Featured Sponsor Listings

What are Mac audio fans using besides iTunes?

Dec 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM Post #16 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't understand why people bitch about iTunes either.
But I suspect that most of those who raise their voice are MS Windows users, and that they either are spoiled or that iTunes on MS Windows is a totally different experience.

/me love my iTunes!
biggrin.gif



iTunes isn't any different to me on OS X as Windows.

Using iTunes for a music player to me is like using Word to write code. Scite is smaller, with syntax highlighting, tab fixing, block folding, quality find and replace, etc., and other little nice features for coding, like copy filename to clipboard. The interface is less cluttered, to boot. Word is big, and yes, it has lots of stuff. Want to write a letter, with a table, and an ordered list in it? Word is great. Want to edit something in your gdm script? Not so great. But, both will display a text file, and allow for basic manipulations, just fine.

Does iTunes have playback benchmarking (yes, it's handy on occasion)? Integrity checking (a time saver of the highest order!)? Integrated Replaygain support? Customizable file format conversions using an intuitive interface? Can you use it without the media library (IE, drag and drop to a playlist, with nothing more to fuss with)? Does it make ABX testing easy? Does it show volume in dBFS? Does it allow custom name formatting (quite useful, to me)? Does it have quality resampling, adjustable by the user? Does it use native OS widgets and skinning?

iTunes has an interface full of space used for features I don't need or want, and lacks features that I have found truly useful. The same applies to Amarok, while I'm at it.

If I were using OS X day on and day out, I'd try WINE under it, and if that didn't work, find a nice ports system, and get a XMMS derivative on there.
 
Dec 30, 2007 at 5:13 PM Post #17 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by cerbie /img/forum/go_quote.gif
iTunes isn't any different to me on OS X as Windows.

Using iTunes for a music player to me is like using Word to write code. Scite is smaller, with syntax highlighting, tab fixing, block folding, quality find and replace, etc., and other little nice features for coding, like copy filename to clipboard. The interface is less cluttered, to boot. Word is big, and yes, it has lots of stuff. Want to write a letter, with a table, and an ordered list in it? Word is great. Want to edit something in your gdm script? Not so great. But, both will display a text file, and allow for basic manipulations, just fine.

Does iTunes have playback benchmarking (yes, it's handy on occasion)? Integrity checking (a time saver of the highest order!)? Integrated Replaygain support? Customizable file format conversions using an intuitive interface? Can you use it without the media library (IE, drag and drop to a playlist, with nothing more to fuss with)? Does it make ABX testing easy? Does it show volume in dBFS? Does it allow custom name formatting (quite useful, to me)? Does it have quality resampling, adjustable by the user? Does it use native OS widgets and skinning?

iTunes has an interface full of space used for features I don't need or want, and lacks features that I have found truly useful. The same applies to Amarok, while I'm at it.

If I were using OS X day on and day out, I'd try WINE under it, and if that didn't work, find a nice ports system, and get a XMMS derivative on there.


There must be at least a handful of people that expect the same from iTunes as you do. I expect you'll agree that iTunes was designed for the masses and you are clearly not in that group.
 
Dec 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM Post #18 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by OptionTrader /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There must be at least a handful of people that expect the same from iTunes as you do. I expect you'll agree that iTunes was designed for the masses and you are clearly not in that group.


Absolutely. That's why I made the analogy to editing code. I actually don't have a problem with iTunes, in general. It does have its following due to being a good application for what it does well, which is be a black box no-fuss player and organizer.
 
Dec 30, 2007 at 11:02 PM Post #19 of 44
I recently started purchasing FLAC downloads from the Linn Records website, and use Max for conversion to AIFF. Sounds good through iTunes and VLC. I haven't tried the 24-bit/88.2-96kHz FLAC formats, since the price of an album doubles if you go with that option.
 
Dec 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM Post #20 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by vibin247 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I recently started purchasing FLAC downloads from the Linn Records website, and use Max for conversion to AIFF. Sounds good through iTunes and VLC. I haven't tried the 24-bit/88.2-96kHz FLAC formats, since the price of an album doubles if you go with that option.


Have you tried flac through VLC? I'm thinking about trying this on my new MacBook Pro. I have a large collection of flac files and am trying to move over from Windows, so this is new to me.

Thanks,

Buddy
 
Dec 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM Post #21 of 44
I like Max a lot, great mac app. I was testing FLAC rips from a cd and using Cog to play them. The sound was very good. I'm still learning about Flac and how to rip music properly to archive on dvd discs. I just don't have any harddrive storage so dvd makes sense. My G4 Cube is working its little old heart out!
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 12:17 AM Post #22 of 44
Guys, flac works just as great with itunes. I just use max to rip them to my external hard drive and use itunes to play them as flac. You need to use the quicktime components, but after that its smooth sailing.
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 12:32 AM Post #23 of 44
Try Songbird. It is crossplatform, offers FLAC support for those in need and resembles itunes for those that enjoy the db/gui aspect of the player. Cog crashes on me, Play isn't ready for Leopard yet, VLC is fine for videos but doesn't off me what I require for music playback. Songbird, started by the boys behind winamp, and based on the gecko engine its coming along at a very rapid pace. Still in alpha, it is very very functional on all the platforms I use. It is my main player for both linux and mac os x (though I do tend to use quod libet under linux for quick and dirty playing).

For me though, foobar is still the best out there. I wish it would get ported to mac or linux.
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 12:57 AM Post #24 of 44
Songbird is pretty good. Though now that most music blogs have made podcasts available, Songbird's major selling feature is sort of moot. I do love music blogs though, but I prefer receiving them as podcasts and not having them mixed in with the rest of my music.

I find most people who complain about iTunes either haven't taken the time to learn its more advanced features, are still on Windows and have sound cards with kMixer-resampling drivers, or are stuck in the file/folder organizing mindset. I don't understand how people can manage large libraries like that, particularly libraries with a significant number of single songs from oddball artists (e.g. from music blogs), but each to their own.

The only major feature limitations of iTunes are very limited on-the-fly transcoding abilities (stuck at 128kbps and only available on certain iPods), relatively painful (but available) support for FLAC, and "replaygain" style volume adjustment being only available on a per-track, not per-album basis. I don't actually consider that last one a significant limitation. The others are. But it is strong enough in most other areas to make it a pretty compelling tool.
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 2:00 AM Post #26 of 44
Realize that songbird is just now in a dev release, but I have found that .4 is quite stabe. Wodgy is right, its main selling feature is not necessarily a "bowl me over" thing these days, but then I use it strictly for my own library playback, nothing else, and I do so personally because of FLAC playback that is seemless. I prefer the layout of Cog (but I can't get it to even open in Leopard, and Play doesn't scan for media in Leopard for me).
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 2:12 AM Post #27 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The only major feature limitations of iTunes are very limited on-the-fly transcoding abilities (stuck at 128kbps and only available on certain iPods)...


This is one of the many instances Doug's Applescripts come into play. For example the Lossless to AAC Workflow script would allow lossless (iTunes only) and choice of bitrate transcoded AAC (iPod only) separate copies.
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM Post #28 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is one of the many instances Doug's Applescripts come into play. For example the Lossless to AAC Workflow script would allow lossless (iTunes only) and choice of bitrate transcoded AAC (iPod only) separate copies.


I know, but that's kind of chintzy. Better than nothing though. The funny thing is I wouldn't complain if they just let me change the default bitrate for transcoding to my iPod Shuffle from 128kbps. Eventually someone will figure out how to use a hex editor and edit the executable directly.
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 6:50 AM Post #29 of 44
My Cube is still on 10.4.11 so Cog and Max work great. I'm going to learn more about Flac and start archiving my cd's, hopefully for the last time.

Uh, ya right!
biggrin.gif
Next year I'll probably be at it again after I get a Macbook Pro and Leopard!
 
Dec 31, 2007 at 8:20 AM Post #30 of 44
Quote:

Originally Posted by serpico /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Next year I'll probably be at it again after I get a Macbook Pro and Leopard!


So, tomorrow
biggrin.gif
?

Happy New Year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top