Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: itunes replacment

This is topic itunes replacment in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006241

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-30-2010, 07:47 PM:

Two years ago I bought a 120 gig iPod classic. I loaded iTunes, and started trying to load stuff into it. WHAT A PIECE OF SH*I! I could not set things up the way I wanted to set things up. I found that when you put things into an iPoop, they go into a black hole, and you can not copy things back out again. This thing is someone at Apples MAJOR BRAIN FART. I got frustrated, and through the thing in a drawer. I just learned that there is other software out there that can make the iPoop usefull. Has anyone used any of these programs? The author of the article that I just read likes "floola" .

Also, what MP3 ripper does everybody like?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2010, 07:59 PM:

There is an app out there called Pod to Mac that will let you copy things off of the iPod. I'll have to check out the one you linked to above, sounds pretty good. It really is ridiculous that they won't allow bidirectional travel of files. Apple really fucked that up. NOBODY can defend that crap.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-30-2010, 08:04 PM:

Woops, forgot to mention that I'm a PC guy, which is part of the problem with iTunes.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-30-2010, 08:15 PM:

Welcome to iHell.

There used to be a program that could get the files, but I called my friend who is in the know on such things and he said Apple cracked down on their systems and currently he knows of no such way to get your files back.

Bear in mind the sound quality on the iPods of the last few years sucks pretty bad too. A friend bought a $40 mp3 player last year and we compared side by side with the same mp3 file and the same headphones against my $300 iPod and there wasn't even a comparison. The $40 non-iProduct sounded significantly better.

This is the sort of reason why I will no longer buy anything that starts with a lower case i.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2010, 08:23 PM:

Brad, which model iPod do you have? Just curious as my iPod Touch sounds really good. Granted, you start messing with the bass and treble boost, etc controls and it will sound really bad really fast. I do like he ability to tell the songs exactly when to start, so instead of listening to the nonsense that is at the beginning of Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast each and every time, it just starts when the music starts (which is what I want to hear).

Just tried Pod-to-Mac and I can still transfer files off of my iPod. That multi-plat app linked to above might even better. I'll post after I try it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-30-2010, 09:08 PM:

Its an iPod video. 300gb or something like that. I bought it because my car (at the time) only had an "iPod" hookup, not an external audio hookup. Then I found out it was near impossible to navigate the iPod through the radio's faceplate, but it wouldn't permit you to use the dial on the iPod either. Couple that with bad sound quality (EQ flat), being forced to use the evil iTunes and the experience left a nasty taste in my mouth.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-30-2010, 09:14 PM:

Brad - there might be a secret pushbutton on the car stereo that will let you use the iPod's controls directly. My Pioneer has a button with that function but it's not mentioned in the manual.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2010, 09:20 PM:

I am glad that my car has a minijack line in. All control is done via the iPod. I'm glad I don't have to deal with an iPod wheel, though. I hate those.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-30-2010, 09:37 PM:

Brad, although it's a moot point by now, but at least for the purposes of using the ipod in your car, there are products out there that would allow you to have the sound files themselves sent along the wires to let your sound receiver do the D/A conversion, which'll likely result in higher quality, esp if you used a good converter. Although, if you prefer leaving things at stock installation then obviously this won't help...

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 08-30-2010, 09:44 PM:

I have the iPod video 30gb version and I have used it for 4-5 years now and I have had no problems with it. I usually buy songs from iTunes also. After I learned to burn a cd of the purchased songs and then rip them into Windows Media, I was happier with it. I keep all of my songs in iTunes and Windows Media format since we have several MP3 players that work on different formats.

A few months ago I purchased a Harman Kardon Drive + Play system which integrates your iPod into your car and gives you a screen that mimics the iPod screen to mount on your dash. I haven't installed it yet but I heard it's good. I got it on eBay for $20 new and I saw them at Best Buy for $400 when they first came out. We will see if it works okay. I hope to install it soon.

http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-US/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?PID=DP%201US

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-30-2010, 10:00 PM:

I have the first generation 16 gb iPod Touch and a 120 gb iPod Classic and now listen to my music on them with a Shure SE210 noise cancelling headset . I have found the sound played back on the iPod Touch is better than the Classic but both of the device are wonderful and bring me a lot of joy when I go for a bus ride or fly. I listened to a collection of John Williams film music on my flight back to Honolulu from the West Coast last month when my friend in Sacramento allowed me to download his four CD set of the music into my iTune music collection on my Apple computer. The music was downloaded from my computer to my iPod Classic and sounded great especially with my Shure headset. I already have about 60 gb of music on my iPod Classic and most of the music were downloaded from my CD collection but I also have a lot of music I bought from iTunes. Someone once said iTune music sound like Loony Tunes but I veomently disagree. Most of my music are Classical and the ones I buy from iTunes are high quality European recordings and they sound wonderful.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2010, 11:23 PM:

quote: Joshua Waaland
I keep all of my songs in iTunes and Windows Media format

Say what?? Does iTunes even recognize the WMA format? I'm pretty sure the iPod cannot play WMA files.

EDIT: Downloaded FLOOLA. It cannot see my iPod. It keeps saying it is not connected. Not compatible with iPod Touch. FAIL.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2010, 12:13 AM:

I was under the impression Apple finally changed iTunes to allow users to move files in and out of the software to back up the files more easily and efficiently as well as be able to move them around between Macs, PCs, iPods and other devices that can play iTunes flavored AAC files. I guess that's not the case right?

I have always been turned off by iTunes and iPods due to two serious deal-breaking problems. 1: the way iTunes restricts how the user can manage his legally purchased music files. 2: the needlessly, stupidly low 128kb/s bit rate common to iTunes AAC files. There is no justification for either.

I'm suspicious the music industry has been badly engineering its popular music with wave forms clipped all to hell just so the music CDs will sound equally loud and shitty on any stereo system or portable music device. That philosophy has to change.

If I buy any music files online I usually buy them from Amazon.com. Their files are in MP3 format at 256kb/s. The Amazon store is loaded in my Android phone. If I download a song to my phone it is very easy to copy the file from the phone to a computer or even to another USB attached portable music device (such as my $40 Sansa Clip+).

Another odd thing, apparently it's not a very straight forward process to create custom ring tones for an iPhone like it is for other phones. I'm only saying that because one of my co-workers has had no end of trouble trying to get a certain iTunes song to work as a ring tone. I looked up some things on making ring tones for iPhones (40 second time limit, change file extension to .M4R, etc.). But that doesn't answer questions about moving AAC files from iTunes or an iPhone into an external editor (such as Ringdroid) and back into the iPhone.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-31-2010, 12:34 AM:

The iTunes store doubled the bitrate of all audio a while back, not that I've ever purchased compressed audio in any form.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-31-2010, 02:28 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Say what?? Does iTunes even recognize the WMA format? I'm pretty sure the iPod cannot play WMA files.

quote: Apple
Converting WMA Files

In iTunes for Windows, you can convert your unprotected WMA files to AAC files (or whatever file format is chosen in the Importing pane of iTunes Preferences) without changing the original WMA file. Simply drag the WMA files into your library in iTunes and iTunes does the grunt work, converting them for you. Windows Media Player 9 or later must be installed to convert unprotected WMA files. Protected WMA files cannot be converted.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-31-2010, 04:16 AM:

Conversion = loss of quality.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-31-2010, 04:42 AM:

>I found that when you put things into an iPoop, they go into a black hole, and you can not copy things back out again.

My opinion on this is quite different, but anyway, there is free software for Mac and Windows machines to get files back off the iPod. Like a dedicated file browser, it shows all the MP3s on your iPod and offers to copy selections to your hard drive or iTunes library. I don't know wether it's compatible with all iPods, though. I know it works with the classic HD models.
These models offer a certain amount of memory to be used for general data storage, so you can copy the app to it and run it from the iPod on any computer you want to copy stuff to. Some of these apps run without installation and allow this.

Google for iDump, iPod2PC, etc.

- Carsten

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2010, 08:31 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
not that I've ever purchased compressed audio in any form.

Likewise. It is uncompressed or I won't buy it.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-31-2010, 11:26 AM:

Yes, Joe, you're right. Floola does not work on the iPod touch. It should work on my iPod claassic, though.

About everything being so clipped today, I talked with a record producer, he told me that every record company wants their stuff to sound the loudest on KTLA (radio station in LA), so the record companies are cranking up the level going into the CD mastering station. In the digital audio world "0" is a brick wall, nothing can go beyond "0". So all the waveform tops are badly clipped. This is what happens when you let upper management-morons make decisions about things they don't understand.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2010, 12:59 PM:

I'm still suspicious the true reason for the over-driven, clipped idiocy in music mastering has more to do with making an iTunes file sound more like the CD -just make the CD sound like shit. I wonder if guys like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. were twisting arms behind the scenes to make it happen.

Most radio stations, music studios, etc. have compressor/limiter devices which can bring a variety of signal sources down to a consistent volume level. It's clear that more than a few radio stations apply various levels of sweetening (such as unnecessary reverb) to the music.

When the audio wave form is clipped in the mixing/mastering process detail in the audio is literally deleted. Gone! This is basically an audio version of panning and scanning. Do you want to hear all of the audio in a more quiet sounding CD or do you only want to hear part of the audio detail on a loud, shrill CD? Too many people prefer the latter or just buy the iTunes version since they can't tell the difference.

quote: Brad Miller
It is uncompressed or I won't buy it.

I would very much prefer to buy any music singles in uncompressed form. Unfortunately, I don't know of any online music retailers that provide such a thing.

I'm not going to spend upwards of $20 to buy a music CD if I like only one song on the disc. 99¢ for a 256k MP3 is a better deal for one hit wonder material. If a site like Amazon offered lossless or uncompressed tunes I'd be willing to pay double for the higher quality version -maybe even more for high resolution material.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-31-2010, 01:03 PM:

I love conspiracy theories.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm still suspicious the true reason for the over-driven, clipped idiocy in music mastering has more to do with making an iTunes file sound more like the CD -just make the CD sound like shit. I wonder if guys like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. were twisting arms behind the scenes to make it happen.

I don't understand what that means. The CDs and MP3s etc. with that clipping applied all sound like crap. It sure as heck isn't like the digital download version sounds a whole lot cleaner than the CD version.

quote: Bruce Hansen
This is what happens when you let upper management-morons make decisions about things they don't understand.

You think upper management makes those decisions? Please. It's the artist and producer/engineer doing it. The upper level people just look at the flow of money. They couldn't care less how something sounds on a technical level as long as it sells.

quote: Bruce Hansen
KTLA (radio station in LA)

KTLA is a TV station, not a radio station.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-31-2010, 01:59 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Conversion = loss of quality.

And the average moron using itunes won't know the difference.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2010, 02:25 PM:

Forget average -- the vast majority of iTunes users wouldn't know the difference.

I myself am pretty discriminating with sound, but most of my listening is done in a Ford Ranger pickup truck, plus I am about 54, so between age and road noise, I often can't tell the difference between iTunes, CD, MP3, AAC or what-have-you. If I was 25 again I might not say that.

Point being that only a tiny percentage of people listen to music on anything resembling a "good" sound system. So there's not a huge incentive to make music sound great for such systems. It's more profitable to make it sound the loudest on KTLA or whatever.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-31-2010, 02:53 PM:

I always say: CDs have a 90 db dynamic range, USE IT.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2010, 05:25 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
I don't understand what that means. The CDs and MP3s etc. with that clipping applied all sound like crap. It sure as heck isn't like the digital download version sounds a whole lot cleaner than the CD version.

I'm not saying the MP3/iTunes AAC version sounds any better, the two hardly sound any different at all.

When the peaks of an audio waveform are clipped a lot of subtle details in the audio are deleted in the process. A Music CD preserves subtle details in audio a lot better than a lossy compressed MP3 or AAC file. If many of those details are eliminated via clipping it makes it much more difficult to tell the difference between the lossy compressed MP3 version and the CD version. The bad practice may actually make it easier to lossy compress the music file more effectively -after all there's not as much detail there to compress as there would be with a waveform that was fully intact.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-31-2010, 05:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm still suspicious the true reason for the over-driven, clipped idiocy in music mastering has more to do with making an iTunes file sound more like the CD -just make the CD sound like shit.

I had to LOL at that one because it is true that most CDs sound like shit these days. However I don't think that is the reason since this has been going on for nearly two decades now. As for audio clipping to sound the loudest on radio stations, isn't that pointless to master the CDs that way since radio stations run all their crap through normalizers first?

quote: Chris Skylord (yes, that's how I often mispronounce your name)
And the average moron using itunes won't know the difference.

True dat.

quote: Mike Blakesly
Forget average -- the vast majority of iTunes users wouldn't know the difference.

I'm pretty sure that Chris is insinuating that the average iTunes user is, in fact, a moron.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-31-2010, 06:04 PM:

I wouldn't merely insinuate it... [Smile]

Note: I do use itunes myself to control my ipod touch so although I haven't needed to open it [itunes] in some time.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-01-2010, 08:54 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
Also, what MP3 ripper does everybody like?

If you browse through most any forum topic on the subject, you'll find that most people like the LAME MP3 encoder. With the proper quality and bitrate settings, it does the best job (at least according to those who have spent lots of time examining such things in minute detail).

Personally, what I use and really like is the dBPowerAmp CD Ripper and Batch Converter. I rip my CD's (yes, I buy my music in best format possible, no pre-compressed music for me) to lossless WMA format. I store the lossless source files as my "negatives" and then use the Batch Converter to convert from lossless WMA to 192kbps variable bitrate MP3 using the "best quality" setting in the LAME encoder option that is provided in the tool.

Now that I no longer have devices that require the lowest common denominator of MP3, I could re-convert all the source files to something more efficient and higher quality, like a high bitrate AAC. MP3 is an old format, and it was developed when 128kbps was considered CD quality (hence, the iTunes 128kbps default). A 128kbps AAC or WMA file is going to sound better than a 128kbps MP3 file because those formats are (reportedly) better at the psychoacoustic modeling than the old standby is.

My biggest problem is having to reestablish my playlists and ratings in iTunes, since those things are tied to the MP3 files that I have, and not the original lossless files that I would have to go back to in order to do the reconversion. That's time I just don't want to spend right now.

If iTunes were totally awesome, it would take the lossless files (I can convert easily to Apple Lossless using the Batch Converter, it's really cool) and then down-convert those files on the fly when it came time to sync to my iPhone or iPods. My Squeezeboxes could play the larger and higher quality lossless files, and the portables would be happy with the lower-quality versions. That's asking iTunes to do more than its mission is to perform, which is to keep things as simple as possible for the point-and-click crowd.

In regards to sound quality, I've never had an issue with the sound quality of the 192kbps MP3's that I've created. My anal retentive brain tells me that they could be better, but in reality, there are so many other factors that are keeping pristine audio from reaching my neurons that I think my current solution is doing its job nicely. To get a small increase in quality would mean hours of work, and that's not going to bear fruit in a car environment, even with a premium sound system.

My suggestion is take a piece of music that you are very familiar with that you enjoy, and encode it with a couple of different settings that you are considering. Pick the one that sounds the best that also fits your storage requirements and enjoy your music.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-01-2010, 11:32 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
My anal retentive brain tells me that they could be better, but in reality, there are so many other factors that are keeping pristine audio from reaching my neurons that I think my current solution is doing its job nicely.

I'm in the same boat. I have a large library, most of it now in 256 AAC, that I'd love to do in lossless but it just isn't worth the effort, especially when most of this is being listening to via ear buds, the car, or the office.

If I were doing any "serious" listening to my digital library, I'd revery back to my source CDs or vinyl collection.

128k AAC while driving to work in the morning is not that bad. The iPod/iTunes model is not designed by nature for audiophiles. Sure, you could utilize it for such purposes by going lossless, but the vast majority of us have no need for that.

One caveat to my argument: I do like my classical stuff at higher bit rates or lossless: the differences are much more noticeable.

AJG

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-02-2010, 12:37 AM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
CDs have a 90 db dynamic range, USE IT

Not hardly likely.

Once audio became digital, compression and "distortion cancelled" clipping became commonplace on retail CDs, making many of them about as obnoxious to listen to as a New York rock station.

Take a look at some of those CDs on a scope... frequently, the audio is flat-topped.... producing, maybe, 5dB dynamic range. [thumbsdown]

The world should immediately convert back to vinyl, analog tape and 8-track carts! [Big Grin]

Oh... and transistors must be banned. Tubes forever!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-02-2010, 02:49 AM:

That won't stop record companies from producing shit recordings. It's not the fault of the medium.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-02-2010, 08:18 AM:

And Nitrate! I want Nitrate!!

Damn Kids.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-02-2010, 11:26 AM:

It was kinda nice back in the days of LPs when you could put any record onto any record player and expect to hear music. 'Course the needle might tear up your vinyl, but you could usually tell if that was going to happen by just looking at the equipment. Then you could turn up your nose and say "I'm not putting my virgin vinyl direct-disk-mastered Pink Floyd on THAT Radio Shack piece of crap!" and let somebody else put their Bachman-Turner Overdrive album on, because their music sounded pretty much the same even if the vinyl was torn up.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2010, 12:48 PM:

One thing which makes this situation of loud yet shrill recordings even more idiotic is multiple media formats have been around for years that would deliver audio more dynamic and loud than standard CD and provide more capability to keep the audio clean.

DVD Audio and Super Audio CD were both largely ignored by the popular music industry. Classical and Jazz genres have dominated the release slate there. But then honestly great audio quality is typically more important to listeners of Jazz and Classical music.

Blu-ray can deliver the same kinds of very high quality audio boasted by DVD-A and SACD to a much larger install base, but not many music audio-only releases have utilized the format. Some concert videos on Blu-ray do feature 24-bit 96kHz 5.1 audio tracks.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-02-2010, 08:30 PM:

Thanks for all the input. Good idea Scott. I had been thinking that I would put together a computer just to be an audio server (some day). Hard drives are big enough that I would want to use CD quality, or some lossless format; but I would also want MP3 copies as well for other things, such as the iPod. A program that would give me both those formats would be good, so I did not have to rip everything twice.

I started using the 256K data rate in MP3 some years ago. I had made several 6 hour compilations to play at parties, and wanted to put them on MP3 CDs. Doing the calculations, I found that at 256K (bits) I could get just over 6 hours on a 700Meg CD-R. Why 6 hours? The first couple of these were done on reel to reel tape. A 3600' tape recorded at 3 3/4 IPS, 4 track (2 each direction) would run 6 hours. I had decks that would make 3 3/4 sound OK, so I used that speed. With an autoreverseing deck, the tape would play the entire 6 hours without me having to touch it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2010, 09:58 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
I had been thinking that I would put together a computer just to be an audio server (some day). Hard drives are big enough that I would want to use CD quality, or some lossless format; but I would also want MP3 copies as well for other things, such as the iPod.

Depending on the device you're using to play back the audio you won't need to bother with lossy compressed audio formats.

I have my CD collection (a little over 400 discs) ripped to a 1TB external hard drive in uncompressed LPCM format. There's still lots of room left on the drive. My Playstation 3 can see the hard disc's contents since it was formatted in FAT32. Most standalone Blu-ray players will not recognize external hard drives attached to their USB ports (one key thing of numerous things that make most standalone Blu-ray players pretty crappy). One limitation with the PS3 jukebox approach: you can't program music playlists from audio on external sources like hard discs, unless something changed very recently.