<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: iPod HiFi? It&#8217;s gotta be &#34;Stevenote&#34; time again&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://itssamuel.com/blog/ipod-hifi-its-gotta-be-stevenote-time-again/</link>
	<description>A Tumblelog, by Samuel Cotterall</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: STicker</title>
		<link>http://itssamuel.com/blog/ipod-hifi-its-gotta-be-stevenote-time-again/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>STicker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://itssamuel.com/blog/ipod-hifi-its-gotta-be-stevenote-time-again/#comment-30</guid>
		<description>For music, 2.1 stereo is far better quality wise than 5.1 sourround sound.  This is because music is recorded in only for left, right, and base, while movies and some television shows are formatted to have 1 center (voice) channel, 4 effect channels, and a base channel.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Just clearing that up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For music, 2.1 stereo is far better quality wise than 5.1 sourround sound.  This is because music is recorded in only for left, right, and base, while movies and some television shows are formatted to have 1 center (voice) channel, 4 effect channels, and a base channel.</p>
<p>Just clearing that up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.698 seconds -->
