Laid-back Library Control - Installment 1 Options

[The Computer Aud...]

Hi guys - I hope this is OK to post because I think this is content most of us will be interested in. I have written my first installment of what I call "Laid-back Library Control". Here is a snippet and the link.

One of the most popular questions I hear today is, "how do I control my music library from my listening chair?" There are numerous answers to this question. Some are thousands of dollars and somewhat complicated. Others are hundreds of dollars and pretty easy to use. To me this is a no-brainer. I don't want a support contract for my remote so I am steering away from a separate computer like a tablet PC running VNC or another remote control application just to control my library. I also don't want to run a several thousand dollar audiophile system with a cellphone or a web browser from an iPod touch. These two options and their derivatives do not appeal to me. Call me old school, but what I want is to hit buttons and listen to music. I want access to my library through an intuitive interface that is straight forward and is built for this purpose only. Did I say I don't want to use a mobile phone/iPod/internet browser/laser pointer/calendar/remote control etc... to play a little John Coltrane? You get my point. K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid.
In the first installment of "Laid-back Library Control" I delve into ...

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/59


- Chris
Computer Audiophile | Turn Down The Silence

http://www.computeraudiophile.com

[incunabula]

Wow. After reading this article/review/advertisement, my first impression was ''there was three minutes i'll never get back.'

[The Computer Aud...]

There are many people looking for this information based on all the inquiries I have received about it. After you waste 1 minute of your time why continue for 3x that amount?

[FasterThanEver]

"Computer Audiophile" appears to be carpet bombing audio forums with this post. The worst thing is that the review of a remote is lacking in detail.

[Brent]

You would think that this 'audiophile' would want nothing to do with OSX in a HiFi setup:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=59501

Apparantly expertise is only advertisement-deep...

[The Computer Aud...]

I have a work-around posted on my site identified by Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio. iTunes is an audiophile solution. I really doubt Stereophile and The Absolute Sound would continue using it if it was anything less.

Also, a note about the "carpet bombing." I am a huge fan of almost all the audio forums and I see nothing wrong with expressing my opinion and directing people to my site which doesn't display ads and actually costs me more money when more people go to it. When I browse forums I really like to get as much information as possible and like to find links to other site. I must say the general attitude of the HA forums has been a bit disappointing to me. There aren't many audiophile's around anymore with music moving to 128kbps downloads and then to ringtones. It just seems weird that you guys would want to attack someone with the same interests as you and a passion for promoting the advancement of our hobby.

Chris

[spoon]

>iTunes is an audiophile solution

Any audio player can play bit perfect audio, unless the audio player implements specific code (ie EQ, resampling) to alter the audio. That would make any audio player an audiophile solution? Or does sound really sound better through iTunes to you?

>There aren't many audiophile's around anymore

As time goes on, the 'audiophile' group inflict more and more self damage ("this pro audio $$$$ optical cable improves the highs and lows of the reproduction", etc)

> with music moving to 128kbps downloads and then to ringtones.

That is not the direction of the market, 320Kbps is appearing as the new online store standard, many who self rip are using Lossless (think AIFF with better tagging).

[benski]

Also, a note about the "carpet bombing." I am a huge fan of almost all the audio forums and I see nothing wrong with expressing my opinion and directing people to my site which doesn't display ads and actually costs me more money when more people go to it. When I browse forums I really like to get as much information as possible and like to find links to other site. I must say the general attitude of the HA forums has been a bit disappointing to me. There aren't many audiophile's around anymore with music moving to 128kbps downloads and then to ringtones. It just seems weird that you guys would want to attack someone with the same interests as you and a passion for promoting the advancement of our hobby.

It is a common spam technique to establish a moderately credible user account and then post advertisements disguised as reviews or questions. Companies pay people to do this.

[buktore]

iTunes is an audiophile solution.

with music moving to 128kbps downloads.

You're joking. Right?

[The Computer Aud...]

I don't understand all the negativity. I do understand criticism, but this forum seems to be very negative, as well as the audiophile asylum.

Spoon - I wish 320 kbps and higher was becoming the online store standard, but I can't agree with you. I do however self rip to AIFF files.

I do think any audio player including iTunes can be audiophile quality as long as it is bit perfect just as Spoon said.

Also, I am not paid by anyone to do what I do. In fact it costs me more money the more people go to my site.

I look forward to many good discussions on this board.

[Brent]

Why don't you rip to FLAC or, if using iTunes, Apple Lossless?

[The Computer Aud...]

When I ripped my music I was still a little bit skeptical of FLAC. That has since changed. Apple lossless to me is still a lossy compression. It is lossless in name only.

I have also been thinking about subsequent improvements to the FLAC format which may make people want to re-rip their collections. I think by using the AIFF format without compression I can alway convert to whatever I want later. AIFF has been around forever and is not likely to change. What do you guys think about this?

[Nick.C]

Apple lossless to me is still a lossy compression. It is lossless in name only.

I think that we would be more concerned with this statement - do you have evidence to back it up?

[pdq]

Apple lossless to me is still a lossy compression. It is lossless in name only.

Now do you see why we tend to be suspicious of newcomers who claim to be knowledgeable?

[Brent]

Exactly my point, pdq.

[greynol]

I don't understand all the negativity. I do understand criticism, but this forum seems to be very negative, as well as the audiophile asylum.

I must say the general attitude of the HA forums has been a bit disappointing to me. ... It just seems weird that you guys would want to attack someone with the same interests as you and a passion for promoting the advancement of our hobby.

Let's not forget your very first post here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry535116

...after long periods of listening I find myself fatigued by 320kbps files.

Please familiarize yourself with our terms of service, specifically #8. It is essential to the "advancement of our hobby."

While you're at it, you might want to check on #14 as well.

I don't doubt that you can make worthwhile contributions to this forum, you just need to follow the TOS.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 13 2007, 01:38

[pdq]

The Computer Audiophile may yet be able to redeem himself at HA, I have seen others do just that, but at this point he has dug himself a pretty deep hole to climb out of.

[esa372]

I think by using the AIFF format without compression I can alway convert to whatever I want later.

You can convert any lossless codec to whatever you want later.

[The Computer Aud...]

The Computer Audiophile may yet be able to redeem himself at HA, I have seen others do just that, but at this point he has dug himself a pretty deep hole to climb out of.

hey pdq thanks for giving me a small glimmer of hope that I can redeem myself. (seriously)

I initially thought this was another audio forum much like many others, but I have since learned otherwise. I never read the TOS, which I think is a fairly common practice. I was pointed to #8 in the TOS and I now understand why some users answered the way they did. It was totally wrong to post subjective statements in this forum without offering anything objective. I get that now. One lesson learned the hard way.

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Anyway, I am certainly no expert and I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be one. I'm an audiophile interested in great music and great sound who likes to give and take opinions and share experiences.


Happy holidays for those celebrating in the next few weeks!


- Chris

The Computer Audiophile

[pdq]

hey pdq thanks for giving me a small glimmer of hope that I can redeem myself. (seriously)

I'm just relieved to see you back! Too often in this situation people just stop posting.

I'm sure you have things to contribute to HA, it's just that we have our own way of doing things around here and are a bit picky about sticking to the rules.

Now, about Apple Lossless...

[Vidiot]

Apple lossless to me is still a lossy compression. It is lossless in name only.

According to who? I've taken a WAV file, converted it to Apple Lossless, then back to WAV again, then inverted the phase of the second file. The original file and the second file perfectly cancel out, bit-for-bit, which is exactly what you'd expect.

My experience is that FLAC, Apple Lossless, Windows Media Lossless, and APE Lossless files all sound exactly the same. The real differences boil down to file size, conversion speed & efficiency, compatibility with hardware and different operating systems, and so on. But sound quality-wise, they're identical. Lossless is lossless.

If you have solid evidence to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

--Vidiot