the energy in the braking come from? Kinetic energy...movement. And where does the movement come from? The petrol engine.

The regnerative braking reduces losses, it doesn't create energy. I've been a hybrid owners for years but I also know how they work.

Re: What I find objectionable is

Road tax is no longer the road usage charge it used to be, this is all been put into fuel duty. They are now using VED purely as an eco tax, to drive people into smaller more efficient vehicles.

Where it fails is with EVs, which don't buy and fuel and therefore pay no fuel tax. Instead, they increase demand for domestic electricity and make it more expensive for the rest of us.

Re: Why don't they make the cable lockable?

Cables generally don't lock on to allow other EV owners to use the charging cable if your charging is completed long before you return to your vehicle.

If you parked at a petrol pump, filled up and then left your car there with the nozzle in the fuel tank whilst you went shopping; that wouldn't be popular either.

Re: Elephant in the room

"Battery cost matters on a true electric car like a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Roadster. It doesn't matter on a Prius, because it's just a medium size petrol car with a battery bolted on to pull it down the tax bands a bit. Most Priuses will drive on engine power for 99% of the time, so even if the battery falls to 10% of original (meagre) capacity it will have no real effect."

Not entirely sure what you're on about but a standard Prius engine won't be running for 40% of a typical 40 miles journey. Even less on the plug-in version as the battery only range is further. This reduces cost to run, but increases cost to buy.

Re: Elephant in the room @JP19

Geoff,

The original Prius did have an EV mode but the only way to charge the battery was to start the engine...using petrol. Hardly "battery only", as I believe JP19 was alluding too.

Re: Elephant in the room

I partially agree but wind power and solar installations do actually reduce our need for fossil fuels. Electric cars only increases electricity demand, and therefore the amound of coal/gas that is burned.

Read the article

This is a normal hybrid car with a plug-in option. Read the article before picking a fault that doesn't exist.

Re: Elephant in the room

Agreed. Considering the Government is broke and cutting welfare, why are we wasting money subsidising overpriced cars?

Re: Ampera

It's too expensive.

It cost no more than replacing your Merc with a like for like. There's a reason for that. 1) It's not like for like 2) It's not a Merc.

It's way too expensive and costs massively more than similar alternatives. You're also dreaming on the MPG front. If you plug it in every day and only do a few miles, you could claim an infinite mpg if you like - that would be similarly pointless. The Ampera will NEVER go one hundred miles on a single gallon of fuel, even on a full charge. Neither will this Prius. I find the mpg figures for plug-in cars to be utterly misleading.

You reckon the extra £10k is better in the car than in the bank? Wrong, it would be better in the bank buying fuel for a significantly cheaper alternative.

Re: Who knows?

Who knows?

Anybody who has actually checked. It doesn't do it.

If you've worked in IT long enough, as I'm sure many here have, you'll quickly realise that users can be REALLY stupid.

Re: What's in it for GOOG?

Google make money from advertising services. When somebody looks at Maps, business like restaurants want to be seen. They pay Google to be there and be highly ranked when somebody searches for a restaurant in that area. Google Maps is just a modern version of Yellow Pages in that respect.

Of course, if nobody reads it any more, nobody will want to advertise in it...as Yell has found out.

Losing the iPhone users reduces the audience for those adverts and potentially the revenues from it. Of course, this is the revenue that Apple wants to tap into with its own maps product.

Now advertisers have to choose whether to pay to be in Google Maps, Apple Maps or both. Potentially Bing too. Android's market share has clearly grown to the point where Google aren't too concerned about losing that income in the short term. If 4 people want to go out to dinner and one of them has Android and therefore Google Maps, which one is going to be searching for the restaurant? Google still get the hit and the revenue from the search results.

Selling the phone and the OS is one thing, but people using it is what makes the money. If iPhone users revert to Google Maps on the web, then Google still get the income and don't have the expense of supporting the Apple device.