Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A whole bunch of stuff on the recent ?discussions.
|
#203
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS:Calfornia Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace | |||
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace | |||
Another question on SACD player | High End Audio | |||
FS:California Audio Labs CL-20 CD/DVD Player | Marketplace | |||
FS:California Audio Labs (CAL) CL-20 DVD/CD Player | Marketplace |