Over the last few years iOS remote control applications for JRiver have gradually improved. Most of the apps went from cumbersome to decent to pretty good but still not that enticing. Everything changed with the release of JRemote from Banjo Media. The app is so good it has increased the value of Windows as a music server platform as much as anything in recent memory. Many die hard Apple users have switched or have seriously considered switching to Windows solely because JRemote has surpassed Apple's Remote application by leaps and bounds. The value of a remote control application can't be overstated. It's the interface to musical enjoyment or untold frustration. A remote app should place the user in control rather than force the user to listen a certain way or enjoy music how the app developer believes music should be enjoyed. Technology shouldn't dictate how one's music collection is enjoyed and certainly shouldn't take the enjoyment out of browsing a vast collection curated meticulously for decades. JRemote's speed enables users to swipe through an entire collection or pared-down playlist with ease. Support for high resolution images and graphics on the iPhone / iPad Retina Display is also a treat for the eyes. JRemote is the remote control app by which all others are judged.
...
It has been nearly two years to the day since I wrote about JRiver Media Center [Link
]. At the time JRiver was on version 14 and Windows 7 was somewhat new to audiophiles. Now JRiver has progressed to version 17 and most computer audiophiles have moved from previous versions of Windows to Windows 7. Much of the meat in that first article still holds true today. Using Exclusive Mode and WASAPI output remain great methods of outputting bit perfect audio from one's computer. Nevertheless it's time for an updated article that computer audiophiles can use as an unbiased reference for JRiver configuration and information.
Monday November 14, 2011 Apple released its iTunes Match feature as part of the iTunes 10.5.1 software upgrade. iTunes Match, available for $24.99 per year, stores music in Apple's iCloud. Matching music is Apple's marketing mantra that's supposed to separate iTunes Match from the likes of Google Music and Amazon's Cloud Drive. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this service is all hat and no cattle. iTunes Match is very similar to the previous Dead On Arrival Cloud services that offer access to music one has already purchased. Is iTunes Match for audiophiles, music lovers, or anyone for that matter? Read more to find out.
In Part one of this streaming service comparison I covered MOG extensively. Part II is all about Spotify and a comparison of both services. What service has a better catalog? What service has better sound quality? How do the desktop and mobile clients compare? As former boxing referee Mills Lane would say, "Let's get it on!" As fast as cloud based music storage services from Google, Amazon, and Apple became media darlings these services were yesterday's news. There is still value in each of these storage services but for music aficionados nothing comes close to music streaming services MOG and Spotify. The major difference between the storage and streaming services is access to content. The former allows access to music already owned by the user. The later allows access to a nearly unlimited music selection for a monthly fee. Many Computer Audiophile readers know that I consider the current crop of cloud storage services DOA
...
The current crop of popular cloud music storage and playback services are dead on arrival. DOA for audiophiles, music aficionados, and even the average "civilian" iPod user. As an audiophile it's hard to accept anything but lossless music. As a music aficionado who wants his favorite tunes anywhere, anytime, in almost any quality (if necessary) these services sound promising at first blush but are quickly identified as nonstarters upon further review. I'm not an average "civilian" iPod user but I am well versed in the habits of such users. These civilians have the lowest music quality expectations but often very high ease of use and functionality needs that are far from met by the current cloud offerings. The services from Google and Amazon, and likely Apple's iCloud, are easily outmatched by lesser known free and inexpensive paid services. The large press-darlings consume all the ink but sadly aren't even in the same league as the competition.
Categories
