iTunes 4.6 Now Available

[sjk]

Well. Look in your iTunes Music folder. See the .xml file there? Open it. Save it to a new name. Do a global replace of old path to new path. Save it.

Go into iTunes. Delete all existing songs from the library. Import the editted XML library.

Yeah, seems the general consensus is to hack the iTunes Music Library.xml file. Not hard, but I thought there might be another way, maybe using Consolidate Library.

Does that not preserve play counts et al?

Directly modifying the XML file method would preserve everything. It's mostly the Date Added info I don't want to lose.

 

[MegaSignal]

I just don't understand what the problem is...

Nobody has lost any songs. iTunes simply won't play them. That's ok, because there are tons of other AAC players out there. If Apple wants to make their own software less useful, that's their choice.

When I "Hymned" these protected files, Hymn actually created un-DRMd files in a addition to the originals, while not changing the DRM (or at least the iTunes icon with the lock on it) files at all. I then moved all of the DRM-less files to another folder as there was no use for everything to be duplicated.

My version of Hymn must be later - the version number is unavailable - than what these other people have used...

(I prefer to listen to my CDs by creating them with JAM, with beautiful crossfades, so this made sense to me; if and when iTunes can produce TRUE crossfading, this will be unecessary...)

 

[dubbz]

A notice from Oslo, Norway:
I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm perfectly willing to swear: With version 4.6 of iTunes, the "Buy song" buttons are in Norwegian (that is: "Kjøp sang"). I don't think they were in Norwegian before. At least not before v4.5. If it's new in 4.6, it might just mean that iTMS Europe is coming close.

Since I hadn't upgraded yet (was running 4.5, Windows) I checked the iTMS and the buttons were labelled 'Buy song'. I Download & Install iTunes 4.6; Button is still labelled 'Buy song'. Hmm. Oh, I forgot that I've been running the English versions. So I Download & Install iTunes 4.6 Norwegian. Or so I thought. It seems to be version 4.5.0.31. In any case, the buttons are labelled 'Kjøp sang'.

For some reason I'm unable to download Norwegian iTunes v4.6. It always download 4.5. Tried with Mozilla and Opera. It worked fine with the english version though.

 

[blybug]

If you "Convert to AAC" your Hymned AACs in iTunes 4.5 before going to 4.6, the newly converted copies will play in 4.6 (they don't have the account info still embedded). This won't work after you upgrade to 4.6, it won't allow you to reconvert the formerly protected files into AAC. I'll be keeping 4.5 around for this purpose alone.

Yes, I'm aware that this potentially produces lower quality audio (AAC-ing an already AAC'd file) but I can't tell the difference, and I'm not at all part of the audiophile arguments going on in this thread.

 

[WM.]

90% of people working with sound know that 90% of what audiophiles are into is 100% BS.

LOL!! So true...

Sound is science not art and we know a lot about it. The idea at the root of audiophile beliefs is that measurable differences are the same as audible differences. Human ears aren't that good - we have trouble enough sensing the direction of distant sounds with real precision. The idea that miniscule vibrations and timing changes are audible is ludicrous. Compared to the audio-quality of a PowerBook's convertors the digital equipment used by Stevie Wonder in the late 70's was rubbish (he recorded pure digital back in the beginning).

Although I don't know for sure, I'd have to guess that Stevie had it pretty good on the analog side (mics etc.). I don't think you can really say that for a PowerBook. Although I'm sure it's amazing what you can do with commodity ICs these days...

Next time you listen to an 'audiophile' blather on about nuances remember that the artist might well have sung into an old Shure SM57 and then mastered the track through a Soundblaster.

Totally.

My #1 favorite thing about audiophiles--some of them, at least--is when they buy $1200 power cables for their amp or whatever. They have some kind of crazy notion that that will improve the power coming out of their $0.50 wall outlet connected to 100 feet of 14-gauge Romex attached to an old circuit breaker with corroded contacts in a 1950s electrical panel hooked up to a 1930s transformer. And I suppose it probably isn't all that bad, because hopefully their utility knows what it's doing. But thinking that those last five feet really make a difference is...hilarious.

And I'm pretty sure those people really do exist. Otherwise this guy wouldn't be in business. (Click on "Power Cords" when you get past the Flash thing.) After looking at his site some more, I don't see the cords I remember, which were more expensive and had a knob so you could tune them. But still, anything more than a few bucks is just silly...

WM

 

[mattmack]

$0.50 wall outlet connected to 100 feet of 14-gauge Romex


WM

Just FYI it should be #12 romex if it is a receptacle and it's up to the National Electric code. But you are so right that that last six feet is not going to do a darn thing to the power coming out of it.

PS if you do have #14 on a receptacle make sure it is protected by a 15 Amp breaker or fuse.

 

[mattmack]

Otherwise this guy wouldn't be in business.

WM

It is an interesting sight, but I like it when they say they don't know why it works it just does. That makes me want to rush out and drop $200 on a Bass cable.

 

[windowsblowsass]

any one who pays 300 dollars for a power cord needs o be institionilized

 

[Agathon]

Do any of the audiophile bashers here actually listen to music, or do they treat it as pleasant background noise? I won't be abandoning CDs in for downloads for a long time yet due to the poor audio quality.

It's all very well to poke fun at the power-cable lunatics who are rather strange people – speaker cables and interconnects do matter. It doesn't change the fact that high quality audio equipment which is well matched produces a more authentic sound than playing it through your Powerbook. It's also true that for a long time vinyl played on really good equipment sounded more natural than CDs. Things are a lot better now, but some people still prefer vinyl or valve amplification.

On the other hand, I can't see why it would matter much to people who buy top 40 stuff, most of that sounds terrible on an audiophile system since it seems to have been mixed to sound good on a boom box.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Why has this thread turned into audiophiles vs people who don't mind AAC/MP3?

Surely, all iTunes 4.6 changes is compatibility with AirPort Express. AirPort Express is just a wireless version of sticking the cable from your Mac into your sound system.

Surely those audiophiles who were never content with using iTunes anyway would never use AirPort Express.

 

[Wender]

AirPort Express is just a wireless version of sticking the cable from your Mac into your sound system.

Surely those audiophiles who were never content with using iTunes anyway would never use AirPort Express.

Actually - it is BETTER than sticking the cable from your Mac to your amp. Unless you have optical out on your Mac already - in that case it is the exact same. With most Macs, sticking the cable to the amp means first running the sound throught the Macs soundcard, then the resulting analouge signal to the amp. I agree this is an inferior solution.

If I have got this right: Airport Express gives Macs an optical sound output when you don't have one in the first place, and it's even wireless.

 

[mattmack]

Do any of the audiophile bashers here actually listen to music, or do they treat it as pleasant background noise? I won't be abandoning CDs in for downloads for a long time yet due to the poor audio quality.

It's all very well to poke fun at the power-cable lunatics who are rather strange people – speaker cables and interconnects do matter. It doesn't change the fact that high quality audio equipment which is well matched produces a more authentic sound than playing it through your Powerbook. It's also true that for a long time vinyl played on really good equipment sounded more natural than CDs. Things are a lot better now, but some people still prefer vinyl or valve amplification.

On the other hand, I can't see why it would matter much to people who buy top 40 stuff, most of that sounds terrible on an audiophile system since it seems to have been mixed to sound good on a boom box.

Yes I actually play music and record and I am also an electrician. While the cables that go between your instrument and amplifier and amplifier and speakers do affect the sounds that you get I fail to see how a six foot cord coming out of a wall socket can physically affect the quality of sound that comes out of your amplifier. It can do nothing physically to the wave form of the electricity coming from the breaker to the amplifier to do that you would need to put a harmonic filter on your service and while your at it better add a Trans voltage surge suppressor as well

 

[Montserrat]

Audiophile

I'm not trying to fan the flames, but I too ridiculed Audiophiles around 3 years ago. I mean, how could having physically separate boxes influence the sound made? How could there be any variation when it's all digital now anyway?

I was so wrong, just a trip down to your local decent hi-fi shop (Audio-excellence is a good start in the UK) with a couple of good CDs (Leftfield Rhythm and Stealth was a particular eye-opener) taught me not to take the piss out of things I don't know about. Detail, clarity, dynamics and separation all became regular parts of my vocabulary! (Much to my girlfriend's annoyance)

I don't know whether the Voltage regulating cables work (although I've known of their existance for a while) and I use regular extension sockets, but until I've heard the difference with my own ears, I'd stay open on whether it's worth it.

I like to think I'm an audiophile, production quality matters to me and I really enjoy a crisp well reproduced sound, but I still have room for AAC in my life. On my laptop (and perhaps iPod in future (when Steve announces price drop at WWDC )) AAC is a fine format. Played through Sennheiser in-ears, it sounds fine - not audiophile, but when you're listening in a library/tube station/living room there's too much background noise to get upset about great quality. When it's peaceful and quiet and I'm in my room then I use my separates to enjoy the best sound quality.

Hey, we shouldn't be arguing about this - it's personal preference and if iTunes played through desktop PC computers is good enough for you, then that's cool.

(However, I agree with whoever it was that said that most Top 40 stuff is so compressed that it sounds crap on an audiophile system )

Oh and has anyone else read that Digital Coaxial is considerably better than Digital optical (I think I read that in What HiFi? but don't quote me) - I'm still using an analogue NAD amp, so I've never gotten into the whole digital interconnect stuff, but if anyone has any anecdotal evidence, I'd be interested to hear.
Tom

 

[MegaSignal]

Best of the best?

On the lighter side, here's something I hope we all can agree on:

Macintosh: Overall, probably the best personal computer (www.apple.com)

McIntosh: Overall, probably the best audio products, ever (http://www.mcintoshlabs.com)

Heck, I still enjoy using my collection of vintage reel-to-reel machines from time to time for recording/playback of my moldering vinyl collection. Digital, however, is so convenient and sounds comparable to me to other sources of audio due to my slightly damaged hearing (I used to work on Marshall equipment - without hearing protection http://www.marshallamps.com/images/home/home.html)

Slightly OT, but hopefully enjoyed by many...

 

[Montserrat]

Macintosh: Overall, probably the best personal computer (www.apple.com)

McIntosh: Overall, probably the best audio products, ever (http://www.mcintoshlabs.com)

First point definately - the probably can be left out!

Second point not sure, though they are sweet. I wonder does anyone have one of those D/A converters? Really want to try separate Transport / D/A converter CD player to hear the difference.

 

[mattmack]

I'm not trying to fan the flames, but I too ridiculed Audiophiles around 3 years ago. I mean, how could having physically separate boxes influence the sound made? How could there be any variation when it's all digital now anyway?

I was so wrong, just a trip down to your local decent hi-fi shop (Audio-excellence is a good start in the UK) with a couple of good CDs (Leftfield Rhythm and Stealth was a particular eye-opener) taught me not to take the piss out of things I don't know about. Detail, clarity, dynamics and separation all became regular parts of my vocabulary! (Much to my girlfriend's annoyance)

I don't know whether the Voltage regulating cables work (although I've known of their existance for a while) and I use regular extension sockets, but until I've heard the difference with my own ears, I'd stay open on whether it's worth it.

I like to think I'm an audiophile, production quality matters to me and I really enjoy a crisp well reproduced sound, but I still have room for AAC in my life. On my laptop (and perhaps iPod in future (when Steve announces price drop at WWDC )) AAC is a fine format. Played through Sennheiser in-ears, it sounds fine - not audiophile, but when you're listening in a library/tube station/living room there's too much background noise to get upset about great quality. When it's peaceful and quiet and I'm in my room then I use my separates to enjoy the best sound quality.

Hey, we shouldn't be arguing about this - it's personal preference and if iTunes played through desktop PC computers is good enough for you, then that's cool.

(However, I agree with whoever it was that said that most Top 40 stuff is so compressed that it sounds crap on an audiophile system )

Oh and has anyone else read that Digital Coaxial is considerably better than Digital optical (I think I read that in What HiFi? but don't quote me) - I'm still using an analogue NAD amp, so I've never gotten into the whole digital interconnect stuff, but if anyone has any anecdotal evidence, I'd be interested to hear.
Tom

I would not argue the top fforty point and really this is a matter of personal preference and if it sounds good to you then it is worth it

 

[Montserrat]

I would not argue the top fforty point and really this is a matter of personal preference and if it sounds good to you then it is worth it

Just thought I was being too neutral with the rest of the thread, so needed a bit of controversy lol

It is interesting to compare the very poppest of pop with more complex music, the dynamic range does seem a lot narrower and sound thinner as a whole. I have been asked to use my hifi for house parties where my friends wanted something loud and with some mixes there is a discernable difference.

 

[Bruce Lee, PhD]

Hey, cool, I learned something about audio on MR. So I guess upsampling is, in a way, applying the filter in the digital domain, where you can implement it more cheaply than in analog. So if you have some cheap gear with crummy converters and analog circuitry, moving your Nyquist filtering before the conversion (i.e. upsampling) might improve your quality a fair bit. But if you have good converters and good analog circuitry (i.e. not this low-end M-Audio garbage), it becomes less worth it to upsample, because your more traditional filter will be pretty good anyway.

Is that about right?

WM

I like to look at upsampling and oversampling as making some assumptions about the source of the sampled signal. Given the samples you've got in your file, you usually say "What nice smooth curve fits these samples the best?" Anyway yes: when you assume the original source was a 'nice smooth' curve (as opposed to some jagged curve with lots of high frequencies in it) you're basically making the assumption that no really high frequencies were present in the original signal, which serves a similar function as filtering high frequencies later.

In effect, you take your samples, fit a smooth curve to them, and then resample the smooth curve to get a file or stream at a higher effective sample rate. Then when you do your lowpass filtering on that data just before output, you don't get wierd artifacts. The nyquist frequency of your upsampled data stream is nice and high, and when you created the upsampled file, you made the smoothness assumption which guaranteed you'd have no frequencies in your stream which came too close to the nyquist frequency. So when you filter, there's no content in the bands where the filter artifacts could mess with the frequencies.

I should mention that I've never to my knowledge heard gear which used upsampling, so I don't know how well or poorly it works in practice. I have pretty good ears and believe a lot of audiophile claims from personal experience, but there's also a lot of snake oil. These days I listen to AAC's through my powerbook right into a Klipsch 2.1 system. It sounds pretty good. Sure, the high-end gets swirly and the low-mids get farty. But it's just so convenient...

 

[Mustafa]

Any offers??

There are three issues with iTunes that need resolving (in my opinion), does anyone know if any of these are fixed?

1) The continuous play thingee (sounds like that one isn't resolved)--really sucks when I'm listening to my boots...er..."field recordings."

2) The ability to create multiple libraries. I think this would be useful.

3) If I rip a CD in my account, and then switch over to my wife's account--the new song's wont show in the library (even though I have it set to share the same iTunes music folder). The files will be in the proper place and then I have to manually add them in--which isn't a big deal...but would be if I had more than two users.

Steve's Q3 doesn't seem to have been answered -- this bugs me, too.

Anybody know if there's a fix, either in 4.6 or in the previous version? Maybe VersionTracker?

 

[Agathon]

Yes I actually play music and record and I am also an electrician. While the cables that go between your instrument and amplifier and amplifier and speakers do affect the sounds that you get I fail to see how a six foot cord coming out of a wall socket can physically affect the quality of sound that comes out of your amplifier. It can do nothing physically to the wave form of the electricity coming from the breaker to the amplifier to do that you would need to put a harmonic filter on your service and while your at it better add a Trans voltage surge suppressor as well

I've never bought into the power cable thing myself. As someone – perhaps you – said: problems with the power supply itself would probably make it useless.

Similarly, people often mock audiophiles for spiking their speakers or using isolation mats with their separates. But the fact is that these work to improve audio quality.

It's not entirely subjective either: most people have never heard music played through a high quality system and in my experience have been amazed at the difference. Whether or not they are prepared to shell out the dough for such a system depends on how much they value the extra quality – for some people it's not that much of a big deal.

For someone like me, who is a fan of orchestral music, fidelity is extremely important. Your average boom box or computer cannot effectively reproduce what listeners call the "sound stage", the illusion of the space within which the music is coming from (this is really important as it reproduces the placing of instruments in the orchestra). A really high quality system can produce a three dimensional sound picture that is truly amazing – if you don't believe me, try listening to music played through electrostatic speakers sometime: the result is breathtaking.

It's also not true to say that technology necessarily improves things. I have a number of early stereo recordings from the mid fifties which have been restored and transferred to CD. These were made using very few microphones and they still sound great. Many later recordings that used excessive multi-miking and better technology still don't sound as good as them because the engineers didn't know how to work the systems to get the best sound – that is a matter of art.

Music on Computers has a long way to go. One reason is that most people are prepared to put up with the quality of mp3 or AAC. They're OK. I have a stack of them on my mac, mainly popular music, and they are "good enough" for that. But it will be a long time before I will be persuaded to move for good (if ever, since I have a couple of thousand CDs).

I'm sorry if I'm going on about this, but I really care.

 

[WM.]

I like to look at upsampling and oversampling as making some assumptions about the source of the sampled signal. Given the samples you've got in your file, you usually say "What nice smooth curve fits these samples the best?" Anyway yes: when you assume the original source was a 'nice smooth' curve (as opposed to some jagged curve with lots of high frequencies in it) you're basically making the assumption that no really high frequencies were present in the original signal, which serves a similar function as filtering high frequencies later.

In effect, you take your samples, fit a smooth curve to them, and then resample the smooth curve to get a file or stream at a higher effective sample rate. Then when you do your lowpass filtering on that data just before output, you don't get wierd artifacts. The nyquist frequency of your upsampled data stream is nice and high, and when you created the upsampled file, you made the smoothness assumption which guaranteed you'd have no frequencies in your stream which came too close to the nyquist frequency. So when you filter, there's no content in the bands where the filter artifacts could mess with the frequencies.

Thanks for the explanation/clarification!!

I should mention that I've never to my knowledge heard gear which used upsampling, so I don't know how well or poorly it works in practice.

Well, I don't know what the difference is/if there is a difference between upsampling and oversampling, but I know that many if not most CD players these days advertise "8 times oversampling" or something like it.

On a similar note, my Discman says it has a "1bit [sic] DAC". I've never understood why that's a good thing, but I suspect it's something to do with oversampling.

I have pretty good ears and believe a lot of audiophile claims from personal experience, but there's also a lot of snake oil. These days I listen to AAC's through my powerbook right into a Klipsch 2.1 system. It sounds pretty good. Sure, the high-end gets swirly and the low-mids get farty. But it's just so convenient...

Heh. You said "fart". Huh-uh.

WM

 

[WM.]

Similarly, people often mock audiophiles for spiking their speakers or using isolation mats with their separates. But the fact is that these work to improve audio quality.

Hmm, well I can guess what isolation mats are (a chunk of foam rubber or similar material?), and I can certainly see why they'd improve audio quality. But the only relevant definition I know for "spike" would be something like "to mark the placement of something on a stage." Is that what spiking is in a hi-fi context too?

WM

 

[mattmack]

Just thought I was being too neutral with the rest of the thread, so needed a bit of controversy lol

It is interesting to compare the very poppest of pop with more complex music, the dynamic range does seem a lot narrower and sound thinner as a whole. I have been asked to use my hifi for house parties where my friends wanted something loud and with some mixes there is a discernable difference.

LOL a true hifi system would IMO just make those mixes sound lacking in relation to a true vibrant type of music. Even if you make the smaller leap from pop to Pink Floyd you can hear the difference in tonalities and the subtleties of the music. And that is not even going much more complex musically

 

[Montserrat]

LOL a true hifi system would IMO just make those mixes sound lacking in relation to a true vibrant type of music. Even if you make the smaller leap from pop to Pink Floyd you can hear the difference in tonalities and the subtleties of the music. And that is not even going much more complex musically

OK - Complex was a bad choice of word lol. I'll adopt vibrant. Thanks for the correction

 

[Montserrat]

Hmm, well I can guess what isolation mats are (a chunk of foam rubber or similar material?), and I can certainly see why they'd improve audio quality. But the only relevant definition I know for "spike" would be something like "to mark the placement of something on a stage." Is that what spiking is in a hi-fi context too?

WM

Spiking speakers is just putting spikes into the bottom of them, so there is less contact with the floor, or alternatively putting them on spiked stands if they are not floorstanding speakers.