bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
On my G4 and G5, iTunes is very peppy. No sluggishness at all. The integration of iPod and iTunes into OSX is just as revelatory as the integration of the iPod into iTunes.
See ya
Steve
See ya
Steve
Originally Posted by marcelproust I don't want to be recognised as an ipod used in public. |
Originally Posted by Beethovenian I particularly think the iPod is a decent product, but overrated, and too much oriented for the average pop listener. For somebody who devotes more than 90% of his listening time to classical music, as in my case, it has the fatal flaw of lack of gapless playback, and the minor but significant flaw of a interface that's not particularly friendly (they should let you have the composer name in the now playing screen, and some company should adopt at least the use of album and song artists browsing, since having conductor, soloist and ensemble fields would probably be way out of the possible). |
Originally Posted by K2Grey With Rockbox, the iPod has gapless playback (and a parametric EQ, and file tree browsing which is more convenient for unusual arrangements). I have the artist name set to the composer, and then have the conductor's name in the album. For example, the composer might be "Ludwig van Beethoven" and the album could be "Symphony No. 7 (Karajan)". There are also ways to organize things well with the folders. For example, you can have a folder for the composer, and a sub-folder for what type of work it is (symphony, piano sonata, string quartet, etc.) and then another sub-folder for who is performing it, and then another sub-folder for which work it was, and then the files. This is difficult to arrange without a filetree system. |
Originally Posted by marcelproust Having and option to manage music archieves with play lists is obviously something that could be useful. While I would stil like to keep that option I must admit that my way of organising music files is very simple. I put them in folders and I put the folders inside other folders. When I don't do this I feel uncomfortable using the files. I do the same thing with my documenst and pictures. In all cases when I listen to music I either, 1. repeat a single song 2. repeat an album ( a folder in this case) 3. repeat an artists whole albums (a main folder in this case) What I didn't like on Itunes wasn't it features. I didn't use it long enough to discover its features. The thing I didn't like was its design. The round curves and Ipod animated icons, shapes etc have driven me crazy. When I see this design it only reminds me on snobbish teenagers and there is no way I can enjoy my music. The black color on 5G was a huge improvement I think. I don't want to be recognised as an ipod user in public. |
Originally Posted by bigshot On my G4 and G5, iTunes is very peppy. No sluggishness at all. The integration of iPod and iTunes into OSX is just as revelatory as the integration of the iPod into iTunes. See ya Steve |
Originally Posted by Beethovenian That's true, a filetree system gives you flexibility. But doesn't allow you to search by performer, instead of by composer, for instance. Sometimes you may want that. I would like to be able to have multiple ways of searching for my music. And that's why I don't like having my albums tagged the way you do it. When you have at least ten different recordings for each Beethoven symphony, you care enough about the interpreters to want their names having their own tag field. Anyway, Rockbox is an option, certainly. I don't think it's there yet, though. |
Originally Posted by muckluck Koreans do it best! Those are just my big reasons for liking Iriver and Cowon over iPods. To me all that an ipod offers is fasion and ease of use, and I don't really care much for either. If that is all you care about, then fine, but if you are looking for a powerful DAP then look to Cowon and Iriver. |
Originally Posted by Kirosia I've had both an iriver and an ipod, define "powerful". |