Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Codifus Codifus is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.

vlad wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

codifus wrote:


As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?


Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess


Doug


Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD



iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

OK, and the Zune or Zen does this better I suppose? The ipod may not be
perfect but its a helluva good. The iPod is literally the next
generation of Walkman which Sony should have made. They completely
missed the boat. Sony now has what, the bean?


Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order,

iTunes does rip CD tracks in order when you rip an entire album (CD) at
once.

labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare.

Right click the icon that represents the CD. In the info dialogue box
that pops up, you can name the artist, type of music genre etc, things
that apply to every track on that CD. When you make these changes at the
CD icon, iTunes will apply them to every track on that CD. Then you can
edit each track indviviually after that. Sleep well.

Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.

I'm very comfortable with both interfaces, Mac and PC. As I said
earlier, my 1st attempt at a music server was winamp 2. When I went to
iTunes, it was before I even purchased my ipod.

Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable. The drawback being
that it's much more complicated, too. The simpler Mac interface makes
things easy, but harder to customize other aspects of the system. For
most users, that extra customization is usually not needed. People who
like foober like to tinker. Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes
and quicktime don't go that far, but if setup correctly, there's no
need. Just rip and play. Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that
playlist? Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which other music
management program does it better? I briefly ventured into trying
windows media player and quite frankyly found it's interface to be all
over the place. Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows way of doing
things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even Office 2003 and 2007. It's a
whole new learning curve to do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does
Windows have to completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and it shows,
especially in the interface.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, they
introduced a totally new interface. Yes, they did. But that's because
the transition was to a completely different type of operating system. A
bit painful in the beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to another. Upgrading
from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from one office application suite,
word processing, spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.

If you don't like Macs, then you don't like Macs.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the DRM issues with iTunes.
Everybody's always under the impression if they use AAC then its DRMed.
DRM only comes into play in iTunes on music purchased from the music
store. That's it. If you make your own AAC, MP3, AIFF, ALAC or WAV file
in iTunes, no DRM locks whatsoever.


vlad


CD
  #202   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.

On 12/2/07 12:37 PM, in article , "Codifus"
wrote:

Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable. The drawback being
that it's much more complicated, too. The simpler Mac interface makes
things easy, but harder to customize other aspects of the system. For
most users, that extra customization is usually not needed. People who
like foober like to tinker. Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes
and quicktime don't go that far, but if setup correctly, there's no
need. Just rip and play. Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that
playlist? Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.

I mostly agree, but it's actually a piece of cake to customize Itunes for
sample rates and bit depth on a Mac or PC. Just go into Preferences, click
"Advanced" and then "Importing". All your options are right there. Then if
you want to customize your CD burning options, just click on "Burning" and
you have those too. Pretty simple stuff. I use a Logitech Squeezebox3 for my
music server and it simply imports everything, including playlists, right
from the iTunes library automatically. Nothing could be easier. I also have
absolutely no problems with skipping or slow speed or anything else. I just
access everything via a WiFi connection to the Squeezebox right at my audio
system. The biggest task I have other than ripping the CD's is making sure
my computer is on.


For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which other music
management program does it better? I briefly ventured into trying
windows media player and quite frankyly found it's interface to be all
over the place. Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows way of doing
things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even Office 2003 and 2007. It's a
whole new learning curve to do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does
Windows have to completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and it shows,
especially in the interface.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, they
introduced a totally new interface. Yes, they did. But that's because
the transition was to a completely different type of operating system. A
bit painful in the beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to another. Upgrading
from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from one office application suite,
word processing, spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.


Apple was smart to include a program in OSX called "Classic" that allowed
you to run OS9 applications within OSX. Made the transition very easy.
  #203   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:37:45 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

vlad wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:41 am, Codifus wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

codifus wrote:

As for the interface, I find it to be simple and very effective.
What's to hate about it?

Nothing if ALL you do is play music on the PC, as long as
you are willing put each and every file you want to
play in its "library". Other than that ... especially if
you have an iPod ..... it's a mess

Doug

Playing all your music from your PC is the point of a computer based
music server, no?

Tell me, how does Winamp, Windows Media Player, foobar, and the "others"
do it? At some point, for all of them, you have to rip your music to the
PC. In itunes, you rip it to the library.

I still dont get it.

CD



iPod interface was designed for people who buy music from iTunes or
ripping latest CD's with popular music, where the order of tracks and/
or exact labeling is not important.

OK, and the Zune or Zen does this better I suppose? The ipod may not be
perfect but its a helluva good. The iPod is literally the next
generation of Walkman which Sony should have made. They completely
missed the boat. Sony now has what, the bean?


Try to rip Mahler's symphony spanning 2 CD's or Wagner opera spanning
3-4 CD and make sure that tracks are in a right order,

iTunes does rip CD tracks in order when you rip an entire album (CD) at
once.

labels are
correct and fit on iPod screen, that each piece is presented as one
album with correct track numbering, etc. On top of it the cover
picture from GraceNote DB will be wrong, so you have to deal with it
too. Their interface is dreadful for this kind of work.

Also if you are ripping really old CD's (from 80s) then their
GraceNote data base simply don't have correct labels, no picture, etc.
So putting these CD's in a library is a nightmare.

Right click the icon that represents the CD. In the info dialogue box
that pops up, you can name the artist, type of music genre etc, things
that apply to every track on that CD. When you make these changes at the
CD icon, iTunes will apply them to every track on that CD. Then you can
edit each track indviviually after that. Sleep well.

Looks like that
their programmers did not learn about "drag and drop" concept yet.

Of course it is all a matter of perception. I am sure that for Mac
fanatics who know 'a priory' that the Mac way is the best way this
interface is OK.

I'm very comfortable with both interfaces, Mac and PC. As I said
earlier, my 1st attempt at a music server was winamp 2. When I went to
iTunes, it was before I even purchased my ipod.

Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable. The drawback being
that it's much more complicated, too. The simpler Mac interface makes
things easy, but harder to customize other aspects of the system. For
most users, that extra customization is usually not needed. People who
like foober like to tinker. Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes
and quicktime don't go that far, but if setup correctly, there's no
need. Just rip and play. Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that
playlist? Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.


I disagree that Windows is more customizable than a Mac. First of all, iTunes
lets you adjust sample rates, and other Mac music programs such as Final Cut
Soundtrack Master let's one adjust bit rates (and everything else). Secondly,
just because OSX avoids the clutter of Windows, doesn't mean that Macs aren't
just as, if not more, customizable than is Windows. The Mac operating system
is Unix and every Mac gives the user access to both the Unix console and the
terminal Window. With those, one who knows Unix can do anything. For
instance, I like scroll bars with both up and down arrows at the top and
bottom (and where applicable, both the right and the left at both ends) of
each window's scrollbar. Apple puts the up arrow at the top and the down
arrow at the bottom (as does Windows). I went into the terminal and added up
and down arrows at both ends with a few Unix commands. That's just an
example. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but son't assume that
the Mac is somehow "simpleminded" just because it hides the arcane
complexities (which, as you say, the average user will never need) of a full
Unix workstation OS from the average user. If that complexity were in full
sight, as in Windows, it would merely confuse the average joe and invite him
to get into trouble by changing things he knows nothing about.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which other music
management program does it better? I briefly ventured into trying
windows media player and quite frankyly found it's interface to be all
over the place. Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows way of doing
things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even Office 2003 and 2007. It's a
whole new learning curve to do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does
Windows have to completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and it shows,
especially in the interface.


I think the MS keeps changing things because they know that their GUI
interfaces aren't right (the critical press certainly tells them that often
enough, I don't see how they can ignore it). And they are stumbling around
trying to find an interface style that's at once "right" and different from
Apple's.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, they
introduced a totally new interface. Yes, they did. But that's because
the transition was to a completely different type of operating system. A
bit painful in the beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to another. Upgrading
from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from one office application suite,
word processing, spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.

If you don't like Macs, then you don't like Macs.


There are a lot of people in that situation, but in all honesty, most of them
have never bothered to learn the Mac either. They look at and perhaps play
with a Mac and when they see that it isn't exactly like Windows, they dismiss
it with an "I sure don't like THIS!" I am expert in both interfaces and I can
tell you that OSX isn't just better than Windows, it's generations better and
more powerful.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the DRM issues with iTunes.
Everybody's always under the impression if they use AAC then its DRMed.
DRM only comes into play in iTunes on music purchased from the music
store. That's it. If you make your own AAC, MP3, AIFF, ALAC or WAV file
in iTunes, no DRM locks whatsoever.


Don't forget that if one wants to pay an extra thirty cents (IIRC) you can
get many iTunes store downloads without DRM.



vlad


CD


  #204   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.

"Codifus" wrote in message


Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable.


I don't know about that.

The drawback being that it's much more complicated, too.


I don't know about that, either.

The simpler Mac interface makes things easy, but harder to
customize other aspects of the system.


I surely don't know about that. The Windows XP user interface is
stone-simple, and it really doesn't take a lot of customization to make most
things work.

For most users,
that extra customization is usually not needed.


Agreed.

People who like foober like to tinker.


Isn't the name of the product Foobatr?

Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes and quicktime don't go that
far


?????

but if setup correctly, there's no need. Just rip and play.


True for any piece of software.

Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that playlist?
Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.


OK.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which
other music management program does it better?


It's all about the UI, which was evolutionary.

I briefly
ventured into trying windows media player and quite
frankyly found it's interface to be all over the place.


That's the fault of the WMP development team.

Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows
way of doing things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even
Office 2003 and 2007.


Change for the sake of change.

It's a whole new learning curve to
do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does Windows have to
completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and
it shows, especially in the interface.


Part of this is due to the fact that MS defines the mainstream market to
optimize their profitability, while Apple is just a niche.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX,
they introduced a totally new interface.


They've got to have something to feed to the faithful, no?

Yes, they did.
But that's because the transition was to a completely
different type of operating system.


Really? Very many people who are running OSX did an upgrade from OS9. Same
hardware.

A bit painful in the
beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to
another.


If you think that 32 - 64 bit is such a big issue, did you know that XP
has both 32 and 64 bit versions?

No, the number of bits that the OS uses on the processor hardware can be and
often is completely decoupled from the API and UI.

Upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from
one office application suite, word processing,
spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.


Right. But nobody much is going to pay much for a new box of software to
install Office 2000 on their spiffy new hardware.

If you don't like Macs, then you don't like Macs.


No, its all about money and compatibility. If you want to pay 2-3 times as
much for hardware and suffer a vastly limited software marketplace, then
love that Mac!

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the DRM issues with
iTunes. Everybody's always under the impression if they
use AAC then its DRMed. DRM only comes into play in
iTunes on music purchased from the music store. That's
it. If you make your own AAC, MP3, AIFF, ALAC or WAV file
in iTunes, no DRM locks whatsoever.


If you want to get rid of the DRM locks on a piece of music, it just takes a
little time to remove them.

  #205   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.

[Moderator's note: Any followups need to have some audio content or
they will not be accepted. -- deb ]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:42:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Codifus" wrote in message


Basically, a Windows PC is much more customizable.


I don't know about that.

The drawback being that it's much more complicated, too.


I don't know about that, either.

The simpler Mac interface makes things easy, but harder to
customize other aspects of the system.


I surely don't know about that. The Windows XP user interface is
stone-simple, and it really doesn't take a lot of customization to make most
things work.

For most users,
that extra customization is usually not needed.


Agreed.

People who like foober like to tinker.


Isn't the name of the product Foobatr?

Adjust sample rates, bit depth etc. Itunes and quicktime don't go that
far


?????

but if setup correctly, there's no need. Just rip and play.


True for any piece of software.

Playlists on the fly? done. Burn a CD of that playlist?
Done. Drag the playlist to your ipod? Done.


OK.

For all your criticisms of iTunes, do you know which
other music management program does it better?


It's all about the UI, which was evolutionary.

I briefly
ventured into trying windows media player and quite
frankyly found it's interface to be all over the place.


That's the fault of the WMP development team.

Not only that, when a new version comes out, the
interface changes drastically. This is typical Windows
way of doing things. Look at Vista and Windows XP, even
Office 2003 and 2007.


Change for the sake of change.

It's a whole new learning curve to
do basic stuff. Quite annoying. Why does Windows have to
completely change the basic task of "saving as?" It is
well known that Apple spends more on R&D than MS . . .and
it shows, especially in the interface.


Part of this is due to the fact that MS defines the mainstream market to
optimize their profitability, while Apple is just a niche.

You might point out that When Apple went from OS9 to OSX,
they introduced a totally new interface.


They've got to have something to feed to the faithful, no?

Yes, they did.
But that's because the transition was to a completely
different type of operating system.


Really? Very many people who are running OSX did an upgrade from OS9. Same
hardware.


Yes, really. OS9 was a development of the original Mac OS introduced in 1983.
The new OS, OSX is based on Unix and takes the best GUI elements from the old
OS, and the best GUI elements from NexT, which was bought by Apple.

A bit painful in the
beginning, but worth it in the end, IMO. Going from
Windows XP to Vista is going from one 32 bit OS to
another.


If you think that 32 - 64 bit is such a big issue, did you know that XP
has both 32 and 64 bit versions?

No, the number of bits that the OS uses on the processor hardware can be and
often is completely decoupled from the API and UI.


Exactly. It's mainly the difference in the width of the processor/memory/I-O
pipeline.

Upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 is going from
one office application suite, word processing,
spreadsheeting, presentation, to another.


Right. But nobody much is going to pay much for a new box of software to
install Office 2000 on their spiffy new hardware.

If you don't like Macs, then you don't like Macs.


No, its all about money and compatibility. If you want to pay 2-3 times as
much for hardware and suffer a vastly limited software marketplace, then
love that Mac!


Please provide proof that this is true. Macs and Windows boxes are about the
same price across the board, except for the bottom-end and loss-leaders where
Apple doesn't play and the software market is NOT limited and in some areas
like audio, the Mac software market is much richer than the Windows market.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the DRM issues with
iTunes. Everybody's always under the impression if they
use AAC then its DRMed. DRM only comes into play in
iTunes on music purchased from the music store. That's
it. If you make your own AAC, MP3, AIFF, ALAC or WAV file
in iTunes, no DRM locks whatsoever.


If you want to get rid of the DRM locks on a piece of music, it just takes a
little time to remove them.


Or pay Apple a small premium and they'll remove it for you.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS:Calfornia Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player wxmanunr Marketplace 0 June 21st 05 10:29 PM
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player Hales Transcendence Eight Marketplace 1 December 23rd 04 06:22 AM
Another question on SACD player Lawrence Leung High End Audio 4 February 22nd 04 09:17 PM
FS:California Audio Labs CL-20 CD/DVD Player Hales Transcendence Eight Marketplace 0 February 1st 04 11:48 PM
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player Hales Transcendence Eight Marketplace 0 January 23rd 04 03:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"