TuneRanger for Mac

Used TuneRanger for Mac? Share your experience and help other users.

Key Details of TuneRanger

Sync multiple iTunes libraries over a network.
Last updated on August 27, 2015
There have been 7 updates
Virus scan status:
Clean (it’s extremely likely that this software program is clean)

Developer’s Description

By Acertant Technologies

Sync multiple iTunes libraries over a network.

TuneRanger connects iTunes-running computers over a network, allowing music, video, and playlists to be merged from one iTunes library to another seamlessly. TuneRanger even works across platforms letting iTunes on Windows communicate and synchronize with iTunes on Mac or any combination. TuneRanger offers true synchronization. It compares songs and videos on all computers and only moves what has changed. It even does this for playlists.

TuneRanger incorporates numerous tools designed to keep iTunes libraries clean and optimized. These tools include: an automated duplicate manager, an orphan file remover, tools to remove unlicensed songs, add or remove disconnected files, and a utility to copy album art from the iTunes database to the actual music files making the album art portable and accessible to other music managers and players.

TuneRanger for Mac

Used TuneRanger for Mac? Share your experience and help other users.

Explore More

Full Specifications

GENERAL

Release: October 27, 2009

Latest update: August 27, 2015

Version: 1.0.1-build-287

OPERATING SYSTEMS

Platform: Mac

Operating System

Mac OS X 10.6
Mac OS X 10.4
Mac OS X
Mac OS X 10.5

Additional Requirements: iTunes installed

POPULARITY

Total Downloads: 2,011

Downloads Last Week: 0

Report Software

Program available in other languages

Descargar TuneRanger

Last Updated

User Reviews

2.6/5

11 User Votes

Works OK up until iTunes 10.
CalpikeSeptember 19, 2010
Pros
Tuneranger works as advertises and syncs iTunes libraries wirelessly. Large libraries have to be broken into smaller pieces (<1000 tunes) or it will crash. Lots of options to check for dupes.
Cons
Not compatible with iTunes 10. Apparently no longer supported.
Summary
Does not work, no support
shamanjuniorJuly 25, 2009
Pros
Nothing redeeming at all.
Cons
Smith Micro products are horrible. I would not recommend them to my worst enemy. A waste of time. No wonder they give them away at MacMall, etc.
Summary
Horrible waste of time.
Best of a bad bunch, but still got serious problems
David ParryMarch 12, 2008
Pros
Cons
Summary
This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />I've got a large library of 18000+ tracks that I regularly sync between my desktop and laptop. On the surface of it, Tuneranger's features is ideal. But after many months of use, and lots of feedback to the author, this app still has serious problems: <ul> <li>Frequent crashes</li> <li>Trouble connecting over the network</li> <li>Poor UI responsiveness (developer doesn't understand threading)</li> <li>Maxs out CPU for long periods, shortly after startup</li> <li>Duplicates 1000s of tracks!!!!</li> <li>Does not fully sync metadata for all tracks (I constantly have 1000s of tracks where the metadata is different on desktop and laptop machines, despite numerous syncs)</li> </ul> That said, the closest competitor is SuperSync, which, frankly, I found unusable. None of these iTunes sync apps are close to finished.
Best of a bad bunch, but still got serious problems
David ParryMarch 12, 2008
Pros
Cons
Summary
This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />I've got a large library of 18000+ tracks that I regularly sync between my desktop and laptop. On the surface of it, Tuneranger's features is ideal. But after many months of use, and lots of feedback to the author, this app still has serious problems: <ul> <li>Frequent crashes</li> <li>Trouble connecting over the network</li> <li>Poor UI responsiveness (developer doesn't understand threading)</li> <li>Maxs out CPU for long periods, shortly after startup</li> <li>Duplicates 1000s of tracks!!!!</li> <li>Does not fully sync metadata for all tracks (I constantly have 1000s of tracks where the metadata is different on desktop and laptop machines, despite numerous syncs)</li> </ul> That said, the closest competitor is SuperSync, which, frankly, I found unusable. None of these iTunes sync apps are close to finished.
Did What I Needed
Herb BowieFebruary 1, 2008
Pros
Cons
Summary
This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />After merging 2 or 3 different iTunes libraries together, I gradually realized that my library was now full of duplicate files. Many songs existed in duplicate versions, with different file names, but same song, type and bit rate. Only one was showing up in my library, but the others were out there in the folder where I keep the tunes, taking up space. TuneRanger has a utility to remove disconnected files, so I gave this a whirl -- and it worked! Worth the price of admission for me.
Doesn't work. No Support.
lupeJanuary 23, 2008
Pros
Cons
Summary
This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />Bought it without trying it based on a presence at MacWorld SF 2008. The folks at the booth seemed confident, and so I came home and bought it. First off, the SmithMicro website which sells the software doesn't support Safari Autofill, so I had to enter all of my information by hand to purchase it initially. Boo hoo. What a drag. At setup, the registration window doesn't support cut and paste for the registration serial number, nor does it support drag and drop. Very annoying. The worst part is that the program itself doesn't work at all. I called the phone number on the developers website and got a professional sounding "big office" voicemail routine, but nobody ever answered the phone. I left a message for tech support and they didn't call back. I wasted my money. Don't make the same mistake I made. If you do choose to use it, make sure you try before you buy. I do hope they eventually are able to make it work, because it's a cool idea, but for now, they are not able to deliver in any way at all.
It's not $29.00, more like $58.00
BoiseSpinDecember 17, 2007
Pros
Cons
Summary
This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />They bill this as having a feature that allows you to sync cross platform. Good news, and it sort of works. (Some tricking is needed). What is not mentioned is the fact that to achieve this, you need to buy 2 licenses, one for each OS. Not cool in my book. As per the email response: "Yes, you need TuneRanger installed on both and you will need a license for Mac and another one for Windows."
Tried builds 221 and 270 on Mac; both do not yet...
cwisniewskiNovember 1, 2007
Pros
Cons
Summary
...function for me as advertised<br />This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br /><p><i>[By the way, my product reads "Version 1.0 (Build 270)" and was downloaded on 10/29/2007, so I am not sure what's going on with the version number choices in the drop down list above]</i></p> <p>I downloaded the product (Build 221) in early October with great anticipation but, though TuneRanger seems to realize the full extent of my iTunes library on the computer on which the software is installed, I receive errors in the form of "Error Accessing Disk Path: /path/Song Title/[12-15 digits]" for virtually every song on the iPod (which, for me, is about 2,700 songs). Thus, a sync request will not seemingly result in making the ITunes library and the cache of songs on the iPod equivalent -- so I have yet to move onto the next step in the process for fear of losing songs (there are three or four hundred songs on the iPod that are not in my iTunes library). <b>Unfortunately, Acertant tech support has failed to respond to my technical support request regarding this matter</b>.</p> <p>Toward the end of the month, I checked Acertant's web site and discovered that a new build had been issued since my earlier attempt to use the software I eagerly downloaded build 270. The same thing happens. <b>Once again, a tech support request via their website has gone unanswered after 3 days despite their claim to get to the matter within about 24 hours. As is so happens, I am now on day 29 of 30 of their "fully functional" trial.</b></p> I would so very much like to report that the software works well, for no application is yet to appear in the market to fix Apple's ridiculously immature (make that non-existent) handling of syncing requirements between two or more computers and one iPod.<br> </p> <p><i>Some final remarks:</i> Reading the iPod and/or iTunes libraries takes quite a long time. In my case, with about 3,300 songs in the iTunes library on my laptop and about 2,700 songs on my iPod, the hourglass spins for about 5 or 6, sometimes 7 or 8 minutes. And, though network users might delight in the ability to synchronize libraries on different computers, what about the very simple situation of a laptop connected to a desktop via a Firewire cable, making one of them a slave, and synchronizing two libraries that way? No such luck, the software is not designed to that, I was told. The suggestion given for getting around this problem was to use the iPod itself as a middle-man. So much for that, as can be seen from my remarks above.</p>
Tried builds 221 and 270 on Mac; both do not yet...
cwisniewskiNovember 1, 2007
Pros
Cons
Summary
...function for me as advertised<br />This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br /><p><i>[By the way, my product reads "Version 1.0 (Build 270)" and was downloaded on 10/29/2007, so I am not sure what's going on with the version number choices in the drop down list above]</i></p> <p>I downloaded the product (Build 221) in early October with great anticipation but, though TuneRanger seems to realize the full extent of my iTunes library on the computer on which the software is installed, I receive errors in the form of "Error Accessing Disk Path: /path/Song Title/[12-15 digits]" for virtually every song on the iPod (which, for me, is about 2,700 songs). Thus, a sync request will not seemingly result in making the ITunes library and the cache of songs on the iPod equivalent -- so I have yet to move onto the next step in the process for fear of losing songs (there are three or four hundred songs on the iPod that are not in my iTunes library). <b>Unfortunately, Acertant tech support has failed to respond to my technical support request regarding this matter</b>.</p> <p>Toward the end of the month, I checked Acertant's web site and discovered that a new build had been issued since my earlier attempt to use the software I eagerly downloaded build 270. The same thing happens. <b>Once again, a tech support request via their website has gone unanswered after 3 days despite their claim to get to the matter within about 24 hours. As is so happens, I am now on day 29 of 30 of their "fully functional" trial.</b></p> I would so very much like to report that the software works well, for no application is yet to appear in the market to fix Apple's ridiculously immature (make that non-existent) handling of syncing requirements between two or more computers and one iPod.<br> </p> <p><i>Some final remarks:</i> Reading the iPod and/or iTunes libraries takes quite a long time. In my case, with about 3,300 songs in the iTunes library on my laptop and about 2,700 songs on my iPod, the hourglass spins for about 5 or 6, sometimes 7 or 8 minutes. And, though network users might delight in the ability to synchronize libraries on different computers, what about the very simple situation of a laptop connected to a desktop via a Firewire cable, making one of them a slave, and synchronizing two libraries that way? No such luck, the software is not designed to that, I was told. The suggestion given for getting around this problem was to use the iPod itself as a middle-man. So much for that, as can be seen from my remarks above.</p>
Tried builds 221 and 270 on Mac; both do not yet...
cwisniewskiNovember 1, 2007
Pros
Cons
Summary
...function for me as advertised<br />This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br /><p><i>[By the way, my product reads "Version 1.0 (Build 270)" and was downloaded on 10/29/2007, so I am not sure what's going on with the version number choices in the drop down list above]</i></p> <p>I downloaded the product (Build 221) in early October with great anticipation but, though TuneRanger seems to realize the full extent of my iTunes library on the computer on which the software is installed, I receive errors in the form of "Error Accessing Disk Path: /path/Song Title/[12-15 digits]" for virtually every song on the iPod (which, for me, is about 2,700 songs). Thus, a sync request will not seemingly result in making the ITunes library and the cache of songs on the iPod equivalent -- so I have yet to move onto the next step in the process for fear of losing songs (there are three or four hundred songs on the iPod that are not in my iTunes library). <b>Unfortunately, Acertant tech support has failed to respond to my technical support request regarding this matter</b>.</p> <p>Toward the end of the month, I checked Acertant's web site and discovered that a new build had been issued since my earlier attempt to use the software I eagerly downloaded build 270. The same thing happens. <b>Once again, a tech support request via their website has gone unanswered after 3 days despite their claim to get to the matter within about 24 hours. As is so happens, I am now on day 29 of 30 of their "fully functional" trial.</b></p> I would so very much like to report that the software works well, for no application is yet to appear in the market to fix Apple's ridiculously immature (make that non-existent) handling of syncing requirements between two or more computers and one iPod.</p> <p><i>Some final remarks:</i> Reading the iPod and/or iTunes libraries takes quite a long time. In my case, with about 3,300 songs in the iTunes library on my laptop and about 2,700 songs on my iPod, the hourglass spins for about 5 or 6, sometimes 7 or 8 minutes. And, though network users might delight in the ability to synchronize libraries on different computers, what about the very simple situation of a laptop connected to a desktop via a Firewire cable, making one of them a slave, and synchronizing two libraries that way? No such luck, the software is not designed to that, I was told. The suggestion given for getting around this problem was to use the iPod itself as a middle-man. So much for that, as can be seen from my remarks above.</p>