iTunes 2.0 available... [Archive]

mymemory

Nov 3, 2001, 08:49 AM

The EQ is ok as an option but the texture is way too metallic.
I have the computer plug in to a pair of Event 20/20p studio monitor and I was testing the presets. Most of them are too extreme and they change the original EQ too much in place of do it in small steps.

(For those who are not familiar with the audio field, the EQ where invented with the pourpose of "equalize" the signal compensating the defects of the room, not to personalize or modify the original mix. There are "standards" at the moment of doing a final mix in a recording studio).

Now, about the EQ, you can tell the issue because you do not need to move the fader even half the way to really hear the difference, if you are not in the audio Engineer, it shouldn't be like that. But the texture still metallic, that means a low end digital algorithm to process the signal, worst if you add the fact that you are using compressed mp3 files that sound a bit metallic them self.

This is my point of view as an audio Engineer, for the general public may sounds fine.

The cross fade was an idea I didn't expect and is really good, that was an inpruvement.

Ok, in the prefferences the add another slider called "Sound Enhancer" that IS an EQ, is giving a bit of pressence to the low frequencies and a bit to the hi ones.

It is just me or the Visuals are running more smoothly?

They should add an option that allow me to download in real time the music from the radio stations.

phantom

Nov 3, 2001, 09:47 AM

What a lot of snivelling whiners!!!! Go buy a NOMAD!!

mymemory

Nov 3, 2001, 10:39 AM

I don't think anyone will sell their shares for that reason...[/B]
The reason is not iTunes, is the "iPot" too and who knows what other revolutionary decision.

Anyway, I think you should be please to get the iTunes in the first place! It's a great software and it's free. [/B]

Well, I would be pretty upset buying a EQ like that. Else, we are short term Apple investment.

So don't complain too much! [/B]

I do complaing because I know the same features can be better, without too much effort. If I do not complain and people do not complain their standarts may be going down. It is because of the people that complains on time that companies take care of their production.

The big problem with the companies with a brand name is that always some one inside relay the quality of the product on the name of the company and things like the Cube can happen. May be a little lees here and a litte less there and the result is a crapy product or a product that is not "realisticly merchadeable", and Apple have done that a lot. It is because of the blind Apple fans that they play with the costumers.

Let me give you the big picture. The mediocracy that we live in my country for example, was because some said, "Oh look, I can still all this money and no one will find out", and the person beside him did the same. So, 20 years later we have.
-An average of 70 death by robery just in weekends (that is more than the people that die in a month Croatia during the war and we are not in war).
-100 stolen cars crossing the frontier to Colombia (per day).
-80% of people that makes less than 80$ a month.
-Our prices are 30% more expensive than in the US.
-The beganing of a dictator ship.
-A president that gives $1.000.000 (per day) of free oil to Cuba.

Mediocracy spread like a cancer every where and many of you wont tell because you think south america is Taco Bell, Ricky Martin and down south Carmen Miranda.

You do not know how stupid look the US terrify because 4 people die of antrax. We wish our problems were antrax related only. I have a friend in a big music store there and I was telling him "Man, the US have seen nothing of what is going on out side their frontiers."
I less than 2 months period, my girl friends syster was rape, the boyfriend of my moms friend was killed because they wanted to still hi car, another man was left naked (and hurted) at the entrace of my street after been rob. And I live in the upper east side by the way...

Man, you have seen nothing of what the out side world beyound your frontiers is made off, and I hope the US still living in that MATRIX created to you for many years.

What I mean is that if you do not stop or alert people on time from been mediocre, that is gonna spread like a cancer in a mater of years. So, complain wisely as much as you can to tell people when they are taking the wrong direction and be sure of telling them the what direction to take.

benmac

Nov 3, 2001, 11:25 AM

I must say I agree with you on most of your remarks.
It is true that by complaining, you may make a difference in the world, but you also sometimes have to be gratefull with what you have got.
Also, you made a good point when you said the US doesn't care much about what's happening in other countries (exept for their enemies', of course).
I'm sorry about the situation in your country, and it is interesting to hear the story from a witness.

jefhatfield

Nov 3, 2001, 11:43 AM

all great empires have a beginning, a middle, and an end

look at greece, rome, great britain, and the 70s-early 80s apple

the US are next and it is just the natural order of things, but i don't think we will see the US turn into a third world country in any of our lifetimes

when i see what an incredible empire greece once was, i ask myself, "how did they possibly lose their grip they had?"

Xapplimatic

Nov 3, 2001, 12:22 PM

Can everyone move their sermons on the mount to more appropriate forums? This is a thread for discussing iTunes.. So I thought... Topic spammers!

As for market arguments about iTunes "could be better".. you could also pay for something better if you all weren't so cheap!

jefhatfield

Nov 3, 2001, 12:28 PM

this is why we need new people like you, to keep things on topic

the older we get here, the more apt we are to get off topic...because we actually get to know each other off forum

benmac

Nov 3, 2001, 12:35 PM

Actually, that is not always true, I am one of the naughty persons who got off the topic, and I'm 16 years old...

mymemory

Nov 3, 2001, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by benmac
Actually, that is not always true, I am one of the naughty persons who got off the topic, and I'm 16 years old...

Topics are boring! Politics are better, and specially at this time.

The US is not going to fall, it is not an empire, it is going for some changes (and wait because there are more coming up).

Kids you should be thinking a bit of what is going on beyond your computer, and that doesn't mean to buy the last Gorillaz CD. Because next year, you may not have a computer to run iTunes.
Even them, next year I may be moving to Puerto Rico or Miami, with my G4 under one harm and my Pismo under the other and with all the antrax and terrorism that you have, it is 99.9% safer than live here.

[Edited by mymemory on 11-04-2001 at 10:48 AM]

benmac

Nov 3, 2001, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by mymemory

Kids you should be thinking a bit of what is going on beyoud your computer, and that doesn't mean to buy the last Gorillaz CD. Because next year, you may not have a computer to run iTunes.

[/B]

Don't worry, I do look beyond my iMac, and by the way I don't consider myself a kid anymore...
I don't really understand what you mean by: next year, I may not have a computer to run iTunes.
Benjamin (from Belgium).

jefhatfield

Nov 3, 2001, 01:28 PM

next year, we may have a cellohone on steroids to run everything

...just kidding

TSEliotLives

Nov 3, 2001, 01:51 PM

While I do indeed agree that politics are interesting, I for one am a bit burnt out on them...all the media seems to do is re-hash the same stories, and it's downright fatiguing.

On the topic of some of mymemory's criticisms of iTunes 2 -

I guess, from my perspective, the EQ is more than sufficient for the TYPE of product that iTunes is. I, too, work with sound on a slightly higher level than iTunes. I have my main G4 hooked up to a high-quality COMPONENT EQ. Sure, this allows much more flexibility, and it's great for the situation. However, while I'm at school, AWAY from my "big Mac," I don't have the money or the space for a high-quality, component EQ. In this situation, iTunes' EQ is a godsend...it allows me to do some basic tweaking to overcome the horrible acoustics of my dorm, and make my JBL Sonnets sound like they should. It is NOT a crutch for bad speakers, and NOT a cure-all. It is a simply a tool, and a tool is only as good and useful as its user.

Secondly, the "sound enhancement" feature: it's a little more than a "loudness" control. There is some extra processing that is going on, to create a better sense of stereo separation, to "open up" the sound on smaller speakers. While I'm using my Sonnets, this is fantastic. When I have my PowerBook hooked up to my stereo, this is unnecessary. Remember, it's a tool.

I think iTunes is a fabulous program, my experience has always been positive, and now I actually have the ability to use it for DJ'ing (up until now, I've relied on Tactile, which is a fine program, but its playback was less than stellar, skipping every time you so much as clicked, and adding quite a few mysterious clicks and rattles into the music.) iTunes is free, it's functional, and it's stable. iTunes is not meant to be a professional EQ, or a high-end exciter, or a pricey DJ mixer. But what it does do, it does well, and it serves its target audience's needs. If you want your music to be equalized precisely, go buy an Alesis EQ. If you need an exciter, go buy a BBE DSP. And if you need a DJ set-up, by all means, go out and bet yourself some Pioneer CD players and a Numark mixer. What's that you say? Don't have the cash? Well, last I checked, iTunes is free...

oldMac

Nov 3, 2001, 02:00 PM

REPEAT, DO NOT install the currently available iTunes 2 for Mac OS X.

MANY users have reported deletion of hard drive partitions after installation this morning.

Apple has since pulled the installer from their site.

benmac

Nov 3, 2001, 02:01 PM

As you seem to have quite a good knowledge in sound and music, I would appreciate it if you could help me.
We are going to install a radio station at my school and we don't really know where to start. We decided it would be with a computer, but how do we connect it to about 10 speakers in 3 different rooms? And what kind of software should we use?
Thanks for all your eventual help.

TSEliotLives

Nov 3, 2001, 02:24 PM

benmac, I'd be more than happy to help you out with your project. Get in touch with me: laedtkej@ripon.edu. I'm all about the radio stations :)

rekras

Nov 3, 2001, 02:53 PM

on itunes 2 most of my songs sound much better with the new equalizer, but for some reason some songs sound alot worse, the high treble gets fuzzy and the low bass gets fuzzier, WHAT THE HELL. and i know it isnt my soundsticks because ive had them for almost a year and they've never given me a problem.

Classic

Nov 3, 2001, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by oldMac
REPEAT, DO NOT install the currently available iTunes 2 for Mac OS X.

MANY users have reported deletion of hard drive partitions after installation this morning.

Apple has since pulled the installer from their site.

That's f*cked up! I installed iTunes for OS9 last night, and then installed it for OSX without any problems. I've booted up in both partitions without any problems.... Damn, I'd be pissed if that happened to me.

IndyGopher

Nov 3, 2001, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by oldMac
REPEAT, DO NOT install the currently available iTunes 2 for Mac OS X.

MANY users have reported deletion of hard drive partitions after installation this morning.

Apple has since pulled the installer from their site.

I'm not sure where you get this.. from hundreds of posts on half a dozen sites, I have seen about 5 people reporting problems. Out of the thousands of people who have doubtless installed this, I don't think that qualifies as "MANY". I suppose the point is moot, though, since Apple has indeed yanked the installer.

It's important people know that there have been problems, but I think the odds of any one person having problems is not much greater than "random"

MrMartini

Nov 3, 2001, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by mymemory
I just installed the iTunes 2 and the control strip icon doesn't work!

Way to go Apple!

Time to sell the the stocks before is too late.

Let me see what else doesn't work.

On my PowerBook 3400, iTunes Control Stip works fine.

New York 0
DiamondBacks 12
Bottom of the 3rd, that's more runs than New York scored in 5 games.

Go D-Back! Welcome to the Desert baby, you're gonna die!!!

DannyZR2

Nov 4, 2001, 12:06 AM

Wow.. i thought I totally screwed somethign up... I have 3 partitions on my iMac.. one with 8Gig, OS X.I, and OS 9.21.. second one with all my MP3's and video files.. 15Gig. and the last 4Gig with another copy of OS 9.2.1..

I lost the third partition.. I was in OS X when I did the install, then tried to load Classic.. it did not come up and I looked at my Partitiion and it showed completely empty.. 0 files, and no space taken. up.. I tried to recover the files and was unsuccessful...

I dont' know if Apple will be able to do anything to fix my partition, but I sure hope the can prevent this on other computers..

I installed it on my laptop and had no problems.. good thing because I would have been pissed..

I'm not upset really about my iMac,.. there was nothing important that I lost.. .it was just a backup system..

DannyZR2

Nov 4, 2001, 12:10 AM

From apple's site...

iTunes Add Topic | Subscribe | Bookmark
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes(drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, will be available for downloading at http://www.apple.com/itunes/download. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.

http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@111.BxbFao1fkRh^0@.eeac121

brentdayne

Nov 4, 2001, 04:36 AM

From Apple itunes site:

An important note for those who have downloaded

iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X:
Apple has identified an installer issue with iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X that affects a limited number of systems running Mac OS X with multiple volumes (drives or partitions) mounted. For those systems, running the iTunes 2.0 installer can result in loss of user data. While this error is highly unlikely to affect most users, Apple strongly advises that anyone who has downloaded the 2.0 version of iTunes for Mac OS X, as well as anyone who has a beta version of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS X, immediately remove the iTunes.pkg installer file from their system. A new version that corrects this issue, iTunes 2.0.1 for Mac OS X, is now available from this page. Users who have already installed iTunes 2.0 without incident do not need to reinstall iTunes 2.0.1, but they should still immediately remove the 2.0 installer file from their system. This issue does not affect users of iTunes 2.0 for Mac OS 9.

--Just installed with no problems...

mymemory

Nov 4, 2001, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by rekras
on itunes 2 most of my songs sound much better with the new equalizer, but for some reason some songs sound alot worse, the high treble gets fuzzy and the low bass gets fuzzier, WHAT THE HELL. and i know it isnt my soundsticks because ive had them for almost a year and they've never given me a problem.

That is what I was meaning about the EQ, the algorithms are too cheap, they are going to distort the sound. They should be used just a bit, no more than the 10% of the total amplitude.
It is not that I'm looking for a ProTools EQ, but this EQ is worst than the one used in Sound Edit 16. This EQ would do the job using the Mac internal speaker. But the point is that any other sound system in any bodys house has better quality than the one used by iTunes 2. And that is the reference people have, and people with experience or not will tell the difference.
Now, it is not only the EQ, now you have to add 2 elements more:
1. The low end audio out put of the computer.
2. The compressed MP3 files.

The Mac D/A audio outputs where design to do the job, ok, they gives you some distortion, only apreciable if you plug a real audio card to your computer and listen to the same music. Now, if you add a cheap EQ, you will finally tell there is something wrong because both cheap technologies are gonna add each other. An then you are using MP3 files, that sounds good (depend of the compression) but they are compressed, and at the end it means less harmonics that are not longer there. If you add thouse 3 factors the result is a crapy one. May be my sister won't tell at the beganing but later on she will. If you used the EQ, the Mac A/D, and a 128k MP3 file yopu will probably are gonna end having a tv sound coming out your Mac.

On the other hand, why is the sense of the piano EQ? I felt like I was 80 years old and not able to listen to a piano and that is why I had that EQ option (full mid range all the way up). The presets are so unrealistic. The presets should be made depending of the quality of your room: large room full of carpet, living room mostly wood, small teenage room (full of books, clothes every where), office ambient (back ground noise, papers, reflective materials), DJ space (big room with lots of acustics), etc.

The other features are just fine, the best thing to do is let the songs as they are, that is what the musicians wanted to express.

oldMac

Nov 4, 2001, 11:48 AM

This is a SERIOUS issue and has happened to many people with partitioned hard drives. Probably hundreds.

The problem was caused by a bug in the installer code that attempts to delete the existing iTunes installation.

Unfortunately, there was a mistake in the code that can potentially become confused about the location of the files it is supposed to remove and, instead, erase an entire hard drive partition.

Classic

Nov 4, 2001, 12:58 PM

Hey folks - a comple of question.

I haven't really used iTunes all tha much and am about to transfer my whole CD library to iTunes. I have noticed that there is media pre-installed on my computer by apple and is all MP3 imported at a sample rate of 160 kbps. Also, I know that Apple gets their 1000 songs in your pocket based on this MP3 encoding at a 160 kbps sample rate.

I'm not too worried about storage space - to a degree. I want to eventually use my computer through a component stereo system and I am looking for advice as to what format (MP3, AIFF, WAV) and what sample rate are optimal for very good sound, and realistic sorage space required.

Any insight you guys have into this is greatly appreciated. I don't yet have the whole system in place yet, so I can't run tests yet, but I'd like to get started with the importing, and don't want to be dissatisfied ans have to redo all the importing.

Also, any reccomendations regarding tuners, amps, etc that interface nicely with a G4 are also appreciated.

Thanks.

oldMac

Nov 4, 2001, 01:16 PM

You say you're not worried about space, but understand that AIFF is an uncompressed format. Essentially, this means that most albums will take about 600 - 650 MB of disk space.

You're best opting for MP3 at the highest bit rate offered via iTunes, which is 192kbps. That will store most albums in about 60MB of space.

Classic

Nov 4, 2001, 01:20 PM

How do WAV files fit into this?

And yes, AIFF files definately take up too much space.

For all of you music affecionados out there - can you here the difference between a CD and the same some as an MP3 at 192 kbps? Also, I just noticed that in the custom setings in iTunes, you can encode all the way up to 320 kbps. At what sample rate can you start to notice the degredation in sound? Given a high quality system rather than crappy computer speakers.

Finally, are MP3 files like jpg in that over time with multiple transfers, open and closes, their quality degrades further? Does opening and closing the files, or simply listening to them eventually degrade the quality, or is it a matter of multiple opens and saves that will eventually degrade the quality?

Thanks.

[Edited by Classic on 11-04-2001 at 01:41 PM]

TSEliotLives

Nov 4, 2001, 01:43 PM

Classic-

So, it turns out that you can hear the difference between even a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD...kind of. See, if you're listening to a song you've encoded into MP3, by itself, on your Mac either through a very good set of speakers, or through your home stereo, chances are you won't hear a difference. Now, do an A/B test, where you switch between the two formats...CD and MP3, and you will hear a difference. MP3 relies on sound masking, where it "drops" sound information that is masked by other sounds, and creates a sort of digital garble that resembles the original sound, but ISN'T the original sound. This works like pointillism...if you listen really closely, you wouldn't recognize what you hear. But, MP3 does a fairly good job of "tricking" you into thinking that it is indeed the original. Granted, there's a whole lot more that goes into the format, but that's the basic gist.

So, bitrates. You mentioned earlier about 160 kbps -- see, I personally think it all comes down to the encoding engine, and iTunes does a very good job of encoding. Some earlier apps (mostly on the Windows side of the tracks), during the infancy of MP3, did a very BAD job of encoding. However, the encoding algorithm has been refined, and iTunes does a very nice job @ 160 kbps. What I would recommend, though, is using 192 kbps VBR, which is Varible Bit Rate. What this does is basically allocate more data to describe the sound, when it's needed. In this way, the file still takes up about the same amount of space, but areas requiring finer detailing receive more attention.

You could always set iTunes to encode MP3 all the way up to 320 kbps, but this is downright overkill. The files are huge, and at that point, you'd probably be better off just using AIFF. Your best bet is 192 kbps, using VBR. You also have the option of turning "joint stereo" off, but this doesn't necessarily mean better quality files. Joint stereo works in the same way as FM stereo, so that both channels ride piggyback on the same carrier, so to speak. When they are decoded, they are re-separated, and played as two channels, not one. This process always leaves a little bit of both channels in each other, resulting in the inability to get "perfect" stereo separation, but it's at such a magnatude where there's more crosstalk in the amp in your powered speakers, or even your receiver for that matter.

MP3 is a comprimise, but not a horrible one. Like I said, you would without a doubt still hear minute differences between the original source and the MP3, but these differences do not translate into "worse quality." It simply means that the sound has changed.

TSEliotLives

Nov 4, 2001, 01:47 PM

Oh yeah, your real question - WAV.

It's a Windows standard, along the same lines as SND or AIFF. Quicktime plays it, but it's not much of a standard over here. More like those extra forks you save when you've got company that just isn't worth the good silverware. It's there if you need it, but don't hold your breath. It's basically a raw sound format, and you'd be just as fine using AIFF.

mymemory

Nov 4, 2001, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Classic
Hey folks - a comple of question...
...Also, any reccomendations regarding tuners, amps, etc that interface nicely with a G4 are also appreciated.
Thanks.

The best thing you can do is to use and audio out put other than the one that comes with your mac. I'm using an Audio Media 3 ($500 with Pro Tools Tool Box), may be you can find something cheaper. The quality of the sound is hudge, basicly the difference between a second generation VHS to a DVD. After that, just the speakers.
Use your music in MP3, it is not worth it to have everything in Aiff or Wav, un less you are a DJ and you are going to play live with a big PA system, in that scenario the MP3s use to sound week compared it with the presence of a original recorded CD or vinil.
If you buy an audio card you may be thinking in about $300 or you can use a video/audio combo interface, they usually comes with good audio i/o. The out put of the Miro DC 30 is good. I do not know about USB audio i/o.
Go to: http://www.synthetic-ap.com/tips/firewireconverters.html
and look for the "Dazzle Hollywood DV-Bridge".

oldMac

Nov 4, 2001, 02:06 PM

Nice point about the VBR availability in the custom settings of iTunes.

For people who are looking for this, go through the following menus in iTunes (OS X):

1) Select iTunes:Preferences menus
2) Select the "Importing" tab
3) Select "Custom" from the "Configuration" drop-down menu

A setting of 192kbps with VBR should give you very good quality.

Interestingly, you'll find that the quality difference is mostly noticable on tracks that contain some kind of distortion filter (dj mixed dance music) or digital instruments with lots of overtones (electronic drums).

TSEliotLives

Nov 4, 2001, 02:14 PM

In all of my ranting and raving about mechanics, I completely forgot to say HOW to accomplish this stuff! Duh! Thanks for rebounding after I dropped the ball on that one!

Classic

Nov 4, 2001, 02:31 PM

Thanks, everybody, for the input - keep it coming. I find the knowledge people in forums have to be invaluable. A much better use of them rather than arguing about who's more educated, etc...

Anyway, about the joint stereo setting.

Originally posted by TSEliotLives

You also have the option of turning "joint stereo" off, but this doesn't necessarily mean better quality files. Joint stereo works in the same way as FM stereo, so that both channels ride piggyback on the same carrier, so to speak. When they are decoded, they are re-separated, and played as two channels, not one. This process always leaves a little bit of both channels in each other, resulting in the inability to get "perfect" stereo separation, but it's at such a magnatude where there's more crosstalk in the amp in your powered speakers, or even your receiver for that matter.

If an MP3 is encoded with joint stereo rather than normal does it ever run the risk of not being able to be decoded properly? For example if I don't use iTunes to playback an MP3 with joint stereo encoding, will it play properly?

Does normal stereo mode signifcantly increase the file size?

Thanks.

Classic

Nov 4, 2001, 02:34 PM

Any thoughts or opinions about the quality settings within the Variable Bit Rate? Is highest overkill?

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2001, 02:41 PM

Not that this is going to help out any of you who had problems with losing data and partitions after installing iTunes 2 for OS X, but I did as everyone else and ended up fine. I am running a 2 partition system on my TiBook 500, and installed iTunes 2 on both systems yesterday. I came to Macrumors this morning to see numerous posts regarding problems with iTunes and OS X. Everything seemed to be in working order with both of my systems after some investigating. So I went to Apple's site, did exactly what they said with deleting the installer file from OS X, and then runnning the new installer for iTunes 2.0.1. I'm still ok. Hope to see some similar posts up here from people with luck like mine!

TSEliotLives

Nov 4, 2001, 03:05 PM

Classic (and everyone else interested) -

So, I figured I should try a little experiment, just to see if a normal stereo (as opposed to a "joint stereo") MP3 will play in other players. Here's what I've been able to gather:

First and foremost, normal stereo mode DOES NOT seem to add to the file size. A 6-minute song encoded at 160 kbps VBR, highest VBR quality setting, with normal stereo mode enabled is 8 mb. The same song with joint stereo is....8 mb. Odd? I think so, too.

But, nonetheless, I took the normal stereo mode file and played it in a few different Mac players. Of course, it plays in iTunes, and Quicktime player (because iTunes playback is Quicktime-based). I also tried Audion 2, which played it wonderfully. Then, to add to the mix, I tried GrayAMP. Here's where things get interesting: GrayAMP comes with it's own MP3 decoder. This built-in decoder was UNABLE to play the file. This may very well be due to the VBR moreso than the normal stereo mode. I still have to putz around a bit more. However, when I enabled GrayAMP to use Quicktime playback, it played the file just fine. So, some food for thought.

Xapplimatic

Nov 4, 2001, 03:25 PM

What is this "iTunes Helper" application that iTunes 2 installs into the Log-in items section in system preferences? Does anyone know? What will happen if I remove it from the log-in list?

I don't recall such a beast under iTunes 1.0.. perhaps it has something to do with iPod syncing??

t^3

Nov 4, 2001, 04:33 PM

Apple just put up 2.0.1- the download site was still unavailable a couple minutes ago, but now it's back up!

mymemory

Nov 4, 2001, 07:19 PM

I guess some one got a lot of work this week end at Apple.

In iTunes 2 the visuals are a bit faster than the previous version. What I can tell is that is eating my video ram now. It is skeeping frames and there is not way to slow it down. I liked the original speed better, now I can not "understand" the graphics, they are not that "tripy" now.

Looks like they jumped from iPot speed to iAcids speed.

SPG

Nov 4, 2001, 11:36 PM

A note on VBR...
First off, take this with a grain of salt since my experience is encoding MPEG video and this may not translate exactly to audio. VBR generally decreases file sizes by targeting a lower standard throughout and aiming for the lower bit rate except when really neccessary to jump to the limit or max bit rate. In video (and so audio too I imagine) there is a lot of repetition and the repeat info is what's taken out. VBR in DVD's can look almost as good as CBR (constant bit rate) but notice I said almost. I am very curious as to how VBR audio works so if anyone has some real knowledge of it please share (especially if I'm wrong).
While we're talking DVD stuff, how about AC3 Dolby Digital support? My DVD workstation has iTunes on it too, and it sometimes plays the movie soundtracks I'm working on in .aiff but not the AC3's.
I know most people don't have Dolby Digital encoders but that stuff sounds amazing for the tiny amount of space it takes up.

TSEliotLives

Nov 4, 2001, 11:54 PM

SPG, what you mentioned is true regarding VBR, in that it attempts to maintain a smaller file size. However, this is kind of double-edged. While it may not beat out a constant-bit rate MP3, it can match the quality (usually) of a MP3 of the same bitrate, except with (hopefully) a smaller filesize. So, it's like getting, say, 192 kbps sound quality for the price of a 160 kbps file. In this way, it DOES work to your advantage in sound quality, because you can have a higher bite rate without the larger file size. Of course, if you have tons of storage space, by all means, encode at a high bit rate without VBR. But, for good quality on a budget, VBR can be a useful feature.

GPTurismo

Nov 5, 2001, 11:42 AM

All i know is on my iMac DV SE in OS X.1, it sounds A LOT better. Mainly more thickness, depth, and bass.

All I need now is an iPod.

SPG

Nov 5, 2001, 05:28 PM

Sorry, i was kicking back a few while typing that VBR thing last night. Yes VBR is a great way to get smaller file sizes, but don't kid yourself, there is a little degradation in quality...that's the trade off. The amount of quality lost vs. the amount of space gained all depends on how good a job the encoder does. If you're pressed for the space than VBR is great.
192VBR =160CBR? I don't know. It would be interesting to see somebody put it through more than a subjective test.

TSEliotLives

Nov 5, 2001, 07:20 PM

So, the investigation forges ahead. SPG, I think you're right about the potential for degradation in quality, but like you said, it depends heavily on the encoding engine, and furthermore, on the material being encoded. I harken back to when DVD players were first becoming available, and the DTS vs. Dolby Digital debate was still a hotbed of argument. What it all came down to was the equipment the studio used to encode the soundtrack, and the material itself. Personally, I like MP3 for the ability to have quite a bit of material at my disposal, quickly and easily. I love this ability for broadcast...I take my TiBook with me to the studio, plug in one miniplug, and I can run my entire show with a few clicks and keystrokes. But when I get home...that's a different story. If I'm cleaning, or working around the house, it's nice to put on a mix, let iTunes pick from my songs, and just have music. But if I'm in a listening mood, where my sole purpose is to HEAR, I still think even the best-quality MP3 doesn't quite live up to vinyl or a well-produced CD.

And the whole 192 kbps VBR = 160 kbps CBR thing was just an example. Your results may vary. :)

In the interim, however, I'm eager to really give this a run for its money, test if VBR really is worth the hype. I'll keep everyone "posted." (rimshot)

Multimedia

Nov 5, 2001, 08:30 PM

Same old LAME iTunes MISSING ESSENTIAL SoundJam preferences

When will Apple learn to port an application they buy (SoundJam) with all of its preferences in tact. I am sick and tired of iTunes still missing the "add track number to track name" option that was always in SoundJam and which I still NEED to rip anything. It's one thing to hijack SoundJam from paying customers. But to eliminate ESSENTIAL features in the "FREE" reskinned SoundJam for OS X (iTunes) is one of the all time software rip offs of all time.

Apple doesn't listen to its customers and it certainly doesn't use the software it gives away or that preference never would have been removed from iTunes (reskinned SoundJam) in the first place.

I wish someone could get to Steve Jobs and ask him how he can use an album's track names without track numbers at the beginning of their filenames. If he has an answer, I would sure like to know what it is. Anybody else know how to keep track names in track order without adding their track numbers to the filenames? I don't believe it is possible.

And don't tell me it's in the iTunes interface. I know that. I am talking about the files in the album's folder - not tag info.

So I will continue to have to rip with SoundJam in system 9 because Apple made the iTunes author take it off the Cassidy & Greene website when they bought it. What a blanking rip off! I am livid about this simple option still missing since March when OS X shipped.

Apple should be ashamed of itself for screwing its music ripping customers to this extent. I am very angry and sick about this. I was sure iTunes 2 would have this feature reintroduced. I am shocked it doesn't.

Why weren't paying customers (owners) of SoundJam offered a fully featured iTunes for OS X with all of the SoundJam preferences in tact?

Xapplimatic

Nov 6, 2001, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Multimedia
It's one thing to hijack SoundJam from paying customers...

Apple doesn't listen to its customers...

I wish someone could get to Steve Jobs and ask him how he can use an album's track names without track numbers at the beginning of their filenames. .... Anybody else know how to keep track names in track order without adding their track numbers to the filenames? I don't believe it is possible.

And don't tell me it's in the iTunes interface. I know that. I am talking about the files in the album's folder - not tag info.

So I will continue to have to rip with SoundJam in system 9 because Apple made the iTunes author take it off the Cassidy & Greene website when they bought it. ...
Apple should be ashamed of itself for screwing its music ripping customers to this extent. I am very angry and sick about this...

Why weren't paying customers (owners) of SoundJam offered a fully featured iTunes for OS X with all of the SoundJam preferences in tact?

One can't really be upset at Apple for buying you out.. It's a common business practice and not exclusive by any means to software. If anything, you can be upset at Cassidy & Greene for *selling* you out.

Then again, none of this prevents you from using the software you originally licensed. You licensed Sound Jam from Cassidy & Greene, and it's them you should be upset with for not caring enough about their existing customers to put a clause in the contract which would allow continued development of Sound Jam by licensing the technology in Sound Jam to Apple instead of a total buy-out. Remember, Cassidy & Greene failed their customers by giving up all rights to their product. Apple, on the other hand, only offered something new and free to it's customers. It's all a matter of perspective.

Be resourceful. iTunes doesn't require you not to have numbers in front of words in the name. It will accept any file name and accepts you renaming the files. If it really irks you so much that you absolutely have to have files buried deep in your harddrive named in such and such a way, then write an Apple Script or Real BASIC program for yourself and for anyone else who wants this naming convention which pulls the info out of the tags and adds it into the front of the filename like magic.. Nobody has to sit idly by and wait for Apple to do everything for us.. Complaining is useless when you aren't representing the majority of user concerns.. make something happen without them.

blakespot

Nov 6, 2001, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by SPG
Sorry, i was kicking back a few while typing that VBR thing last night. Yes VBR is a great way to get smaller file sizes, but don't kid yourself, there is a little degradation in quality...that's the trade off. The amount of quality lost vs. the amount of space gained all depends on how good a job the encoder does. If you're pressed for the space than VBR is great.
192VBR =160CBR? I don't know. It would be interesting to see somebody put it through more than a subjective test.

I disagree with this. The bitrate you have set, when using VBR, is a guaranteed minimum, as stated by iTunes. So if you set 160Kbps and enable VBR, then you're going to "at least" get 160Kps encoding--but for complex portions of the audio, the bitrate increases, presumably based on the other quality setting (defaulting to "medium", I've set mine to "high").

Do you disagree with this?

blakespot

blakespot

Nov 6, 2001, 08:56 AM

If it really irks you so much that you absolutely have to have files buried deep in your harddrive named in such and such a way, then write an Apple Script or Real BASIC program for yourself and for anyone else who wants this naming convention which pulls the info out of the tags and adds it into the front of the filename like magic.. Nobody has to sit idly by and wait for Apple to do everything for us.. Complaining is useless when you aren't representing the majority of user concerns.. make something happen without them.

Such a script exists (Unix shellscript). I can't recall where though. When I locate it, I will post.

blakespot

blakespot

Nov 6, 2001, 08:59 AM

If you favor quality over filesize, use VBR.

Debate ended.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/story/0,24330,2440593,00.html

blakespot

TSEliotLives

Nov 6, 2001, 10:38 AM

Thank you, blakespot, you bring up a good point...actually, the ONLY point, being that VBR ensures a constant bitrate. This is a strange animal, because half of the sources I consulted on this said it was to reduce filesize but attempt to get better quality, a quarter said it kept the same filesize, but redistributed the "attention," and the last quarter said it kept the minimum bitrate, expanding it if needed. So, I went with the majority. But, after mulling over this (iTunes itself says it uses the set bitrate as the minimum. Hello? Maybe I was "under the pot," as mymemory is so fond of saying) it does indeed come down to VBR equalling better quality, with varying filesizes. Sheesh. This is exhausting.

[Edited by TSEliotLives on 11-06-2001 at 12:41 PM]

GPTurismo

Nov 6, 2001, 11:23 AM

I sometimes wish Apple would buy more software and take out itty bitty features people uproar about.

:)

Multimedia

Nov 6, 2001, 12:21 PM

Thanks for commenting on my comment. I don't know anything about how to write nor use AppleScript. I am an end user Bozo. I see your point about Cassidy & Greene. You are right. I hadn't thought of that.

My main point is that there is plenty of room in the iTunes preferences interface for both "Add Track Number to Filename" and "Add Extension to Filename" Preferences->Files->Converter from the original SoundJam code that went to Apple.

Is it really too confusing to the lay person to have those two preference options become a part of the iTunes Preference dialog boxes? Is it really too much to ask? Am I really being petty and unreasonable?

My mp3 recorder (Toast Platinum) and MP3 CD-R players (TDK MOJO and RioVolt) both require these track numbers and ".mp3" extensions to be a part of each filename for them to each work correctly. Is anybody listening to how much this is needed? Does NOBODY have a CD-R MP3 player out there? If you did, you would know what I am talking about. Thanks.

Please Steve Jobs I am begging you!!!