iTunes going to suck less in a few days

[JustinAiken]

Going to be faster for large libraries, and the default rate for CD importing it changed to 256 instead of 128... won't matter for us, since most of us rip CDs in loseless, but I'm all for anything that increases the overall quality of music for average people.

Really going to be excited for the large library speed up though; with nearly 500GB of music in my library, it is sloooooooooowwwwwwww.

AppleInsider | Faster iTunes 8.1 with new import and Genius features due soon

[BlackestEyes]

I'm not so sure iTunes sucked before

[JustinAiken]

Get a few hundred gigs of music and it does.. I love the interface, but it takes forever to add a new album now!!

Blackest Eyes... Porcupine Tree fan?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by JustinAiken

Get a few hundred gigs of music and it does.. I love the interface, but it takes forever to add a new album now!!

Blackest Eyes... Porcupine Tree fan?

I don't have a huge library but I've heard that it gets pretty damn slow. I'm glad they've fixed this somewhat or should I say addressed the performance issues.

Perhaps by version 9 I'll get to central my library on the network and improve some of the management of media.

[Dean Roddey]

Really going to be excited for the large library speed up though; with nearly 500GB of music in my library, it is sloooooooooowwwwwwww.

Steal from ther musicians much? 500GB, at an everage of say ~18MB for a lossless compressed rip would be about 30,000 songs. If you paid even a half a dollar for each one, that would be $15K worth, which doesn't seem too likely. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are one of the people who steal music on that large a scale, I find it strange that you would hang out on a site with people who depend on people not doing that in order to make their living.

[jdier]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Steal from ther musicians much? 500GB, at an everage of say ~18MB for a lossless compressed rip would be about 30,000 songs. If you paid even a half a dollar for each one, that would be $15K worth, which doesn't seem too likely. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are one of the people who steal music on that large a scale, I find it strange that you would hang out on a site with people who depend on people not doing that in order to make their living.

I own 1200 physical CD's and consider myself a modest collector. At an average of 10 songs per CD I would have 12,000 songs (if I ripped them all.)

It does not seem that 30,000 songs is impossible to achieve.

(I could be wrong)

Jim

[JustinAiken]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Steal from ther musicians much? 500GB, at an everage of say ~18MB for a lossless compressed rip would be about 30,000 songs. If you paid even a half a dollar for each one, that would be $15K worth, which doesn't seem too likely. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are one of the people who steal music on that large a scale, I find it strange that you would hang out on a site with people who depend on people not doing that in order to make their living.

I have several hundred CDs, ripped in both ALAC for the computer and V0 mp3s for the ipod... I also have lots of legal bootlegs (Phish and such)... and yes, some downloaded music.

[hmurchison]

Lossless ripping tends to give you roughly 500kbps to 700kbps or so.

Thus the 18MB per album is too low. It's more like 40MB or so per album.

[xj32]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Steal from ther musicians much? 500GB, at an everage of say ~18MB for a lossless compressed rip would be about 30,000 songs. If you paid even a half a dollar for each one, that would be $15K worth, which doesn't seem too likely. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are one of the people who steal music on that large a scale, I find it strange that you would hang out on a site with people who depend on people not doing that in order to make their living.

Yeah careful throwing stones Dean,

I have my music collection on a terrabyte drive all at 256k which for casual listening I am more than happy with.

I have 909 artists with 61,936 songs and I own it all legally. I paid for it.

I like the other poster, have close to 1500 CDs which I spent 6 months ripping to my hard drive so I could fill up my 80 gig I-pod for frequent road trips. I cut out starbucks and eating out much so I can feed my obsessive compulsive habit for more input. Last week I was so impressed with the new U2 album that I went to amazon where they were selling each previous U2 album for $6 each and I bought the entire catalog, just out of curiosity and research. I do that often with artists of all different genres just to continue educating myself on styles and production techniques I want to try.

On average I probably by 2-3 downloaded albums per week, again as I would rather spend $15-$30 on that instead of overpriced coffee and big macs.

Also there are many services like e-music where for $10 - $20 per month you can legally download the equivalent of 5 - 10 albums per month.

I am religiously, morally and ethically opposed to file sharing, ripping cds for friends and torrenting new cds.

So before you go making accusations please know your audience and get your facts straight.

XJ

[Animus]

I too have about 500 gigs of material and itunes is not slow at all. If you harddisks are set to sleep there will be some suggishness as you browse through the library and the HD has to spin up and seek.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by xj32

Yeah careful throwing stones Dean,

Agreed.
My 80 gig iPod is full and it's more or less a 'best of' my CD collection.
I'm using Apple Lossless too.
I haven't uploaded any of my classical stuff, or much fusion and jazz where tracks can be 20 minutes in length.
I also have a few gigs of demos and album tracks I've worked on. Catalogues of tracks I've had to learn for live tours etc.....
Some musician friends have much bigger music collections than me, a lot of it bought at a higher price than a regular CD (rare albums, and boutique re-issues etc).
I'm really anti piracy and illegal downloading.

[chrisso]

I like the crossfade feature on my computer version of iTunes, but it never seems to work on an iPod. Songs start and end abruptly.
Is that right?
If so, I wish Apple would update that feature.

[lacerta]

large collection or not, im not a huge itunes fan. it has always been slow for me (regardless of library size) and it needs ASIO support! im a current winamp user (for ASIO and my large library is lightyears faster with it)

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Steal from ther musicians much?

I think you'll be biting your tongue on this one, but I won't speak for the OP.

I have ZERO stolen songs but well over 1,000 CDs and in lossless format it's over 100 gig. I'm by no means a big collector, so I can see a serious collector racking up data quickly.

btw, iTunes isn't slow on my machine, not at 100-ish gigs.

[doorknocker]

The problem I have with iTunes is the SOUND QUALITY. Yes, I import almost my music as WAV.-Files so it's not that.

It has been discussed here before but my ears don't deceive me. And yes, I have great converters and monitors too so that's also not the problem. Even QuickTime sounds vastly better than iTunes.

[badhorsie777]

I'm starting to hear the same thing - itunes sounds a bit different - even with eq off and the volume at max (no attenuation?) things sound a bit different... I read these posts before and thought those guys are like Eric Johnson - who can "hear" the difference in 9v battery brands... but I'm starting to drink the kool aid, I guess

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by badhorsie777

I'm starting to hear the same thing - itunes sounds a bit different - even with eq off and the volume at max (no attenuation?) things sound a bit different... I read these posts before and thought those guys are like Eric Johnson - who can "hear" the difference in 9v battery brands... but I'm starting to drink the kool aid, I guess

It's pretty much a day and night difference. It's not even that iTunes is sounding bad, I just won't use it for mix judgements anymore.

[badhorsie777]

What IS a good playback software option, sonically, on OSX?

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by badhorsie777

What IS a good playback software option, sonically, on OSX?

I really don't know! Is there some kind of 'CD Player' for OSX?

I think I had something on similar in OS9. Just something that doesn't color the sound and retains the pauses, etc.

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

I really don't know! Is there some kind of 'CD Player' for OSX?

I think I had something on similar in OS9. Just something that doesn't color the sound and retains the pauses, etc.

Why not try iTunes? It plays back the files bit for bit identical if you have it setup properly (no crossfade, no sound enhancer).

I've personally tested this myself with a digital loopback in iTunes 6-7-8.

If you're just trying to get rid of the placebo effect that you're likely experiencing, then maybe there's a skin for iTunes that'll make it sound better?

---

Or you can use quicktime, which it seems a lot of people swear up and down sounds different from iTunes despite using the exact same playback engine. (and both outputting bit-perfect samples)

[badhorsie777]

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

Why not try iTunes? It plays back the files bit for bit identical if you have it setup properly (no crossfade, no sound enhancer).

I've personally tested this myself with a digital loopback in iTunes 6-7-8.

If you're just trying to get rid of the placebo effect that you're likely experiencing, then maybe there's a skin for iTunes that'll make it sound better?

Lemme check - no crossfade, no sound enhancer... maybe that's been my koolaid

-matt

[badhorsie777]

Damn equallizer was on... I'll betcha that's a huge reason I heard what I heard. So, crossfade, soundcheck, equalizer, anything else that is a variable people may want to check?

[DivineMusic]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Lossless ripping tends to give you roughly 500kbps to 700kbps or so.

Thus the 18MB per album is too low. It's more like 40MB or so per album.

its not 40mb for an loseless album... mp3 is larger than that.
an loseless isnt 500-700kbps... its 1019kbps(44k) to 3121kbps(96k)

i just encoded a song to send to an artist that didnt want a mp3, i made it loseless. the song was 40mb as a wav, 16bit/44, 3:58 long
29mb encoded loseless
so 29mb for a 4minute song over a album with 15 songs..435mb

24bit/48 song that was 4:00 long was 65.8mb, encoding it loseless the song is 52.7mb
so if your encoding loseless from 48k files 1 record can easily be 800mb to a gig...

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

Why not try iTunes? It plays back the files bit for bit identical if you have it setup properly (no crossfade, no sound enhancer).

I've personally tested this myself with a digital loopback in iTunes 6-7-8.

If you're just trying to get rid of the placebo effect that you're likely experiencing, then maybe there's a skin for iTunes that'll make it sound better?

I checked all the options for sure. Everything is off.

Everything I do here in terms of audio goes thru the DA of my UA 2192. There is a HUGE difference between playing back the same file in Quicktime and iTunes. That's not even guess but a simple REALITY when you're listening on my setup.

This reminds me of folks saying that all CD players sound the same because it's digital! Sure the SOURCE is the same when playing back a file in iTunes vs. QuickTime. But the app is doing something to the output,whatever it is. Again, it's not about 'I think hear a bit more depth here. The difference is very unsubtle and obvious.

[DivineMusic]

Originally Posted by Robert Randolph

Why not try iTunes? It plays back the files bit for bit identical if you have it setup properly (no crossfade, no sound enhancer).

I've personally tested this myself with a digital loopback in iTunes 6-7-8.

If you're just trying to get rid of the placebo effect that you're likely experiencing, then maybe there's a skin for iTunes that'll make it sound better?

---

Or you can use quicktime, which it seems a lot of people swear up and down sounds different from iTunes despite using the exact same playback engine. (and both outputting bit-perfect samples)

ive tried test to.. and at times i feel itunes sounds a little thinner at times vs media-monkey, quicktime, wavelab 6...but personally i like ltunes and i use ipods so im not gonna change.
easy interface and as you said.. its the same playback engine as quicktime...but something sounds different using my lucid 88192 DA

[EricBradley]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

There is a HUGE difference between playing back the same file in Quicktime and iTunes. That's not even guess but a simple REALITY when you're listening on my setup.

Something is definitely wrong if you are experiencing this behavior.

iTunes Sound Engine IS Quicktime. No more no less.
Like the previos posters said you have to uncheck all extra audio processing to get the bit per bit sound:

Crossfade Songs - Uncheck
Sound Enhancer - Uncheck
Sound Check - Uncheck
EQ - (Menu >Window > Equalizer ) Uncheck
Set the volume fader in iTunes to the Maximum Level.

Here's more INFO:

ITunes-QuickTime for Mac - Setup Guide - Benchmark

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by EricBradley

Here's more INFO:
ITunes-QuickTime for Mac - Setup Guide - Benchmark

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[BlackestEyes]

Originally Posted by JustinAiken

Get a few hundred gigs of music and it does.. I love the interface, but it takes forever to add a new album now!!

Blackest Eyes... Porcupine Tree fan?

Yep.

Yeah, iTunes does load pretty slow if you have a bunch of music, but I always just assumed it was my computer haha.

[Doug Rogers]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

The problem I have with iTunes is the SOUND QUALITY. Yes, I import almost my music as WAV.-Files so it's not that.

It has been discussed here before but my ears don't deceive me. And yes, I have great converters and monitors too so that's also not the problem. Even QuickTime sounds vastly better than iTunes.

Agree!!

I don't have anything you mentioned checked, it sounds different to QT, QT sounds better.

Cheers,

- DR

[yeloocproducer]

I did a loopback test once and couldn't hear the difference between soundblade, PT, and itunes when set properly. This was done on an avocet w/ barefoot MM27s, and I'm used to listening for dither differences, etc.

That being said... it was awhile ago. And now I have heard several prominent pros saying there is a difference now between quicktime and itunes.