From: Leon Brocard Date: 10:51 on 30 Jul 2004 Subject: iTunes This is just crazy. It's mad. Check the play count column: http://astray.com/tmp/itunes.png First off, if you're going to have a Play Count field, how about making it unsigned, eh? And why corrupt that field? No, I haven't listed to Dancing Queen 60,424,193 times either. Bad iTunes! iTunes is software, and I hates it for doing this. iLeon
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 20:10 on 16 Sep 2005 Subject: iTunes What the fuck are you doing accessing Gracenote? I bloody well configured you NOT to do that. NOT GOT THAT? SO WHAT"S FUCKING CHANGED SUCH THAT YOU NO LONGER HONOUR THAT? Bastard. Nicholas Clark
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 21:47 on 17 Sep 2005 Subject: iTunes You've seen this CD before. I didn't want it playing in track name order then. So I sorted by track number. I don't want it playing in track name order now. BUT YOU'VE FORGOTTEN THAT, HAVEN'T YOU? Just play the fucking thing in the order God (or at least George Martin) intended it, and be done with this being clever crap. Else I'll be replacing you with a real CD player. Got it? Mmmm. I bet the hateful authors of this plastic abomination never listen to classical music. Someone should take a pair of cymbals round to 1 Infinity Loop and make loud noises (with developers' heads in between) until some education is achieved. Either that or resample pop songs into word length chunks, sort *them* lexically, and play them in that order at full volume. Nicholas Clark
From: Nicholas Clark Date: 20:53 on 12 Oct 2006 Subject: iTunes Gah. How hard is it to play a track without dropping out? Nicholas Clark PS This hate may be mis-aimed. The playing field isn't quite level, as the tracks are in Apple lossless encoding, so lots of disk to read, and the MacBook is doing 'sudo port install subversion' with 9Gb of VM now. So maybe I should be hating non-realtime OSes. But, *how* much power and developer effort is there in all this hardware and software, yet it can't even schedule things as reliably as a wiggly groove in a pat of vinyl?
From: Bill Page Date: 00:16 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes I think anyone who uses a lossless codec gets what they deserve. Don't be surprised if it begins to rain toads. On 10/13/06, Nicholas Clark <nick@xxxx.xxx> wrote: > Gah. How hard is it to play a track without dropping out? > > Nicholas Clark > > PS This hate may be mis-aimed. The playing field isn't quite level, as the > tracks are in Apple lossless encoding, so lots of disk to read, and the > MacBook is doing 'sudo port install subversion' with 9Gb of VM now. > So maybe I should be hating non-realtime OSes. But, *how* much power and > developer effort is there in all this hardware and software, yet it can't > even schedule things as reliably as a wiggly groove in a pat of vinyl? >
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:31 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes * Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 01:20]: > I think anyone who uses a lossless codec gets what they > deserve. Don't be surprised if it begins to rain toads. In the 15 years I have been using CD players, I never witnessed any toad rains. Regards,
From: Bill Page Date: 00:36 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Re: iTunes Did I really need to give something so very close to a physical format an exemption? I guess so - a hardware solution is the equivalent to having Moses on your side, standing there with an umbrella. On 10/13/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 01:20]: > > I think anyone who uses a lossless codec gets what they > > deserve. Don't be surprised if it begins to rain toads. > > In the 15 years I have been using CD players, I never witnessed > any toad rains. > > Regards, > -- > Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>; >
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:58 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes * Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 01:40]: > a hardware solution is the equivalent to having Moses on your > side, standing there with an umbrella. You're telling me that with a general-purpose CPU running at 1.5GHz, backed by a bus that's capable of pushing a few dozen (or hundred?) GByte/sec, it's still necessary to dedicate specialised silicon to get a 100KByte/sec stream from the platter to the DAC reliably? No, it's not. It's hateful software that's to blame, all right. Regards,
From: Bill Page Date: 01:10 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Re: iTunes On 10/13/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > You're telling me that with a general-purpose CPU running at > 1.5GHz, backed by a bus that's capable of pushing a few dozen (or > hundred?) GByte/sec, it's still necessary to dedicate specialised > silicon to get a 100KByte/sec stream from the platter to the DAC > reliably? > > No, it's not. It's hateful software that's to blame, all right. OK OK I'll give you that one. But really, I'm of the "can't hear anything better than 192 mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a stretch. Go on, kill my first born son. I probably deserve it.
From: Joe Mahoney Date: 01:16 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Re: iTunes I can't hear anything better than 128 mp3 but I don't have a problem with lossless formats. Joe On 10/13/06, Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 10/13/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > > You're telling me that with a general-purpose CPU running at > > 1.5GHz, backed by a bus that's capable of pushing a few dozen (or > > hundred?) GByte/sec, it's still necessary to dedicate specialised > > silicon to get a 100KByte/sec stream from the platter to the DAC > > reliably? > > > > No, it's not. It's hateful software that's to blame, all right. > > OK OK I'll give you that one. But really, I'm of the "can't hear > anything better than 192 mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a > stretch. > > Go on, kill my first born son. I probably deserve it. >
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 02:22 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes * Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 02:15]: > But really, I'm of the "can't hear anything better than 192 > mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a stretch. So am I. I'd say it's not a stretch at all, however I can only really tell when I compare files directly. Mostly it's the percussions that give it away. But in any case I'm not much of an audiophile. I just obsess over quality of my data in general. I'd prefer to avoid any conversion processes whatsoever. Regards,
From: Chris Nandor Date: 02:47 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes At 3:22 +0200 2006.10.13, A. Pagaltzis wrote: >* Bill Page <bill.page@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 02:15]: >> But really, I'm of the "can't hear anything better than 192 >> mp3" camp - and even then it's something of a stretch. > >So am I. I'd say it's not a stretch at all, however I can only >really tell when I compare files directly. Mostly it's the >percussions that give it away. But in any case I'm not much of an >audiophile. I just obsess over quality of my data in general. I'd >prefer to avoid any conversion processes whatsoever. I can only occasionally tell the difference between, say, 192 and 320 kbps MP3. Usually on, like you say, percussion. Especially on classic jazz, also in some classical music. But it depends on the track. Sometimes it's easier. AAC works a lot better than MP3 to get smaller bitrate files that sound good. But I eventually gave up trying to find the "best" bitrate I could. Too much work reripping something when it came out poorly. But the other thing is, as I said, simply a matter of being able to recompress later. I actually do rerip my entire collection to 128 kbps AAC for putting on the 60 GB iPod. A perl script (of course) compares two iTunes libraries on two computers, and updates one to be like the other, converting all the lossless files as necessary. Someday when the iPod has some better format available, I just change a line in the script, delete the old converted files, and boom. And I have the entire main library mirrored to an external FW drive, too. Mmmmm backups.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 03:05 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes * Chris Nandor <pudge@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 03:50]: > I can only occasionally tell the difference between, say, 192 > and 320 kbps MP3. Usually on, like you say, percussion. Oh, I was talking about 128 kbps vs 192 or so. Beyond 192 kbps, it's rarely more than handwaving and squinting, even in direct comparison. Nor would it make any difference on casual listening anyway. > But the other thing is, as I said, simply a matter of being > able to recompress later. Exactly, that's what I meant by quality of data. I am boggled by the people who convert from MP3 to another lossy format. Regards,
From: Jonathan Stowe Date: 08:58 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 04:05 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Chris Nandor <pudge@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 03:50]: > > I can only occasionally tell the difference between, say, 192 > > and 320 kbps MP3. Usually on, like you say, percussion. > > Oh, I was talking about 128 kbps vs 192 or so. Beyond 192 kbps, > it's rarely more than handwaving and squinting, even in direct > comparison. Nor would it make any difference on casual listening > anyway. But what I want to know is does the oxygen free solid copper speaker cable with 1.2cm spacing between the cores and solid gold terminators make any difference? Or has that particular breed of nutjob moved on from there now .... /J\
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 17:40 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes * Jonathan Stowe <gellyfish@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-13 10:00]: > But what I want to know is does the oxygen free solid copper > speaker cable with 1.2cm spacing between the cores and solid > gold terminators make any difference? Or has that particular > breed of nutjob moved on from there now .... Superstition is alive and thriving. Maybe I should start a business dipping $10 cables in $2 shiny paint and selling them for $300... Regards,
From: Michael Jinks Date: 00:29 on 14 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:40:55PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > Maybe I should start a business dipping $10 cables in $2 shiny > paint and selling them for $300... Oh, I think you need to set your sights higher than that. I'm currently looking at a price sheet from AudioQuest.com which lists their top-line "Everest" speaker cable at us$14,500 for an 8-foot pair. Which, as I read it, translates to $29,000 if you want stereo. obSoftwareHate: the AudioQuest web site is exactly what you'd expect.
From: Edmund von der Burg Date: 09:37 on 14 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes PiBJJ20gY3VycmVudGx5IGxvb2tpbmcgYXQgYSBwcmljZSBzaGVldCBmcm9tIEF1ZGlvUXVlc3Qu Y29tIHdoaWNoIGxpc3RzCj4gdGhlaXIgdG9wLWxpbmUgIkV2ZXJlc3QiIHNwZWFrZXIgY2FibGUg YXQgdXMkMTQsNTAwIGZvciBhbiA4LWZvb3QgcGFpci4KPgo+IFdoaWNoLCBhcyBJIHJlYWQgaXQs IHRyYW5zbGF0ZXMgdG8gJDI5LDAwMCBpZiB5b3Ugd2FudCBzdGVyZW8uCgpIbW0sIEknbGwgd2Fn ZXIgdGhhdCBteSDCozEuNDUgd2lsbCBoYXZlIG1vcmUgZWZmZWN0IHRoYW4geW91ciAkMjksMDAw OgoKICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmV4cHJlc3NjaGVtaXN0LmNvLnVrL2NhdGVnb3J5XzE5NzBfY290dG9u YnVkcy5odG1sCgpOb3QgcXVpdGUgYXMgY2hpYyB0aG91Z2guCg==
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 00:35 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 08:46 +0930, Bill Page wrote: > I think anyone who uses a lossless codec gets what they deserve. Don't > be surprised if it begins to rain toads. You seem to be upside-down. Cheers, Martin.
From: Chris Nandor Date: 00:55 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes At 8:46 +0930 2006.10.13, Bill Page wrote: >I think anyone who uses a lossless codec gets what they deserve. Yeah. What was I thinking when I wanted to have the best quality sound output I could get, and make sure that if I ever decided to compress to another format, I could do so without reripping my entire CD library. Stupid me!
From: Tony Finch Date: 01:57 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > So maybe I should be hating non-realtime OSes. But, *how* much power and > developer effort is there in all this hardware and software, yet it can't > even schedule things as reliably as a wiggly groove in a pat of vinyl? I want to see a turntable that runs X :-) Tony.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 02:31 on 13 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: iTunes > I want to see a turntable that runs X :-) Or vica versa? http://www.iscratchwithoutrecords.com/
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi
