Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases iTunes 9.1 to Support iPad

I have a problem with getting my iPod touch to show the lyrics of songs after having enabled the iTunes option to down-convert songs to 128kbps (from mostly lossless sources).

The iPod doesn't get past the "loading lyrics..." screen accompanied by the spinning wheel.


Anybody else experience this problem?

EDIT: My iPod Nano 1g, with the down-converting option enabled, doesn't show lyrics anymore either

EDIT2: As I would have expected, the iPod still shows lyrics correctly for songs that didn't need conversion in the first place, because their bit rate was already lower or equal to 128kbps

EDIT3: This sucks :(
 
deconstruct60 said:
That really doesn't answer the "need" aspect though. Rephrased: why does someone need to carry around their entire music collection on a portable device?

Once the collection reaches the double digit GB range, is it really that long between sync that will listen to more than 25% of that music ?

"Because I can/could" will be a response from some I know. However, just wondering, at normal audio sampling recordings, what folks do with huge portfolios other than just carry it around.
Click to expand...

Because it takes forever to sync my iphone. I really only do it when there is a new update. Again, over the air syncing would be a huge plus. At least for some stuff like media content. If the Pre can do it, so can the iphone!
 
Books in Itunes

Ok, I got in my library in Itunes. Now how do I place books from my Barnes and Nobles e-reader in that book library? Thanks guys for all of the help
 
soLoredd said:
Apple is such a piss-poor company when it comes to actually INVENTING things.
Click to expand...

No one said they were inventing anything brand new here other than the actually iBook app. Since it is an original app (the application code itself, not the purpose the application is applied to), it makes sense to get the app in a solid working mode before start porting it to other platforms. Eventually, Apple probably will. Just like they did with iTunes.



I waited until the Kindle Apps to invest in those books, I'm going to do the same with Apple. Why would I want something tied to just one device? Ridiculous this day and age.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the end game/strategic and a single tactical move. For both Apple and Amazon ( and for vast majority of other software developers) it is a better practice to write your app first for one platform and then port it to another after it has its legs under it. It is called management of complexity. You take a simple working system and then you make it incrementally more complex.

The tyings isn't really to the device, the typing is really an artifact of the DRM. That's what makes that instantiation of the book proprietary. The kindle DRM'ed books are about equally as tied.
 
manu chao said:
Maybe it does require 10.5.8?
Click to expand...

I was going by (faulty) memory. It does have 10.5.8. The server might have been down as even the iTunes update triggered a "missing server" error on the first attempt to download and then all downloaded fine the second time. Tiger didn't have this issue on the same machine.
 
Friscohoya said:
Because it takes forever to sync my iphone. I really only do it when there is a new update.
Click to expand...

So you do no backups ( and presumably buy stuff on the phone over the air) until there is an update. Again this is an "ends justify the means" ... I copy everything so I need it. If copied less stuff each time the sync would go faster.

If this is because tons of media has been dropped on the computer and don't copy till later. Again , the context was not on the device between these long syncs. Likewise if just copy less of it, it will go faster and need less storage on the portable device.

Instead have the packrat mode where just duplicate everything. No storage limit is going to work if the iPhone is a black hole for data. Any possible data anywhere close to the event horizon is going to be pulled in.

Again, over the air syncing would be a huge plus. At least for some stuff like media content. If the Pre can do it, so can the iphone!
Click to expand...

Larger than average transfers will drain batteries. If have to "plug in" the device to get stuff over radios ... what is big diff in plugging in to get from computer?

it talking about over-the-air updates. that's slightly different. also contextually problematical if only do backups when get an update. If got them over the air probably would never back up.
 
iTunes update updated iPhone :(

I clicked 'check for updates' in iTunes to download the new update, didn't really read the rest and just clicked through.
The next time I checked, iTunes was updating my (jailbroken & unlocked) iPhone to 3.1.3 (from 3.1.2). So now I'm having to go through the bother of jailbreaking 3.1.3 when the features weren't really that important...
Oh well. the downgrade songs to 128kps looks really helpful.
Hopefully I can come close to fitting my 80GB library of songs of varying quality (most 256kps) onto my 32GB iPhone!
 
One issue with the Sync conversion to 128kps is that iTunes, like most Apple Apps outside of Compressor, does not take advantage of more than one core.

I have a Core i7 iMac, and only about 20% is being used to convert the songs. Not cool Apple (on a more ridiculous note, Final Cut Pro is still not multi-core aware either). Why develop Grand Central Dispatch if you are not going to use it?
 
nah u won't.my library is circa 50gb.my ipod video 5g has only 32 (27.6).256/128 = 2,so it will be 40 gb for u
 
zedsdead said:
One issue with the Sync conversion to 128kps is that iTunes, like most Apple Apps outside of Compressor, does not take advantage of more than one core.

I have a Core i7 iMac, and only about 20% is being used to convert the songs. Not cool Apple (on a more ridiculous note, Final Cut Pro is still not multi-core aware either). Why develop Grand Central Dispatch if you are not going to use it?
Click to expand...

that's strange.. mine is 2.4 core 2 duo


pretty hot :)

anyway for me ,9k songs(20 days) it will take ~ 20 hours.The good thing is that u can always stop it and start it whenever u want.
 
devianter said:
that's strange.. mine is 2.4 core 2 duo


pretty hot :)

anyway for me ,9k songs(20 days) it will take ~ 20 hours.The good thing is that u can always stop it and start it whenever u want.
Click to expand...

Yours is only using one core as well. I just starting synching and I expect it to finish overnight. I have 15 gigs on my iPhone, so this should knock that down to almost half which will be nice (if only I could fit all 200 gigs of my music...one day).
 
thankins said:
Looks like it does

Screen%20shot%202010-03-30%20at%202.22.24%20PM.png
Click to expand...
Wow no options at all... I would've loved it if I could transcode music into 160kbps high-quality VBR. Then I might rip all my music into lossless format. Now only if iTunes supported flac...
 
Uggh. Newly converted 128 kbps AACs from existing lossy 256 kbps does indeed sound absolutely terrible, as it should. Not sure why Apple decided to go lower than 256. I thought they had mandated that as the new iTunes standard.

Oh well, going to keep all my 256 kbps tracks on the iPhone and only down convert my AAC Lossless files.
 
zedsdead said:
Yours is only using one core as well. I just starting synching and I expect it to finish overnight. I have 15 gigs on my iPhone, so this should knock that down to almost half which will be nice (if only I could fit all 200 gigs of my music...one day).
Click to expand...


i'm not sure,mb i dun understand how it works tho.


btw i never noticed the difference even between a CD-audio and a 192k MP3,using a sony stereo with wood cabinets with my imho good hearing (i'm a musician).mb i'm searching the difference in a wrong place?i mean trebles,basses , or what ? :) Could it be my itunes equalizer (rock) that is killing the whole sound ?
 
Icaras said:
Uggh. Newly converted 128 kbps AACs from existing lossy 256 kbps does indeed sound absolutely terrible, as it should. Not sure why Apple decided to go lower than 256. I thought they had mandated that as the new iTunes standard.

Oh well, going to keep all my 256 kbps tracks on the iPhone and only down convert my AAC Lossless files.
Click to expand...
The problem is it's lossy to lossy conversion, not (necessarily) low bit rates. With the standard iPod headphones 128 kbps would sound fine if it were ripped directly from a lossless source.
 
bobertoq said:
The problem is it's lossy to lossy conversion, not (necessarily) low bit rates. With the standard iPod headphones 128 kbps would sound fine if it were ripped directly from a lossless source.
Click to expand...

Either way. First, its a lossy to a lossy. Next, it's to a horribly low bitrate. Geez, Apple's gonna be the death of quality music.

Anyways, major fail with not even being able to read our epubs directly in iTunes. This whole thing is reeking of an iPad-only update.
 
Friscohoya said:
Because it takes forever to sync my iphone. I really only do it when there is a new update. Again, over the air syncing would be a huge plus. At least for some stuff like media content.
Click to expand...
If the syncing was done wirelessly, it would take even longer.

I sync it about once a week. Even though I transfer quite a few podcasts, it hardly ever takes more than a minute. How long is "forever" for you?
 
A warning about (9.1

Warning

If you have an audiobook (at least from AudibleBook) you must enter your ID and password in iTune (try to play it) before you can see that book in iPhone. It was not the case in (.0.
 
bobertoq said:
The problem is it's lossy to lossy conversion, not (necessarily) low bit rates. With the standard iPod headphones 128 kbps would sound fine if it were ripped directly from a lossless source.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I had stated. I was just reconfirming that lossy to lossy is indeed sh*t.

Hence why I mentioned that I will only be down converting my lossless and keeping my 256 tracks intact. I've already listened to two sources, one down converted from lossy, and one from lossless, and the difference between both 128 kbps tracks in the end were very noticeable.

Edit: Again, I just really wish Apple would have had the option to convert to 256. Apple should keep standards. Not sure why we have to take a step backward in quality right after the entire iTunes store had moved up to 256 kbps. Oh well, we'll probably have to wait until a later update for this to happen. I hate how Apple teases us with half-a$$ed features sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back