Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Tivo

> On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 04:33  pm, Tivo wrote:
> 
>> Which kbps setting is best for input to iTunes of OTC jazz CDs?
>> 
>> I know very little about this, but was recently fiddling with the
>> possibilities and saw the above choices.
> 
> While all replies about how hard to answer this question are, the
> simple answer, which i think is all you were looking for is, that AAC @
> 128 kbps is a very good rate for the average listener, and better than
> mp3 @ 128kbps.
> 
> I believe that apple says that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is equivalent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> i hope that helps. I used to encode my mp3's at 160kbps, and I was
> pretty happy with that, and I have been pleased with AAC at 128kbps. I
> think the best thing you could do would be trial and error though.
> 
> Cheers,
> matt
> 
Thanks. It was, and is, set at 160kbps, but I noticed the possible settings
and wondered... I haven't been unhappy with iTunes playing or the burning
results, but there's always room for improvement.

To answer some questions, I'm using a pair of AC-driven medium size Labtec
speakers, and with a splitter also placed a pair of cheapo pawn shop
additions low and behind the Pismo (on a raised platform, with an Adesso
keyboard below). The sound is... Music, and I'm grateful for what I have.

The sound in my auto is less acceptable, though the speakers cost me $100
(Kickers); the Labtecs were $30 or so. I was told that an amp in the auto
would help, but the CD player was $300, so this s--t is getting out of hand
(for my style). Would an amp do it? If so, I'll perhaps get one a bit down
the road. I got disgusted with the sound after the size of the investment.
As it is, I'm also grateful for the sound in the auto!   T


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread matt dudek
On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 04:33  pm, Tivo wrote:

Which kbps setting is best for input to iTunes of OTC jazz CDs?

I know very little about this, but was recently fiddling with the
possibilities and saw the above choices.
While all replies about how hard to answer this question are, the 
simple answer, which i think is all you were looking for is, that AAC @ 
128 kbps is a very good rate for the average listener, and better than 
mp3 @ 128kbps.

I believe that apple says that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is equivalent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

i hope that helps. I used to encode my mp3's at 160kbps, and I was 
pretty happy with that, and I have been pleased with AAC at 128kbps. I 
think the best thing you could do would be trial and error though.

Cheers,
matt
--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Eugene Lee
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 04:56:30PM +0100, Matt Peacock wrote:
: Tivo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
: >
: >Which kbps setting is best for input to iTunes of OTC jazz CDs?
: 
: It all depends what you are listening to the music through, how much 
: you appreciate audio quality and how much space you have on your hard 
: drive/iPod.

It also depends on the type of jazz music as well.  For example, acid
jazz is pretty wild stuff compared to other forms which are usually more
subtle.

: It's very hard to give a definitive answer to this sort of question.

True.  To the untrained ear, MP3s ripped at 128 kbps CBR with joint
stereo is good enough for many of the masses.  More pickier people will
go with 192 kbps or even 256 kbps and switch to normal stereo.


-- 
Eugene Lee

-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread P . F . Grenier
On Sunday, Jun 8, 2003, at 07:02 US/Eastern, Dan Knight wrote:

I'd like a reality check. Stop listening like an engineer. Listen like 
a
fan or a musician. It may break you of the endless upgrade cycle of the
audiophile snob -- the kind of people I used to make good money from.

The first rule of audiophile sales is that every improvement leads to
another, because each "better" component magnifies the minuscule flaws 
in
other components in the system. In reality, few audiophiles are ever
completely satisfied -- yet most average consumers are.

There is such a thing as being too picky for your own good.

Dan the listmom, retired audiophile

Interesting, Dan. I'm in the same boat. I bought a mid-end system a few 
years ago. I must say I did notice a great difference from a Circuit 
City system. That said, I really didn't notice much difference between 
my mid setup and the high end stuff I heard. There is definitely a 
point of diminishing returns for your $$$.
Critical listening shouldn't include a PC or the MP3 at all. That is a 
format of convenience, not quality.
I have found the human ear to be very forgiving. When I first got my 
car I didn't like the sound system, now I love it. The ear adapts.

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Matt Peacock
Which kbps setting is best for input to iTunes of OTC jazz CDs?

It all depends what you are listening to the music through, how much 
you appreciate audio quality and how much space you have on your hard 
drive/iPod.

It's very hard to give a definitive answer to this sort of question.

Matt

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Tivo
> I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it
>> is reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want
>> variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I
>> don't know how to control the dynamic range.
> 
> First, there's no reason to control the dynamic range, since that's
> already established by the CD you're acquiring the sound from. Second,
> you can select one of three default encoding rates (128, 160, or 192
> Kbps)

Which kbps setting is best for input to iTunes of OTC jazz CDs?

I know very little about this, but was recently fiddling with the
possibilities and saw the above choices.


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Don
Dan...

Thanks for the information contained in this post. I just bought OS X;
wanting access to the latest iTunes and the Apple music store pushed me over
the edge. (I am also looking for a good new or used burner on eBay and will
get an iPod, too.) I have been concerned about losing a lot of sound quality
in downloads compared to commercial disc and this information makes me feel
a little better about the the process. I am not and never have been a snobby
audiophile. (I still use my middle-of-the-road-when-new Kenwood KR 4070 and
Infinity Qe speakers and admit to still enjoying the warmth found in vinyl
when played on a reasonably decent system). But the thought of "losing"
sound in the download process, even if it is an imperceptible loss, doesn't
sit well with me for some reason. So the better quality of download, the
better I will feel about it.

Don

Dan Knight wrote:

> On 6/7/03 1:20 AM, Clyde Kahrl posted:
>
> >   I find it interesting that there are complaints about MP3
> >Quality.  I remember when CDs first came out.  They were really
> >really awful.  Portions of some recordings sounded like fingernails
> >on chalkboards to me.
> > This is because taking good music and converting it to digital
> >seriously degrades the recording--particularly when you only sample
> >at 44khz.
>
> Nonsense. It's because digital recording, mastering, and playback were in
> their infancy. The engineers were learning as they went along. Just as
> some of the early half-speed mastered LPs were horrid, once the engineers
> learned how the process differed from what they had done before, things
> got a whole lot better.
>
> Oversampling can produce a superior product, but you have to remember
> that the playback system only handles 14 bits per channel at 44 KHz, most
> audio hardware is only designed for the 20 Hz to 20 KHz range, and few
> speakers have decent response beyond about 12-15 KHz -- the upper limit
> of hearing for most of us and one-third the sampling rate of CDs.
>
> There's nothing inherent in the process of digitizing sound that degrades
> things. Just pop a CD of the Beatles or old analog material from Elvis,
> the Beach Boys, Sinatra, or the Stones to hear how much better old music
> can sound when it's been properly remastered for digital media.
>
> >Over time, these have improved but modern CDs are still
> >not comparable to the output of modest hi-fi equipment from the late
> >70s.
>
> Yes, the days of Shure cartridges, Dolby B noise reduction, paper cone
> drivers, and 18 gauge speaker wire. I sold high end audio on the early
> 1980s, and I can tell you that Bose makes a desktop radio today that
> sounds better than some of the $5,000-plus audio systems I sold -- and
> you don't need to be sitting in the right spot in an optimized room to
> benefit from the sound.
>
> >   Some MP3s really stink because of the really awful encoding
> >out there.   I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it
> >is reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want
> >variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I
> >don't know how to control the dynamic range.
>
> First, there's no reason to control the dynamic range, since that's
> already established by the CD you're acquiring the sound from. Second,
> you can select one of three default encoding rates (128, 160, or 192
> Kbps) or choose a custom setting that lets you specify the bit rate
> between 16 and 320 Kbps, enable variable bit rate, choose from 7 quality
> settings, pick a sampling rate between 8 and 48 KHz, and filter subsonics
> (10 Hz and lower).
>
> Some MP3s stink because people don't understand the process. Sure, a 64
> Kbps file will be small and load quickly, but it's not going to sound
> very good. And some types of music are more demanding of even higher
> quality than others.
>
> >   I suspect it's a lot like digital photography.  Every time
> >you go through some digital conversion process you lose a whole bunch
> >of information/data/whatever.  Maybe if you went direct from mike to
> >MP3 you would have less of a problem than going from CD to MP3.
>
> Digital photography suffers primarily from its reliance on JPEGs, which
> are not only lossy, but only support 8 bits per color channel. 24-bit
> color is fine for output on your computer screen, but you tend to lose
> detail in bright areas and shadows. However, most digicams let you decide
> whether to record in JPEG format or something better, such as RAW or
> TIFF. The amount of information lost depends on your settings, as is true
> of digital recording and MP3 compression.
>
> Recording directly to MP3 doesn't strike me as a particularly smart thing
> if you want quality. Just as taking a digital picture with high JPEG
> compression creates a noisy photo, MP3 is also a lossy compression
> scheme. It's the nature of lossy compression schemes to create an
> inferior product, but there's nothing inherent in the digitization
> proc

Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-08 Thread Dan Knight
On 6/7/03 1:20 AM, Clyde Kahrl posted:

>   I find it interesting that there are complaints about MP3 
>Quality.  I remember when CDs first came out.  They were really 
>really awful.  Portions of some recordings sounded like fingernails 
>on chalkboards to me.
> This is because taking good music and converting it to digital 
>seriously degrades the recording--particularly when you only sample 
>at 44khz.

Nonsense. It's because digital recording, mastering, and playback were in 
their infancy. The engineers were learning as they went along. Just as 
some of the early half-speed mastered LPs were horrid, once the engineers 
learned how the process differed from what they had done before, things 
got a whole lot better.

Oversampling can produce a superior product, but you have to remember 
that the playback system only handles 14 bits per channel at 44 KHz, most 
audio hardware is only designed for the 20 Hz to 20 KHz range, and few 
speakers have decent response beyond about 12-15 KHz -- the upper limit 
of hearing for most of us and one-third the sampling rate of CDs.

There's nothing inherent in the process of digitizing sound that degrades 
things. Just pop a CD of the Beatles or old analog material from Elvis, 
the Beach Boys, Sinatra, or the Stones to hear how much better old music 
can sound when it's been properly remastered for digital media.

>Over time, these have improved but modern CDs are still 
>not comparable to the output of modest hi-fi equipment from the late 
>70s.

Yes, the days of Shure cartridges, Dolby B noise reduction, paper cone 
drivers, and 18 gauge speaker wire. I sold high end audio on the early 
1980s, and I can tell you that Bose makes a desktop radio today that 
sounds better than some of the $5,000-plus audio systems I sold -- and 
you don't need to be sitting in the right spot in an optimized room to 
benefit from the sound.

>   Some MP3s really stink because of the really awful encoding 
>out there.   I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it 
>is reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want 
>variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I 
>don't know how to control the dynamic range.

First, there's no reason to control the dynamic range, since that's 
already established by the CD you're acquiring the sound from. Second, 
you can select one of three default encoding rates (128, 160, or 192 
Kbps) or choose a custom setting that lets you specify the bit rate 
between 16 and 320 Kbps, enable variable bit rate, choose from 7 quality 
settings, pick a sampling rate between 8 and 48 KHz, and filter subsonics 
(10 Hz and lower).

Some MP3s stink because people don't understand the process. Sure, a 64 
Kbps file will be small and load quickly, but it's not going to sound 
very good. And some types of music are more demanding of even higher 
quality than others.

>   I suspect it's a lot like digital photography.  Every time 
>you go through some digital conversion process you lose a whole bunch 
>of information/data/whatever.  Maybe if you went direct from mike to 
>MP3 you would have less of a problem than going from CD to MP3.

Digital photography suffers primarily from its reliance on JPEGs, which 
are not only lossy, but only support 8 bits per color channel. 24-bit 
color is fine for output on your computer screen, but you tend to lose 
detail in bright areas and shadows. However, most digicams let you decide 
whether to record in JPEG format or something better, such as RAW or 
TIFF. The amount of information lost depends on your settings, as is true 
of digital recording and MP3 compression.

Recording directly to MP3 doesn't strike me as a particularly smart thing 
if you want quality. Just as taking a digital picture with high JPEG 
compression creates a noisy photo, MP3 is also a lossy compression 
scheme. It's the nature of lossy compression schemes to create an 
inferior product, but there's nothing inherent in the digitization 
process itself that necessarily creates an inferior image or sound file.

>   But when you say that MP3s are bad, I can't help but suggest 
>that CDs are bad, so what do you want?

I'd like a reality check. Stop listening like an engineer. Listen like a 
fan or a musician. It may break you of the endless upgrade cycle of the 
audiophile snob -- the kind of people I used to make good money from.

The first rule of audiophile sales is that every improvement leads to 
another, because each "better" component magnifies the minuscule flaws in 
other components in the system. In reality, few audiophiles are ever 
completely satisfied -- yet most average consumers are.

There is such a thing as being too picky for your own good.

Dan the listmom, retired audiophile


-- 
Dan Knight, president, Cobweb Publishing, Inc.
  
  
   

Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-06 Thread Christopher D Helmkamp
On Friday, June 6, 2003, at 06:05  PM, Clyde Kahrl wrote:

	Some MP3s really stink because of the really awful encoding out 
there.   I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it is 
reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want 
variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I 
don't know how to control the dynamic range.
The real key is what kind of equipment you listen to the MP3s or AAC 
files with.  Cheap headphones plugged right in to your computer or iPod 
(including the iPod's own earbuds) are not going to reveal too much of 
the loss incurred in the process, especially with AAC files.

If you get nicer headphones, and use high-quality headphone & stereo 
amplification, you will definitely begin to notice the "lossy" file 
formats compared to original sources.  Still, 192kbps AAC files seem to 
be right up there near source-quality, as are LAME alt-preset MP3s.

I agree about the early CDs.  The first CD masters were often made 
right off the old LPs, instead of off the original tapes!  Led Zeppelin 
IV is a prime example -- the first issue of this CD sounds absolutely 
terrible.  As with all music, you just have to look around for what 
works best on the equipment you have.

--Chris

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes Importing

2003-06-06 Thread Dave Smith
Just encode at the highest rates, if you must use mp3, otherwise, use aac at
the highest rates.

-Original Message-
From: G-Books [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Clyde
Kahrl
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:06 PM
To: G-Books
Subject: iTunes Importing


I find it interesting that there are complaints about MP3
Quality.  I remember when CDs first came out.   They were really
really awful.  Portions of some recordings sounded like fingernails
on chalkboards to me.
This is because taking good music and converting it to digital
seriously degrades the recording--particularly when you only sample
at 44khz.  Also your machine then has to recreate a sound based upon
that code and so the music creation algorithm in your player is
critical.  Over time, these have improved but modern CDs are still
not comparable to the output of modest hi-fi equipment from the late
70s.
Some MP3s really stink because of the really awful encoding
out there.   I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it
is reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want
variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I
don't know how to control the dynamic range.
I suspect it's a lot like digital photography.  Every time
you go through some digital conversion process you lose a whole bunch
of information/data/whatever.  Maybe if you went direct from mike to
MP3 you would have less of a problem than going from CD to MP3.
But when you say that MP3s are bad, I can't help but suggest
that CDs are bad, so what do you want?
--

--
G-Books is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>

G-Books list info:  <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html>
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, email:  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-books%40mail.maclaunch.com/>



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




-- 
G-Books is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>

G-Books list info:  <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html>
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, email:  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-books%40mail.maclaunch.com/>



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




iTunes Importing

2003-06-06 Thread Clyde Kahrl
	I find it interesting that there are complaints about MP3 
Quality.  I remember when CDs first came out.   They were really 
really awful.  Portions of some recordings sounded like fingernails 
on chalkboards to me.
This is because taking good music and converting it to digital 
seriously degrades the recording--particularly when you only sample 
at 44khz.  Also your machine then has to recreate a sound based upon 
that code and so the music creation algorithm in your player is 
critical.  Over time, these have improved but modern CDs are still 
not comparable to the output of modest hi-fi equipment from the late 
70s.
	Some MP3s really stink because of the really awful encoding 
out there.   I have never encoded using iTunes, so I don't know if it 
is reasonably good or not at encoding.  I would think you would want 
variable bit rate and so forth--and I'm not sure it has that.  And I 
don't know how to control the dynamic range.
	I suspect it's a lot like digital photography.  Every time 
you go through some digital conversion process you lose a whole bunch 
of information/data/whatever.  Maybe if you went direct from mike to 
MP3 you would have less of a problem than going from CD to MP3.
	But when you say that MP3s are bad, I can't help but suggest 
that CDs are bad, so what do you want?
--

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing

2003-06-06 Thread |n|i|c|k|
Well, it depends on your headphones!  Good headphones are *very* 
revealing -- even high quality MP3s can sound terrible.

If even high quality imports sound bad you might want to make sure that 
the headphones are actually as "good" as you say..It might be them 
thats making all your imports sound terrible

n

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing

2003-06-05 Thread Christopher D Helmkamp
On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 11:08  PM, |n|i|c|k| wrote:

I may be missing something but it seems that the obvious answer would 
be to go into your itunes preferences and lower the importing 
quality.. If you are only listening to it on headphones you 
probably wont even notice the quality degradation.
Well, it depends on your headphones!  Good headphones are *very* 
revealing -- even high quality MP3s can sound terrible.

--Chris
iBook 700 (16 VRAM) [connected to Sennheiser HD-280 Pro headphones]
iPod arrives in 7+ days! [connected to Grado SR-60 headphones]
--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing

2003-06-05 Thread |n|i|c|k|
I may be missing something but it seems that the obvious answer would 
be to go into your itunes preferences and lower the importing 
quality.. If you are only listening to it on headphones you 
probably wont even notice the quality degradation.

n

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-05 Thread Shayne Croy
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:

Bruce Mitchell wrote:
What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my 
Mac guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on 
older
machines.
I've got two users happy as clams using OSX on a Lombard.

Your Mac Guru needs some wider exposure, methinks.

I have to say a hearty "I agree!" to both statements! I run 
Dreamweaver,  Itunes, Photoshop, and Filemaker. Not as fast as my G4, 
but, duh...

Shayne Croy
Homer, Alaska
--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-05 Thread Bruce Johnson
Bruce Mitchell wrote:
What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on older
machines. 
I've got two users happy as clams using OSX on a Lombard.

Your Mac Guru needs some wider exposure, methinks.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs



--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread Alan C. Magnus
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 10:03  pm, Bruce Mitchell wrote:

What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac 
guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on 
older
machines.

What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?



Runs well on mine.

alan

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread Mike Barnes
Bruce Mitchell wrote:
What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on older
machines. 
What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?
Add my vote to the "it runs just fine" pile. As other people have said - 
get RAM. I've got 512 meg and a nice new 20 gig hard drive in it too.

It's not screaming fast, but for word processing, web surfing, email, a 
little background music - life's basic essentials - no problems at all. 
I love it.

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Runs fine on my Lombard even before i maxed the RAM. CD/DVD drive is 
slow as molasses, but everything else is great. I even run photoshop no 
major many layer jobs though)

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 11:11 PM, Steve Fuller wrote:

It runs quite acceptably on my wife's Lombard. RAM is the key. Her's 
is maxed out at 512MB. It works great for her daily web surfing, email 
and word processing needs.

Steve

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 10:03 PM, Bruce Mitchell wrote:

What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my 
Mac guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on 
older
machines.

What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?
--
Robert
AOL IM wingnut022074

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits."
 *** Albert Einstein
--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread Steve Fuller
It runs quite acceptably on my wife's Lombard. RAM is the key. Her's is 
maxed out at 512MB. It works great for her daily web surfing, email and 
word processing needs.

Steve

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 10:03 PM, Bruce Mitchell wrote:

What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac 
guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on 
older
machines.

What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?


--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread Laurent Daudelin
on 03/06/03 23:03, Bruce Mitchell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac guru
> advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on older
> machines. 
> 
> What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?
> 
> 
> on 6/3/03 3:56 PM, Michael Richardson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>> Dear List
>> Does anyone know what can be done to speed up
>> importing music into iTunes? I have a Lombard with
>> 320meg of ram. I am running OS X v 1.5. I thought that
>> maybe there is some setting that I can adjust maybe.
>> It takes me about two minutes per song on a cd.
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Michael Richardson

I can't speak for Michael, but when OS X initially came out, I was using a
Wallstreet at the time and although it was slow at times, I was perfectly
happy with it and it was running fine.

-Laurent.
-- 

Laurent Daudelin   AIM/iChat: LaurentDaudelin
Logiciels Nemesys Software   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

code monkey n.: 1. A person only capable of grinding out code, but unable to
perform the higher-primate tasks of software architecture, analysis, and
design. Mildly insulting. Often applied to the most junior people on a
programming team. 2. Anyone who writes code for a living; a programmer. 3. A
self-deprecating way of denying responsibility for a management decision, or
of complaining about having to live with such decisions. As in "Don't ask me
why we need to write a compiler in COBOL, I'm just a code monkey." 


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




Re: iTunes importing + OSX on Lombard

2003-06-04 Thread Bruce Mitchell
What caught my attention is the running OSX on a Lombard, which my Mac guru
advised against doing on the premise that OSX does not run well on older
machines. 

What is your experience? Are you happy with OSX on your Lombard?


on 6/3/03 3:56 PM, Michael Richardson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Dear List
> Does anyone know what can be done to speed up
> importing music into iTunes? I have a Lombard with
> 320meg of ram. I am running OS X v 1.5. I thought that
> maybe there is some setting that I can adjust maybe.
> It takes me about two minutes per song on a cd.
> Thanks.
> 
> Michael Richardson
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com


-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---




Re: iTunes importing

2003-06-04 Thread Matt Peacock
There are reports that QT6.3 has improved encoding by as much as 10%, 
take these with a pinch of salt before they are confirmed however, but 
might be worth a try.

Matt

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



Re: iTunes importing

2003-06-04 Thread doce
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 05:56  PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

Does anyone know what can be done to speed up
importing music into iTunes? I have a Lombard with
320meg of ram. I am running OS X v 1.5. I thought that
maybe there is some setting that I can adjust maybe.
It takes me about two minutes per song on a cd.
importing is a direct function of the amount of RAM, your Processor 
speed, and your CD drive's speed - but mostly, your processor speed.

make sure that iTunes is the -only- program that's running. no cute 
shareware menu bar additions, no dock enhancers, no weather apps, 
nothing. just iTunes. maybe add more memory (if you can - just getting 
to OS X's requirements brings you close to this machine's max). beyond 
that... you're talking about processor upgrades.

--
G-Books is sponsored by  and...
Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
-- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |
 Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
 --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 


---
The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---



iTunes importing

2003-06-04 Thread Michael Richardson
Dear List
Does anyone know what can be done to speed up
importing music into iTunes? I have a Lombard with
320meg of ram. I am running OS X v 1.5. I thought that
maybe there is some setting that I can adjust maybe.
It takes me about two minutes per song on a cd.
Thanks.

Michael Richardson 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

-- 
G-Books is sponsored by  and...

 Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com  | Refurbished Drives |
 -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks  |  & CDRWs on Sale!  |

  Support Low End Mac 

G-Books list info:  
  --> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to:  
To unsubscribe, email:  
For digest mode, email: 
Subscription questions: 
Archive: 



---
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---