PDA

View Full Version : Like the performance but not the user interface



lagosirio
2008-01-23, 04:18
I think about buying a SB or an Airport Express.

I am using an iMac and want to keep that as user interface for the hifi system.
This user interface is not just iTunes. It is optionally even the super baby simple GUI of Apple FrontRow and it includes the iMac remote control. For Airport Express there is even AirFoil to direct video sound to the hifi system.

From my point of view no little SB boxes display will ever offer the comfort of a user interface on a big screen (inclunding e.g. Apple CoverFlow!) and certainly Apple will always have much more development capacities to make everything really ergonomic.

However: I don't want Airport Express but SB due to the much better sound quality and the stand allone web-radio feature!!!

What to do?

mherger
2008-01-23, 04:36
Please stop it. This is the fifth thread you're starting asking basically the same question. You've even got answers to some of the others. Thanks.

--

Michael

schatzy
2008-01-23, 05:25
Well lets see here

1. iTunes does a very bad job of ripping music you should not use it. Other rippers do a much better job.

2. iTunes has a very bad reputation for messing with your music. and moving it around the way it wants to not how you want it. Yes some say it can be turned off but it still does what it wants to most of the time anyway.

3. The sound quality of the Airport express is not to your liking, and you don't like the interface.

Thats three strikes so i would say it's out of here. Buy an SB3 and use SC7, which by the way does a better job as an interface than iTunes will ever do.

BTW This is the same answer you are going to get from most folks on this forum.

Now as Michael said stop posting this question. You have your answer.

Schatzy

lagosirio
2008-01-23, 12:42
Buy an SB3 and use SC7

Oh, interresting proposal, thank you!
I will have a look to SC7. Never heard about that.

Regarding the ripping: That issue is even totally new for me. Is this valid for Apple Lossless or for all formats?
You mean the sound quality in is in the end not as good as if you rip with other software? Difficult to believe for the Lossless format. OR are you talking about the usability?

moley6knipe
2008-01-24, 06:20
1. iTunes does a very bad job of ripping music you should not use it. Other rippers do a much better job.

2. iTunes has a very bad reputation for messing with your music. and moving it around the way it wants to not how you want it. Yes some say it can be turned off but it still does what it wants to most of the time anyway.

1. Does it? I've ripped several CDs using iTunes/Apple Lossless, and then EAC/Flac, and they sound the same to me.

2. Total arse. On a PC, if you install iTunes for the first time it asks if you want iTunes to organise your folders. Subsequent updates remember your preference. It doesn't do "what it wants to most of the time" - I've been using iTunes for about 2 years and with the organise option off, it's never, ever, ever retagged or moved any of my files.

autopilot
2008-01-24, 12:20
1. Does it? I've ripped several CDs using iTunes/Apple Lossless, and then EAC/Flac, and they sound the same to me.

2. Total arse. On a PC, if you install iTunes for the first time it asks if you want iTunes to organise your folders. Subsequent updates remember your preference. It doesn't do "what it wants to most of the time" - I've been using iTunes for about 2 years and with the organise option off, it's never, ever, ever retagged or moved any of my files.

I'm sorry, but iTunes is well known for messing with your tags etc. It also has a weird way of handling album art. But the biggest thing about iTunes is ripping - it fine if you have perfect CD's, but if you have damaged CD then EAC is far better and recovering them. I have 2 iPod's and have used iTunes for years (since version 1) but its so bloated that i only use to to drop tracks onto my iPods and other tools to manage my collection.

But yes, iTunes is not as bad as many people make out... but at the end of the day there is far better software out there for free.

As for FLAC Vs ALAC - FLAC does gapless better and is a native format, so it probably a better choice.

jsprag
2008-01-24, 13:24
1. iTunes does a very bad job of ripping music you should not use it.

Try this - rip your next CD with Slimserver/Squeezecenter and see how well it turns out.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that itunes is inferior to SS/SC because it has imperfect ripping.

ceejay
2008-01-24, 14:46
Try this - rip your next CD with Slimserver/Squeezecenter and see how well it turns out.



That will be tough, as SS/SC has no ripping facility at all.

autopilot
2008-01-24, 15:26
Try this - rip your next CD with Slimserver/Squeezecenter and see how well it turns out.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. It makes no sense to say that itunes is inferior to SS/SC because it has imperfect ripping.

Try read what people post - nobody said it was inferior to SS/SC or otherwise. What he said was there are much better rippers out there than iTunes, which there are - try EAC, CDeX or DBpowerAMP for example.

Why defend iTunes so much? Do we have Apple employee's on the forums?

jsprag
2008-01-24, 15:32
That will be tough, as SS/SC has no ripping facility at all.


Really? I must be working off an old build from before they took that feature out...

Seriously though, that was my point. The fact that itunes' ripping capability isn't first rate somehow became an argument that it's inferior to SS/SC which, as you pointed out, has none at all.

Kind of like saying that "Your bathroom has a leaky toilet while my garage doesn't. Therefore my garage is better." See, told you it makes no sense!

snarlydwarf
2008-01-24, 15:34
Really? I must be working off an old build from before they took that feature out...


No you must be from the future, since it never had it.

jsprag
2008-01-24, 16:35
Try read what people post - nobody said it was inferior to SS/SC or otherwise.

Really? Let's recap:


1. iTunes does a very bad job of ripping music you should not use it. Other rippers do a much better job.

2...

3...

Thats three strikes so i would say it's out of here. Buy an SB3 and use SC7, which by the way does a better job as an interface than iTunes will ever do.

Isn't saying that SC7 is better than itunes (SC7>itunes) the equivalent of saying itunes is inferior to SC7 (itunes<SC7)?

In the bigger picture, the question concerns the choice of the SB3/SC7 combo versus the APE/itunes combo. There are several reasons for and against each of them (for the record, I couldn't decide at one point so I have both). But a person shouldn't reject the itunes/APE combo because of itunes' ripping capability. In the end it is no worse than the (nonexistent) ripping capability of SS/SC. Use an external ripper with itunes as well as SS/SC and you've leveled the playing field on the issue.



Why defend iTunes so much? Do we have Apple employee's on the forums?

Nope, just somebody who prefers clean and straightforward comparisons without muddying the waters with irrelevancies.

They both have their place and, as I said, their own strengths and weaknesses. It isn't necessary for one of them to win and one to lose because they serve different purposes. The fact that SS/SC integrates with itunes is recognition that they both bring something to the table if you choose to use them.


No you must be from the future, since it never had it.

Sorry, don't post here much. In the future (ha ha) I'll be more careful to set my and flags.

bigfool1956
2008-01-24, 16:46
FLAC does gapless better.

in the context 'better than ALAC'. I was wondering why you said that. I have no problems with gapless playback for ALAC, but then I only use it for Apple products (iPod and AppleTV). I also use FLAC for my TP.

lagosirio
2008-01-24, 17:52
Well, I must just say:
I love CoverFlow a lot. I love browsing through my CD collection with CoverFlow and chose what I would like to hear.
Is there an alternative to iTunes?

autopilot
2008-01-24, 18:57
I have to admit, i like coverflow. But then i am a sucker for things like that. But i would not base a purchase decision on it because a) Slimserver displays album art great, it just does not have the fancy animation b) I can access slimserver anywhere around my house via a PDA or a Squeezebox controller. You still have to go to your PC running iTunes - do you really want to keep running back to the PC to change album?

pfarrell
2008-01-25, 19:55
Normally we try to be friendly on the beginners forum, but

Please don't feed the trolls

autopilot
2008-01-26, 03:34
in the context 'better than ALAC'. I was wondering why you said that. I have no problems with gapless playback for ALAC, but then I only use it for Apple products (iPod and AppleTV). I also use FLAC for my TP.

Because a couple of years back, when i was first experimenting with which formats would suit me best, and found that FLAC always gave me perfect gapless playback while ALAC did not. FLAC was designed with it in mind, not sure about ALAC. If its fine now (a lot of improvements have been made regarding gapless) that great, but i will stick to FLAC.

lagosirio
2008-01-27, 09:10
Problem Solved!

No problem to use iTunes, FrontRow, Quicktime or any other sound scoure!

The solution:

Convert the audio output to a radio-stream and feed that to the squeezebox!
A great tool for this is "NiceCast"!
For Apple Leopard download V1.9 or later.

Disadvantages:
1. I am not sure about the resulting sound quality
2. You will have a time delay of some seconds.


See even: http://forums.slimdevices.com/archive/index.php/t-30222.html