No need for iTunes now on Windows

[Q Classic]

of course, getting people to purchase technology sensibly is a futile goal.

anybody who isn't in the know tends to fall victim to the buzzword disease.

[mrmitchell]

What does popularity with users matter?

Isn't this from the same guy who has previously argued that it's best for computers if there's only one major popular OS or browser?

[Fake Boris]

My point, is that LCD stats rarely turn into real world benefits, so I suspect the SNR might not be everything.

At least, you should measure SNR yourself and not take the numbers given by the company.

[Hagbart]

iTunes is a near perfect programme, there is no need to bash it like this. It integrates perfectly with the iPod, transferring playcounts and ratings when you sync.

I have no need for winamp anymore, I used it before iTunes for windows came out. iTunes is simply better. If you own an iPod iTunes is a must.

You don't have to hate iTunes just because it's made by Apple.

[Q Classic]

i can't stand itunes. not because it's by apple, but because it just feels bloated to me. no windowshade mode, for one; takes up plenty of screen real estate, for another. a heavy memory footprint, too.

[Q Classic]

itunes is simply not better.

as a player, i personally like winamp's directsound with dfx plugin. sounds hella better than windows media player, foobar, or itunes.

[Q Classic]

and as far as near perfect... the nasty bug that came out with the first release of itunes for windows... the cdburning, on win2k machines?

[Asher]

iTunes is a mediocre program at best.

[Asher]

Things I don't like about iTunes:

• Crappy visualizers
  
• Huge memory footprint
  
• Large CPU usage
  
• Slow interface, at least on the PC
  
• Lack of windowshade mode
  
• Lack of systemtray mode
  
• Inability to set system priority
  
• Lack of WMA support
  
• Installing a couple services and startup options that take up even more resources, and are totally useless to most people
  
• Close integration to QuickTime, one of the most craptastic programs of recent time
  
• Lack of Zen support
  
• The music store is useless
  
• Inefficient use of screen realestate -- LOTS of blank area and whitespace
  
• Defaults to massive screensize -- not really adjustable
  
• Lack of theme support
  
• Weak equalizer
  
• Where's the option to upmix stereo to 5.1 surround? I like it using all of my speakers, please.

Perfect? Far, far from it.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Asher
iTunes is a mediocre program at best.

your opinion

[Agathon]

If you can't accept that the only audio quality that matters is heard quality, then you aren't interested in it.

There's stacks of things that affect hi-fi audio quality: amplification, speakers, the shape of the room you are in, etc. Presumably statistics give us some insight into how we can improve audio quality by correlating certain stats with certain heard phenomena - but we don't know enough about heard audio quality to be able to say with any reasonable accuracy that this one will sound better than that one, just based on a one point difference. There are too many other factors. That's why comparative listening tests are a sine qua non when one buys audio equipment.

I don't know if it is still the case, but people used to brag about how low their system could go when reproducing bass frequencies. But there was no point in having a system that reproduced these low frequencies if it sounded like mush. People who worried about that sort of thing were stupid.

The hearing of music is, like hearing anything, an irreducibly subjective experience. We can use science to refine our devices, but in the end only heard quality matters - and to complicate the issue, that may well be different for different people.

Here's an excerpt from a comparison of two DACs in a hi-fi mag.

When the Musical Fidelity processor arrived I still had the Perpetual Technologies digital to digital processor (P1-A) and DAC (P3-A) on hand for a brief period overlap so sonic comparisons were certainly in order. With both processors fed by the P1-A (which up-samples to 96 kHz, mounts multi-pronged attacks on jitter, and actually interpolates data that would have been recorded if the source were 24/96) the two DACs sounded truly excellent, and definitely revealed subtle, but distinctive characteristics. Slightly darker tonally, the Musical Fidelity also sounded a touch more refined than the less expensive P3-A. At the same time the P3 had a very slight edge in overall detail, owing in part to a slightly brighter, drier sound. Both DACs unequivocally blew away the internal DAC in my Rotel RCD-951 CD player but I came away with the feeling that the MF was the smoother operator, it's suave, more analog-like sound making it more natural sounding and less fatiguing over the long haul. This impression only increased when the P3-A was stripped of the advantage of the US $349 Monolithic Sound power supply designed to drive both it and the P1-A. Running on its internal power supply the P3-A sounded decidedly coarser and a touch aggressive by comparison with bass now a little underdamped.

As you can see, he's testing them by listening.

Again:

Even more concentrated, intent listening, with the most challenging source material in my collection did, over time, start to reveal some very subtle, but identifiable differences between the two DACs. On Air's 10,000 Hz Legend, for instance, the DAC 2 seemed just a hair more open with a slightly wider soundstage and somewhat crisper transient edges for a vaguely more three dimensional effect. Tonally, in terms of overall resolution, imaging and bass control, however, I couldn't hear any consistent differences. They both sounded great. More or less the same, but great.

      On the Kundun Soundtrack and Patricia Barber's Caf� Blue, as good a test of digital resolving power as I've come across, the sound was sumptuous on both processors, with maybe an extra whiff of air and a centimeter of stage width from the Bel Canto. At the same time I felt that the A3 24 delivered a slightly smoother sound, the top end and mids ever so slightly lusher. Both featured fast, engagingly tactile microdynamics and extraordinary resolution with extended, firm, and well damped bottom end. They may lack the sophistication of digital from the likes of dCS and Levinson, but there were few faults to find in this pair of processors.

This is the sort of thing you'd find in any hi-fi mag, because it is how you test audio equipment. Nowhere do people obsess over SNR ratios or anything like that. It's about heard quality.

Again from the beginning of that article:

audio reviews generally rely heavily on comparisons, and, more specifically from the cataloguing of differences gleaned from such comparisons

This is how professionals review audio equipment. That's how it is - it's always been like this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you can't accept that the only audio quality that matters is heard quality, then you aren't interested in it.

Of course it's what matters. The problem is you can't accept that there's a science behind how that digital audio quality is produced.

There's stacks of things that affect hi-fi audio quality: amplification, speakers, the shape of the room you are in, etc.

Hello, Agathon. I believe the topic at hand is portable music players...

That's why comparative listening tests are a sine qua non when one buys audio equipment.

Exhibit E on "Pretentious Unnecessary Lingo".

This is how professionals review audio equipment. That's how it is - it's always been like this.

It's remarkable just how clueless you are in debates. Really, quite surprising.

You've no clue what you're talking about. Of course you test by listening, but online it's hard to test. In fact, every comparison test I've seen by listening ALSO puts the Zen in front.

You've no real basis for any argument here whatsoever. You've boiled down your "position" to "it needs to sound good". No ****...

[Fake Boris]

You are clueless Asher. He never said the iPod was better. He said that you should not look solely at the SNR number, but rather listen for yourself to find subjective differences that are not revealed by virtue of the SNR alone.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you can't accept that the only audio quality that matters is heard quality, then you aren't interested in it.

There's stacks of things that affect hi-fi audio quality: amplification, speakers, the shape of the room you are in, etc.

So if you think the i-Pod sounds like a pigeon's arse, the answer is to move house?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Of course it's what matters. The problem is you can't accept that there's a science behind how that digital audio quality is produced.

No. That's a straw man. I never said that. My claim is that the science is either not yet sufficiently advanced, or perhaps never will be (I'll leave that as an open question), to determine heard audio quality.

My evidence is what hi-fi reviewers actually do. It's their profession, you would think that they would base their reviews solely on statistics if you were right. In fact, they don't bother with stats much because it is heard audio quality that matters.

Hello, Agathon. I believe the topic at hand is portable music players...

It makes no difference. You will please note that the excerpts are from a comparison of DACs (and DACs alone), which both the Zen and the ipod have. Your claim was that, when it comes to specifically digital devices, that heard audio quality either can be trumped by stats or that stats take the dominant role. As you can see from this review, that is most definitely not the case, because that's not how people test hi-fi equipment.

Exhibit E on "Pretentious Unnecessary Lingo".

Exhibit Z on "cheap shots because you are losing the argument"

It's remarkable just how clueless you are in debates. Really, quite surprising.

Throwing insults because you've lost.... classic.

You've no clue what you're talking about. Of course you test by listening, but online it's hard to test. In fact, every comparison test I've seen by listening ALSO puts the Zen in front.

Would you buy hi-fi equipment based on what someone else had heard? Jesus, I would [i]never[/i[ buy audio equipment online without having heard it first - nor would any sensible person.

Notice that nowhere in this thread have I discounted the possibility that the Zen may indeed sound better than the ipod. I've just said that buyers should test them for themselves. That's my standard position on these matters - because it's common sense. A clueless person would buy a player based purely on what someone else had said about it.

As I said, you can throw around stats all you like, but it's a dumb way of trying to prove superior heard audio quality - there are too many other factors.

You've no real basis for any argument here whatsoever. You've boiled down your "position" to "it needs to sound good". No ****...

Good. I win. You were the one saying that all this other stuff was more important, and I was the one saying that listening tests are more important. On my side I have the entire hi-fi journalism industry as well as common sense.

Either admit that throwing around SNR ratios is next to useless in determining which player to buy, or stop making a fool of yourself.