PDA

View Full Version : Looking for a better way to create playlists



Okijames
2007-05-12, 19:20
No offense but creating playlists via Slimserver is laborious. The webUI just isn't very responsive for this activity, and is missing ease of use features like drag-n-drop addition of songs. Am I missing something, or is that just the way it is?

I previously used iTunes to create playlists, but recently had my CD collection ripped to FLAC, so iTunes is no longer an option. Can Slimserver use playlists created on another tool, with similar speed and ease of use?

A huge plus would have this tool also integrate with iPods. Right now I transcode all my FLAC files to MP3s in a separate directory for iTunes/iPod use.

With all this fuss, I am seriously considering transcoding everything to Apple lossless. Is this the ultimate format for someone with a Transporter and an iPod?

Any chance of Apple possibly supporting FLAC on iTunes/iPod? Wishful thinking right?

givendale
2007-05-12, 20:54
Hi Okijames,

I've been using MusicIP Mixer.

All you need to do is create the playlist, save it and then copy the file to the location specified in SlimServer.

Nice and easy.

http://www.musicip.com

bdelp
2007-05-12, 22:56
I second MiP....it's fantastic.
BD

Nostromo
2007-05-13, 06:46
No offense but creating playlists via Slimserver is laborious. The webUI just isn't very responsive for this activity, and is missing ease of use features like drag-n-drop addition of songs. Am I missing something, or is that just the way it is?

I previously used iTunes to create playlists, but recently had my CD collection ripped to FLAC, so iTunes is no longer an option. Can Slimserver use playlists created on another tool, with similar speed and ease of use?

Yes, its laborious. And, yes, you can use external programs to create playlists. But you could also try the new SlimFX skin. It features drag and drop. Its very promising and looks good, too.

BTW, you can easily create playlists with the remote. Just select albums or tracks with the remote and they'll appear in Slimserver. Then, you just have to save your playlist.


A huge plus would have this tool also integrate with iPods. Right now I transcode all my FLAC files to MP3s in a separate directory for iTunes/iPod use.

With all this fuss, I am seriously considering transcoding everything to Apple lossless. Is this the ultimate format for someone with a Transporter and an iPod?

Any chance of Apple possibly supporting FLAC on iTunes/iPod? Wishful thinking right?

You can play FLAC files on your iPod. Just install Rockbox (a firmware) on your iPod. There are also alternative iTunes-like programs that supports FLAC files. But why would you want that? You'd be wasting huge amounts of space on your iPod. The same is true of Apple Lossless (ALAC) files, too. Also, ALAC isn't fully supported by the Squeezebox. You can't FFW or REW ALAC tracks on your Squeezebox.

The best approach, IMO, is the two separate music libraries approach. BTW, if you're using EAC, you can rip a CD and have it encode it in FLAC and MP3 simultaneously. Just use MAREO.

And those are some of the options you have now. Things will change in the coming months.

Balthazar_B
2007-05-13, 07:57
The best approach, IMO, is the two separate music libraries approach. BTW, if you're using EAC, you can rip a CD and have it encode it in FLAC and MP3 simultaneously. Just use MAREO.


Even better (IMHO) if you're using an iPod is to use REACT2 (which uses EAC to rip) and simultaneously generate FLAC and M4A files (using iTunes to code the latter), which is what I do.
After much testing, I concluded that at least on an iPod, 128-bit iTunes-coded M4A files sounded slightly better than Lame-encoded MP3 VBR files at anything under 160-bit. YMMV.

Nostromo
2007-05-13, 08:08
Interesting. I'll check it out.

Okijames
2007-05-13, 10:29
Thanks for all the responses, I thought this was hopeless!

Ok so I can add FLAC support to the iPod via RockBox, and it looks like I can also add FLAC support to iTunes via XiphQT.

http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/

I can use FLAC everywhere; one format to rule them all, nice. Now I just have to simplify everything so I don't spend too much time supporting my neighbors. I convinced several of them (all iPod/iTunes users) to purchase SBs or Transporters for Christmas, and they've been a bit of a support issue for me. This whole dual format thing, their comfort level with iTunes, and the Slimserver interface deficiencies have been driving me nuts.

FWIW, I am ok with everyone fitting fewer songs on their iPods due to FLAC file sizes. So a 30GB iPod holds 1000 songs instead of 5000, it's not intended to hold their entire music library, that's why they have Slimserver.

Okijames
2007-05-13, 17:39
There seem to be persistent rumors that the next version of OSX (boing beta next month) will support FLAC, leading to the possibility of native FLAC support in iTunes. Until then, I'll try some of the suggestions in this thread.

Thanks again!

ezkcdude
2007-05-18, 06:30
I use MusicIP, but it's only for mp3's, AFAIK. That's one of the main reasons I have not moved over to using FLAC.

Siduhe
2007-05-18, 07:14
I use MusicIP, but it's only for mp3's, AFAIK. That's one of the main reasons I have not moved over to using FLAC.

Works on my FLAC files with no problems. FLAC support was a bit flakey in the beta version, but the release version is working fine.

The latest version of MIP supports the following:

Windows - .m4a, .m4p, .mp3, .wma, .ogg, .flac and .wav files
Mac - .m4a, .m4p, .mp3, .ogg, .flac and .wav
Linux - mp3, .ogg, .flac and .wav

dwc
2007-05-18, 21:53
Just my opinion, but flac on a portable is a waste of disk space.

With newer versions of LAME and proper settings, I get mp3's in the range from 300-700kbps, and they sound great. I really do not hear a difference between these files and flac files on a portable. [My portable system is not that crappy either - I run an IAudio X5 into a Xin Supermacro3 amp into Shure E4C's or Senn HD600's.]

To be honest, one of the main reasons I got the X5 was its support for flac files, but the space savings on the hard drive with no noticeable loss in audio quality makes it an easy decision now. I use Robin's flac2mp3.pl script [http://robinbowes.com/projects/flac2mp3] to load whatever I want onto the portable from my flac library.

I use lame 3.97 and the mp3 settings are as follows(taken from my flac2mp3 script):

# Modify lame options if required
our @lameargs = qw (-b32 -mj -q1 -V0);

I don't know what these settings mean, but I know they make for a brilliant-sounding mp3 file. Also fwiw I cannot stand listening to 128k mp3's and am seldom happy with any of the 190k mp3's either. But the ones produced by the script settings above are worth checking out. Credit is due to the guy who first posted these LAME settings over in our audiophile forum.

-Dan

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-19, 07:56
With newer versions of LAME and proper settings, I get mp3's in the range from 300-700kbps, and they sound great.

You can produce 700 kbps MP3s? I thought they maxed out at 360?

FWIW, FLACs produced using flac 1.1.3 or later can get down to 700 kbps, so there isn't much space savings and you still get lossy encoding.

I'm not saying that MP3 isn't the right one to use in portables, I'm saying that a 700 kbps MP3 doesn't have much space savings over FLAC yet it can't sound better - the only thing you could hope for is that it sounds about as good.

dwc
2007-05-29, 20:49
They don't max out at 360, that's for sure. When I listed 700, I listed it as the max. I'm hard pressed to find any actual files that high, but there are enough in the 500's and 600's.

Let's take a look at the disk space issue, using Abbey Road:

Flac files: (see attachment 1 "abbey-flac") 270 MB

High Quality MP3's (see attachment 2 "abbey-mp3") 80MB

That's a HUGE difference in disk space.

-Dan

azinck3
2007-05-29, 21:41
They don't max out at 360, that's for sure. When I listed 700, I listed it as the max. I'm hard pressed to find any actual files that high, but there are enough in the 500's and 600's.

Let's take a look at the disk space issue, using Abbey Road:

Flac files: (see attachment 1 "abbey-flac") 270 MB

High Quality MP3's (see attachment 2 "abbey-mp3") 80MB

That's a HUGE difference in disk space.

-Dan

The bitrates reported in your screen shot simply can't be right.

Look at a track (let's look at track 5, for instance). The mp3 track is 5 MB and reported to be encoded at nearly 600kbps. This would mean that the track is only about 67 seconds long [5000kB/(600kbps/8)]. Furthermore, the FLAC version is 16MB, which is more than three times larger than the mp3. But if that's true then the average bitrate must be three time greater than the mp3. That would put the bitrate for the FLAC version at 1800kbps which is higher even than the 1411kbps bitrate of uncompressed WAV 44.1/16 audio.

dwc
2007-05-30, 09:56
So I think the issue must be windows' display of bitrate. Foobar is showing bitrates in the mid-200's.