iTunes or Looney Tunes? The great music server debate.
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Same ticket gets you admitted to both camps
. Software exists for iTouch/iPad/iPhone to control PC apps just the same. Here is a version for J River: http://melloware.com/products/rivermote/Your other points were mostly addressed by others. I will just add one more: the fear of putting together a PC in a thread where we are discussing how to put together a music server seems odd to me. Either you are afraid of computers or you are not. If you are afraid, then you should get a black box music server such as Meridian's Soolos. Putting together a PC these days is dead simple. If you played with legos when you were little, you can do the same with a PC. The motherboard has every peripheral you can think of. So there is nothing to plug-in. Get an Intel board and you are assured of high-quality drivers, most if not all of which is in Win7 install disc. Places like Newegg.com will sell you complete kit if you don't want to figure out which memory and CPU go together. The rest is just plugging in a Sata and power cable and you are golden.
Putting together a PC will teach you a lot about what is under the hood and what it can or cannot do. Forums like this can walk you through it the first time. Once there, the sense of accomplishment is quite high -- quite a bit higher than buying a shrink-wrapped Mac. On that topic, let's not pretend that the only way to get a Windows PC is to build one. Units from HP and Dell come prebuilt and pretested and if you get the versions without bloatware, then you are good to go without learning a thing. Turn them on and the thing works. Their extensive build to order process lets you customize your PC to a huge extent.
Not quite Steve. Having to wake up the unit to control something takes too long -- much longer than picking up a remote and using it. Until OS 4.0 comes to the Mac with multi-tasking ability to let multiple things run without losing their network connection, it is not suitable for simple things like changing volume or TV channels. For scenarios that could take longer, such as searching for what to play, it is a fine choice. But for interactive stuff, it is not.
You also have a problem if you try to share the device. With your TV remote, it is always there. With an Ipad which could "walk" to the bedroom/den, etc. you wind up having the issue of, "where the iPad?" A $10 device can be left around with ease.
Mind you, I think the development of such tablet is a great thing but Apple has really crippled this capability with an OS whose current capabilities are akin to computers of 20 years ago! I am looking forward to Android based tablets which should give us the freedom to do as we please with the tablet.
Come this fall when OS 4.0 becomes available for ipad would be the time to revisit this issue.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Amir
The ipad is instant on. I promise it isnt sleeping. As to where it will reside. Always in my listening room.
The ipad is instant on. I promise it isnt sleeping. As to where it will reside. Always in my listening room.
Same ticket gets you admitted to both camps
Your other points were mostly addressed by others. I will just add one more: the fear of putting together a PC in a thread where we are discussing how to put together a music server seems odd to me. Either you are afraid of computers or you are not. If you are afraid, then you should get a black box music server such as Meridian's Soolos. Putting together a PC these days is dead simple. If you played with legos when you were little, you can do the same with a PC. The motherboard has every peripheral you can think of. So there is nothing to plug-in. Get an Intel board and you are assured of high-quality drivers, most if not all of which is in Win7 install disc. Places like Newegg.com will sell you complete kit if you don't want to figure out which memory and CPU go together. The rest is just plugging in a Sata and power cable and you are golden.
Putting together a PC will teach you a lot about what is under the hood and what it can or cannot do. Forums like this can walk you through it the first time. Once there, the sense of accomplishment is quite high -- quite a bit higher than buying a shrink-wrapped Mac. On that topic, let's not pretend that the only way to get a Windows PC is to build one. Units from HP and Dell come prebuilt and pretested and if you get the versions without bloatware, then you are good to go without learning a thing. Turn them on and the thing works. Their extensive build to order process lets you customize your PC to a huge extent.
It's not fear of plugging hardware together, Amir. I have multiple external drives, a digital transport, two audio systems with separate DACs, etc, etc. It is...and I completely understand that this probably sounds paranoid and may be totally out of touch with the current environment...fear of doing anything to a Windows PC that is running well. Again, it's probably not a problem anymore, but consumer loyalty is a funny thing; it's easy to lose and almost impossible to earn back. I spent more than a business day, a bunch of phone time and a couple of downloads once trying to get a a wireless router to share an internet connection in an office with just 3 PCs. In the wonderfully closed Apple universe, I bought an Airport Extreme, plugged in my network hard drive and printer, booted the Mac, said "yes" twice, and have been running perfectly ever since.
Fool me once...
P
The problem usually lies in the routers in your example. They take a reference design by the chip manufacturer and spit them out as fast as they possibly can with very little testing. Yet if anything needs testing for a long time, it is a network device. As an aside, those routers most run Linux, cousin of the Mach Unix where OSX came from .
.
The problem usually lies in the routers in your example. They take a reference design by the chip manufacturer and spit them out as fast as they possibly can with very little testing. Yet if anything needs testing for a long time, it is a network device. As an aside, those routers most run Linux, cousin of the Mach Unix where OSX came from
I'm sure you're right. The point is this stuff doesn't happen in the Apple world, or at least it hasn't happened to me. And when you have Apple computer + Apple router = perfect integration. That horrible closed system thing.
P
Which is what we have all been saying all along. If your needs are met by what Apple wants you to have, then you are good to go. But if business interests of Apple don't align with your personal needs, then you need to look elsewhere. I am not going to let Apple dictate what hardware, software or formats I use. For me, that is what "greatness" should mean in the title of this debate: no limits imposed by a commercial maker of hardware. I want to learn about something and be able go and try it, not be hit in the face that such and such doesn't run on the Mac. Or that Apple hasn't yet managed to integrate that hardware.
If we were talking mass consumers, I wouldn't debate you at all that they are served fine by Apple. They want simplicity over capability. But for this forum, and for people striving to learn how to maximize what they can do, Apple's tight rules are a constrained many of us rather than have.
If we were talking mass consumers, I wouldn't debate you at all that they are served fine by Apple. They want simplicity over capability. But for this forum, and for people striving to learn how to maximize what they can do, Apple's tight rules are a constrained many of us rather than have.
Apple router
Wifi routers are pretty cheap. Not a good item to buy on impulse without adequate thought and research.
No reason a Windows PC owner can't buy and use an Apple router. I did. It has been reliable but it is missing some important firewall features. (I have a good firewall ahead of the Apple router. If I needed the firewall features, the Apple router would have been a non-starter.) The Apple s/w used to control the router announces that the Apple router has a problem and downloads a firmware upgrade. Then the upgrade fails. I just go on using the old firmware.
I'd rate the Apple router as a successful purchase but not really up to the Apple hype.
Bill
I'm sure you're right. The point is this stuff doesn't happen in the Apple world, or at least it hasn't happened to me. And when you have Apple computer + Apple router = perfect integration. That horrible closed system thing.
P
Wifi routers are pretty cheap. Not a good item to buy on impulse without adequate thought and research.
No reason a Windows PC owner can't buy and use an Apple router. I did. It has been reliable but it is missing some important firewall features. (I have a good firewall ahead of the Apple router. If I needed the firewall features, the Apple router would have been a non-starter.) The Apple s/w used to control the router announces that the Apple router has a problem and downloads a firmware upgrade. Then the upgrade fails. I just go on using the old firmware.
I'd rate the Apple router as a successful purchase but not really up to the Apple hype.
Bill
Hi
Let's not drift too much toward router ... Yet I would say that for such Apple is not your friend .. D-Link , Linksys and Netgear are.. With D-Link a solid and somewhat under-appreciated performer.
Let's re-center toward the Apple vs Windows debate... where I think for once one would be wise to stick to Windoze , specially W7 ... There are out there a plethora of Media player... No don't use Windows Media Player .. NOt worth it
Use rather
Media Monkey ( free) or Foobar but I am repeating myself ... I am willing to try JRC... I cannot really see what it will bring to my table since I already have bit-perfect through foobar ...
ANother question .. Why Amarra ? Does it really sound better ? I can't see why it should and so far I hear no differences between Media Monkey and Foobar on the Windows PC....
Let's not drift too much toward router ... Yet I would say that for such Apple is not your friend .. D-Link , Linksys and Netgear are.. With D-Link a solid and somewhat under-appreciated performer.
Let's re-center toward the Apple vs Windows debate... where I think for once one would be wise to stick to Windoze , specially W7 ... There are out there a plethora of Media player... No don't use Windows Media Player .. NOt worth it
Use rather
Media Monkey ( free) or Foobar but I am repeating myself ... I am willing to try JRC... I cannot really see what it will bring to my table since I already have bit-perfect through foobar ...
ANother question .. Why Amarra ? Does it really sound better ? I can't see why it should and so far I hear no differences between Media Monkey and Foobar on the Windows PC....
Last edited:
I've tried both Amarra and Pure Music and I don't hear a difference. But people hear what they hear.
P
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
iTunes (or better QuickTime) plays all audio according to the setting in the audio midi panel.
Amarra and Pure Music play everything at its native sample rate.
If they do have an advantage, this is probably the one as SRC is not a trivial thing.
This is a nice one: http://src.infinitewave.ca/
They compare the SRC of various re-samplers.
Check a 64 bit one like iZotope.
In Win7 you can get automatic sample rate switching when using WASAPI.
Obvious in both cases the hardware must support the sample rate, bit depth and number of channels of the source.
Amarra and Pure Music play everything at its native sample rate.
If they do have an advantage, this is probably the one as SRC is not a trivial thing.
This is a nice one: http://src.infinitewave.ca/
They compare the SRC of various re-samplers.
Check a 64 bit one like iZotope.
In Win7 you can get automatic sample rate switching when using WASAPI.
Obvious in both cases the hardware must support the sample rate, bit depth and number of channels of the source.
your choice of player s/w depend son what you want from it
Some audiophiles see PC based audio as just a way to get better sound quality - a change of transport. For me, the real value is in the new functionality it brings. Player software differs in the features provided, in the details of how they work and in the user interface you use.
In my case, using more than the lowest common denominator tags was important. Most of music collection is classical music and other genres where both Composer and Performer are important. I tried a number of player programs over a period of months to develop a thorough understanding of what I wanted and to find software that would deliver what I wanted.
Bill
Some audiophiles see PC based audio as just a way to get better sound quality - a change of transport. For me, the real value is in the new functionality it brings. Player software differs in the features provided, in the details of how they work and in the user interface you use.
In my case, using more than the lowest common denominator tags was important. Most of music collection is classical music and other genres where both Composer and Performer are important. I tried a number of player programs over a period of months to develop a thorough understanding of what I wanted and to find software that would deliver what I wanted.
Bill
A good reason. If there were any reason to believe it could improve sound quality, I'd be tempted. There's not. And I don't hear it.
iTunes supports composer and artist. Same thing. I think the choice of Apple vs PC should have to do with the operating system, the human interface, the available software, etc. It should be about the computer. Music playback is not a demanding function for contemporary computer. It's not even close. Even an outdated Mac or PC can handle it while multifunctioning quite well. Pick the computer that suits you and play music on it as one of its many functions. The functional differences between iTunes and Media Monkey are few compared to the differences between W7 and OSX.
P
Yes, and so does Squeezebox FYI.
One possible advantage of computer audio via USB is the use of asynchronous DACs that control the timing of the computer feed.
Agreed. And that's why I'm a hardcore Mac guy. May be that W7 has closed the interface/ease of use/it just works gap, but this was not the case for me with the thirty
or so prior versions of Windows.As for Apple routers, I've owned several as well as some D-link and Netgear stuff. I don't find their performance any better, in fact, their range is not outstanding (maybe one of the five new antenna engineers will work on routers!), but again, they just work and the Airport Utility makes them simple to re-configure. Haven't used them in a few years, but the Netgear/D-link web based software was a confusing disaster, and though not a programmer, I'm not exactly a tech moron either.
"etc" should also include the infinite range of hardware that is available to Windows PC users.
That is a key consideration for people like me. That's true although until recently, you couldn't easily build a platform that was cool and quiet because of the high power consumption of the CPU even when doing nothing.
I am not following this comment. You can run iTunes on Windows. If that is the sole function of this music server (in its playback mode), what is it that is different about it when running iTunes on both? And what is hard about that difference?
I was using "PC" in a generic way. The statement was an introduction to a discussion of functionality and not a claim of superior sound quality.
> iTunes supports composer and artist
A bit of context. FranzM said
>> I am willing to try JRC... I cannot really see what it will bring to my table since I already have
>> bit-perfect through foobar ...
And I responded that PC playback offered more than a potential sound quality improvement. I offered using tags as an example of increased functionality in PC playback. And I pointed out that different players had different features. I offered the example of using Composer and performer information. This was all addressed to FranzM and none of it was about Windows versus Mac OSX.
Since you brought up iTunes support for Composer tag values, i'll comment on my experience. When I experimented with iTunes (v4.7x), the Composer tag was filled out from the online tag database iTunes used. However, you couldn't display Composer values in a browser pane the way you could use genre, Artist and Album tag values.
My normal way to arrange classical CDs was by Composer, then Work name and then by Artist. I wanted be able to browse in the same order (Composer->Work Name->Artist) in my music player software. While iTunes nominally supported the Composer tag, it was completely inadequate for my purpose.
When new versions of iTunes appeared, I checked to see if support for the Composer tag had improved. Not luck until a few months ago. I read that you could use the Composer values in a browser pane. However, by then I was happily using all sorts of great features in JRMC than iTunes didn't have. (For example, multiple views selecting files as I wanted with different browser panes, different tags displayed and a different sort order for each view.) I didn't bother
iTunes may now allow me to browse using the Composer tag values in a Browser Pane. In the meantime, the competition has moved along much further. I now use a sub-genre tag to reduce the number of works for Composers like Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Dvorak. I use a version Tag to separate reissues from earlier versions or mono performances from stereo. Any tag can be used in a browser pane in JRMC. I use features in JRMC that aren't in iTunes. I'd be an idiot to settle for iTunes on a Mac.
The whole point is that in the Windows world, you have a chance to figure out what you want from software and then find an application that fits. In the Mac world, your options are far more limited.
> The functional differences between iTunes and Media Monkey are few compared to the differences
> between W7 and OSX.
The differences between iTunes and JRMC are real and significant to me.
And what are these differences between W7 and OSX that are significant?
Bill
Last edited:
I think I was just being inarticulate, Amir. I was really only trying to say that it is easy to get great digital audio from either platform, so the Mac/PC decision should probably be made for other reasons -- OS, price, hardware needs all qualify.
I can't really say, Old Listener. Even though there is a W7 system sitting just a few feet away from my Mac, I don't know it well enough to detail the differences. Like I said before, W7 may have addressed all the problems I had in the past, I really can't say. At this point it's just burned fingers. If, after a couple of more generations, I'm still getting reports that Windows is working as well as OSX, I may give it a shot, but that's not consistent with my experience with W95 or XP.
P
Similar threads
