Topic: Why is this better than Musicmatch (Read 3179 times)

saint · « **on:** July 03, 2002, 05:58:23 am »

I downloaded Musicmatch a couple of months ago, and all reviews seem to say Media Juke is the way to go. I have 5,000 MP3's...can anybody help differentiate? How is Media Juke's printing ability of your library? Thanks.

Chico · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2002, 06:05:10 am »

Well Saint,
The best thing to do is for you DL Media Jukebox and try it for 30 days and see for yourself. I'm reasonably confident that you'll be removing MM and sticking with MJ after that.
If you have a large music collection (it sounds like yours is relatively large) then you will really appreciate the organization capabilities of MJ.
Try it, You'll like it! (now that's original, eh?

)

claudio · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2002, 06:17:48 am »

Hi Saint,

There are just so many features that you'll have to explore them yourself..

But, in my opinion, the few things that stand out immediatly on the audio side are the organization capabilities ( look at smartlist in the manuals), the number and quality of the encoders, the Media server to stream your music from your home machine to work.

I use MM for a while, but once I discovered MJ I've never looked back. As you collection grows you will see the benefit of MJ more and more

Printing: I assume you mean printing CDs sleves and such. MJ has a nice CD labeler on par to what MM has, but that's hardly the area to focus to decide if to switch.

The only thing that MM still does better than MJ is the radio service, because they broadcast directly their own content while MJ is a pure "tool" and allow you to connect to public Internet radios (that are in a messy state right now..)

Anyway for the pure organization of your library, there is just no comparison

Claudio

Nikolay · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2002, 06:22:06 am »

There are so many advantages over MusicMatch, I'll just list couple:

If you have a problem and we can reproduce it we will fix it in days ( sometimes hours ) not months.

1. This forum, try to find anything like that, ask for help here and you will get it.
2. Crosfading during playback and seeking
3. Internal DSP.
4. Ability to handle huge libraries ( successfully tested with over 130000 files )
5. Much faster then MusicMatch.
6. Streaming Video support.
7. TV tuner
8. Media Server, you can play your files from anywhere in the world.
9. Remote control support.
10. Media Editor, you can edit your media files.
11. Download Manager, makes downloading files from internet very easy.
etc, etc, etc...

Nikolay

saint · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2002, 06:32:43 am »

Thanks for the quick feedback everybody....after going through this forum, the FAQ's and the site in general I'm in. I can't wait to download when I get home tonight...

When I mentioned Printing I meant printing you music Library. I have about 500 CD's at this point, and it would be cool to print that out by artist...

PeterS · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2002, 06:44:59 am »

Saint,
Welcome! Media Jukebox also has support for CDDB. Musicmatch does not.
CDDB is an on-line database of CD's. When you place a CD into your CD-ROM, MJ will use CDDB to look up the CD title and track names -- so you don't have to spend valuable time typing them in yourself.

Peter

Chico · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2002, 07:07:45 am »

>>When I mentioned Printing I meant printing you music Library. I have about 500 CD's at this point, and it would be cool to print that out by artist...

Make sure you have lots of paper in your printer and full ink cartidges!

JorgeGVB · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2002, 07:26:03 am »

I just purchased a Dell Laptop with MM pre-installed. I gave it a try for about a week and dumped it. It doesn't compare to MJ.

JNKH · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2002, 07:40:34 am »

I've tried many jukebox, and paid for them, but always return to MusicMatch, untill Media Jukebox.

The main disappointment I have with MM is it removes support for CDDB, and if you rip many CDs, it is NOT good.

The display skins, and ability to customize the track details and visualization, very fun.

The flexible encoders are excellent, and it also mean better quality.

It also stores the tagging details, like MM in the files- so it is very portable, and safe.

The Smart Playlist is another hit

The forum is something I enjoy reading, and interacting

The forum solves problems. I have a keyboard issue with Logitech (multi-media keys), and got answers immediately- 24 hrs

I do have a problem with MM- when cutting CDs, it always fail at 90%. It does not happen for NERO and MJ.

Honestly, for printing labels, and cutting CDs, I still prefer NERO.

PeterS · « **Reply #9 on:** July 03, 2002, 12:55:30 pm »

Some people like the structural design of MJ more than Musicmatch. Musicmatch has several separate windows which attach, and these can be a little unwieldy at times. MJ is self contained, but can still be customized to your own preferences.

PeterS

KingSparta · « **Reply #10 on:** July 03, 2002, 01:41:29 pm »

saint

to be technical

MusicMatch Sucks, MJ does Not.

NY40Male · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2002, 02:03:24 pm »

King is the King of technical

david · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2002, 02:28:32 pm »

For several reasons:

1- Interact allows honest information, self criticism, and help

For instance when PeterS writes (above),"Welcome! Media Jukebox also has support for CDDB. Musicmatch does not".

Correct me if I am wrong but I think this statement is incorrect. At, least according to the PcMag review article and the MusicMatch web site.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,112791,00.asp says:
"On our tests, MusicMatch Plus converted a 50-minute, 12-track album to 128-Kbps MP3 files in 6 minutes 44 seconds, beating Microsoft by a significant margin, but falling slightly behind RealOne. MusicMatch adeptly used the CDDB to assign track and album information to our test CDs, and it did the best job with off-line ripping, automatically searching for database matches after connecting to the Internet. For files lacking tag information, MusicMatch's batch tag feature attempts to populate ID3v2 information by matching track names to a database. But results are less than perfect."

"New! Rip CDs while offline and still enjoy tagged tracks. MUSICMATCH Jukebox Plus automatically connects to CD lookup the next time you're online, tagging tracks previously ripped offline"

http://www.musicmatch.com/info/features/manage.htm?os=pc
http://www.musicmatch.com/
http://www.musicmatch.com/sitemap/index.htm

2- Media Jukebox reportedly has a faster Find Music search tool.

3- KingSparta is included for free! ;-)

JimH · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2002, 02:32:49 pm »

David,
I believe that MusicMatch pulled support for CDDB in their last release. Or so we are told.

There is a good reason for that. CDDB is increasing their charge by several hundred per cent.

Jim

Nikolay · « **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2002, 03:09:13 pm »

I can say for sure that version 7.2 of MusicMatch does not support CDDB.

Nikolay
JRiver

KingSparta · « **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2002, 03:17:12 pm »

and the big question is where does 7.2 of musicmatch get it's CD data?

KingSparta · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2002, 03:28:04 pm »

>> 3- KingSparta is included for free! ;-)
Funny..

phelt · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2002, 11:32:57 pm »

The single biggest reason that I switched from MM to MJ is the library display and customization. MMatch is a PITA if you have a lot of tracks. Custom view schemes and the AlbumArtist tag have brought my organization and navigation woes to an end. I suggested to MM exactly what MJ has implemented, to no avail. So my dollars went elsewhere

Influxor · « **Reply #18 on:** July 04, 2002, 02:26:28 am »

For me it was the tagging abilities of MJB verses MM.
MM seemed to screw up on properly recognizeing and tagging my Mp3's and does not show or allow editing of all the standard fields in the ID1,2 Tags. MJB = No Problem!
AS your collection grows into the thousands of files, MJB seems to handle it all better than anything i have tried yet.

zevele1 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2002, 02:42:28 am »

What do you mind by PITA?

Here pita is a kind of bread.And you fill it with plugings as falafel-houmous-salad-thrina

sekim · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2002, 03:20:12 am »

PITA = Pain In The ***

bigcuedaddy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2002, 07:15:52 am »

MJ runs circles around MM for many reasons, but the biggest reason I switched over is because MJ cares about its users, while MM cares about its profits. How many other companies have their CEO responding to user questions at ungodly hours of the night??

Markeaux · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2002, 03:52:20 pm »

MMJB 7.x pulls tag info from a different service than CDDB. It is slightly worse, but MMJB's SuperTagging can batch tag update multiple tracks at one time whereas MJ currently can not as it can only do one at at time. And, MMJB's ability to tag with Preference, Tempo, Mood, Situation is a huge advantage - and yes MMJB's Preference is pretty much equal to MJ's Rating but MMJB wins here until MJ adds those fields and values. MJ does not directly handle m3u playlists, instead it imports them into some kind of internal db then you have to export them if making changes, etc (and right now I am having a problem where MJ will not import one m3u playlist that reads fine in MMJB and other players). I would say that neither is the "best" all-in-one as each has advantages and faults, and that is why I switch between them (and MP3 Collector).

KingSparta · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2002, 04:33:09 pm »

Markeaux

I think It Was Matt That Said in MJ9 More Taging Options Will be Done.

As For That Batch Taging We Can Only Hope In the Future That Will Be An Option.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Why is this better than Musicmatch (Read 3179 times)

Chico

PeterS

Chico

JorgeGVB

JNKH

PeterS

NY40Male

david

phelt

Influxor

zevele1

sekim

Markeaux