G5 is the name of the computer, not the processor. Motorolla planned a G5 processor, but I don't think they ever got it working. The specs of the machines fit in with the 970. So it's called a G5, but it's really a 970. Early 970's did 1.8ghz, so it's highly likely that production has got that to 2.0ghz.
The specs I read earlier for the 970 indicated a 900mhz bus, so a 1ghz bus is not out of the question with the new hypertransport stuff.
Apple play NVIDIA and ATI off against each other. They've offered both for quite a while now.
Sure Apple use Firewire - they invented it, but I bet if they're using more PC standards in their motherboard that USB 2 comes along for the ride. Supposodly the latest crop of Power Macs had USB2.0, just without the higher speed drivers. Remember Apple were the first to popularise USB...
Why only one Firewire800 port? Well, it has a different connector so your old gear won't plug into it without an adapter.
Macs are not "graphics machines" - they're general purpose professional computers. With all the audio software and video software that Apple are putting out, this becomes a great feature.
All I wish is that I'd started saving earlier.....
Actually, the real specs seem slightly better than the rumours indicated. The real killer punch will be if they're cheaper than the current power macs.
Again, these would have to be incredibly gross to be above the threshold of hearing (or the background noise in your listening room) or not to be masked by the perceptual encoding to be worth worrying about.
16 bit PCM gives you 96db of dynamic range. That's 96db between noise floor and max volume. What's limiting about that?? What's the ambient noise level in your room? A really quiet room will be about 40db. 96 + 40 = 136db. That's how loud your peak volume will have to be to allow you to hear the full dynamic range of your CD. After you've heard that, then your ears will be doing no more hearing for quite a while.....
But your loudspeakers are not going to play undistorted at that volume, and quite frankly, the air itself will distort at that volume.
If you're hearing problems with your classical cds, then don't attribute it to 16 bit dynamic range. If you master your cds properly, then it's no limitation to the sound you're hearing.
Ofcourse, your cds could be badly mastered, but bad 16bit, bad 24bit, who cares. If they can't take the care to get it right for CD, they're not going to take the care for any other format.
I suppose that until people find that CD ripping has audible problems on their system, then they're not going to see the need for software that cures a problem they don't have.
The fact is that CD ripping works just fine, but if you've damaged a CD then yes, you may need specialist software.
Even listening while ripping still ripped at many times real speed, so sure, you might get a little slowdown, but no where near all the way back to 1x (realtime).
Is there an OS X build of CD Paranoia, then I will give it a try.
The original poster was talking about jitter (and got his terminology wrong) and then posted a pile of gobbledegook that he said meant that it was nigh on impossible to rip a CD accurately. That doesn't seem to be the case. I've never had pops or clicks from a CD I've ripped myself.
And please tell us what equipment you have that can reproduce 24bit dynamic range, and which anechoic chamber you use to listen to it in?
Modern hifi can't even fully reproduce the dynamic range of CD (96db) and they don't stand a chance with 24bit.
24bit, however, comes in really useful when recording, mixing and mastering. It gives you freedom to play around with the signal an awful lot before you hear any degredation. For a home delivery format it just gives them an excuse to sell you your record collection over again.
It will produce imperceptably different results. Your amp, speakers and ears (and the compression for that matter) are much greater limiting factors. 192khz 24bit gives some good advantages while recording, mixing etc, but doesn't do anything for the final product, whether CD, MP3 AAC rip, or rip from the CD.
Rip the same track twice using iTunes 4 to 192kbps MP3. First time I just left the computer alone, the next time I browsed slashdot, listened to the CD while importing, moved lots of windows around etc. My Linux box doesn't have a CD drive, so I can't try cdparanoia, but if there were such serious problems ripping music to MP3, then you'd expect at least one bit to be different in the two rips, wouldn't you.
If there are such rounding errors, they will be of such a small magnitude compared to the perceptual encoding losses, and also must be beneath the threshold of hearing. Why worry?
Strange - ever since I got a CD-ROM drive for my Mac IICX, I've never had a problem getting decent audio files off a CD. Perhaps the problems are a PC phenonema?
What practical advantage is 24bit going to have when compressing to MP3?
I've yet to come across any amp or speaker that has the dynamic range of 24bit (or CD player, DVD player, SACD player, anything) when converting to analogue.
Quite frankly, most people's systems can't even cope with 16bit CD dynamic range (96db). If you've got a really quiet room (say 40 db background noise), then you need a system (and ears) capable of 136db to hear the full dynamic range of CD.
Higher bandwidth audio is all about selling you the same record collection over and over again, and nothing about improved quality.
The only positive thing that higher sampling rates bring is a moving of the brick wall filter further away from the audio zone - and there are ways to do that without upping the sample rate and wasting all that disk space.
Higher number of bits (24bit v 16bit) gives an advantage at the recording stage, but produced a dynamic range unreproduceable by amps and speakers, so is of no advantage at the playback end of things.
The fact is, that CD ripping works fine, and has done for many years. You can rip the same bit twice if you want and compare bit for bit to see that each rip is the same. CD Paranoia is just the word for it. For all their technical voodoo, they sound like they're talking bollacks. CD ripping is a perfectly mature technology that works well.
For most music, the CD is identical to the master! If Apple are using anything other than the CD or the CD Master (which would be less convenient, harder to work with and give no percievable benefit) then you'd be getting slightly different music (in terms of recording balance, compression etc.) than you'd buy in the shops.
Master recording? They'll use the CD like everyone else.
Jitter? You don't know what you're talking about. Jitter is a phenonema that occurs ONLY in the D to A converter. If you load a program from CD, do you get the wrong bytes because of jitter? If you're going to use an audiophool buzzword, at least understand what it's about beforehand.
Eat this troll - every computer bar M$ runs on a Linux/Unix/BSD/OS X operating system. M$ is the only stand out. You could apply the same reasoning to M$, because they're not an OS company, but a software vendor, and they should join the Unix crowd.
Nope. They're not macs, they're CHRP, which is totally legal and not Apple infinging at all.
I ue briqs - www.totalimpact.com for a renderfarm ad they are G4 PPC CHRP boxes, running yellow dog linux and custom render management software that Total Ipmact have written. They're great little general purpose computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Never heard of mail order?
Have a look at the software list on the Apple site? Exactly which software are you missing?
G5 is the name of the computer, not the processor. Motorolla planned a G5 processor, but I don't think they ever got it working. The specs of the machines fit in with the 970. So it's called a G5, but it's really a 970. Early 970's did 1.8ghz, so it's highly likely that production has got that to 2.0ghz.
The specs I read earlier for the 970 indicated a 900mhz bus, so a 1ghz bus is not out of the question with the new hypertransport stuff.
Apple play NVIDIA and ATI off against each other. They've offered both for quite a while now.
Sure Apple use Firewire - they invented it, but I bet if they're using more PC standards in their motherboard that USB 2 comes along for the ride. Supposodly the latest crop of Power Macs had USB2.0, just without the higher speed drivers. Remember Apple were the first to popularise USB...
Why only one Firewire800 port? Well, it has a different connector so your old gear won't plug into it without an adapter.
Macs are not "graphics machines" - they're general purpose professional computers. With all the audio software and video software that Apple are putting out, this becomes a great feature.
All I wish is that I'd started saving earlier.....
Actually, the real specs seem slightly better than the rumours indicated. The real killer punch will be if they're cheaper than the current power macs.
Again, these would have to be incredibly gross to be above the threshold of hearing (or the background noise in your listening room) or not to be masked by the perceptual encoding to be worth worrying about.
I listen to all kinds of music.
16 bit PCM gives you 96db of dynamic range. That's 96db between noise floor and max volume. What's limiting about that?? What's the ambient noise level in your room? A really quiet room will be about 40db. 96 + 40 = 136db. That's how loud your peak volume will have to be to allow you to hear the full dynamic range of your CD. After you've heard that, then your ears will be doing no more hearing for quite a while.....
But your loudspeakers are not going to play undistorted at that volume, and quite frankly, the air itself will distort at that volume.
If you're hearing problems with your classical cds, then don't attribute it to 16 bit dynamic range. If you master your cds properly, then it's no limitation to the sound you're hearing.
Ofcourse, your cds could be badly mastered, but bad 16bit, bad 24bit, who cares. If they can't take the care to get it right for CD, they're not going to take the care for any other format.
but that extra noise will be so quiet that your own breathing will be many times louder...
I suppose that until people find that CD ripping has audible problems on their system, then they're not going to see the need for software that cures a problem they don't have.
The fact is that CD ripping works just fine, but if you've damaged a CD then yes, you may need specialist software.
Even listening while ripping still ripped at many times real speed, so sure, you might get a little slowdown, but no where near all the way back to 1x (realtime).
Is there an OS X build of CD Paranoia, then I will give it a try.
The original poster was talking about jitter (and got his terminology wrong) and then posted a pile of gobbledegook that he said meant that it was nigh on impossible to rip a CD accurately. That doesn't seem to be the case. I've never had pops or clicks from a CD I've ripped myself.
And please tell us what equipment you have that can reproduce 24bit dynamic range, and which anechoic chamber you use to listen to it in?
Modern hifi can't even fully reproduce the dynamic range of CD (96db) and they don't stand a chance with 24bit.
24bit, however, comes in really useful when recording, mixing and mastering. It gives you freedom to play around with the signal an awful lot before you hear any degredation. For a home delivery format it just gives them an excuse to sell you your record collection over again.
It will produce imperceptably different results. Your amp, speakers and ears (and the compression for that matter) are much greater limiting factors. 192khz 24bit gives some good advantages while recording, mixing etc, but doesn't do anything for the final product, whether CD, MP3 AAC rip, or rip from the CD.
md5 01\ Kalerka.mp3
MD5 (01 Kalerka.mp3) = 5abcd872603157101492b29d8698cc84
md5 01\ Kalerka\ A.mp3
MD5 (01 Kalerka A.mp3) = 5abcd872603157101492b29d8698cc84
Rip the same track twice using iTunes 4 to 192kbps MP3. First time I just left the computer alone, the next time I browsed slashdot, listened to the CD while importing, moved lots of windows around etc. My Linux box doesn't have a CD drive, so I can't try cdparanoia, but if there were such serious problems ripping music to MP3, then you'd expect at least one bit to be different in the two rips, wouldn't you.
If there are such rounding errors, they will be of such a small magnitude compared to the perceptual encoding losses, and also must be beneath the threshold of hearing. Why worry?
And I've never had any problems since. And it was a 24x drive....
That preference is probably due to the less severe brick wall filter needed with the higher sampling rate.
Sure, but that gives you no advantage in the final compressed product.
Strange - ever since I got a CD-ROM drive for my Mac IICX, I've never had a problem getting decent audio files off a CD. Perhaps the problems are a PC phenonema?
What practical advantage is 24bit going to have when compressing to MP3?
I've yet to come across any amp or speaker that has the dynamic range of 24bit (or CD player, DVD player, SACD player, anything) when converting to analogue.
Quite frankly, most people's systems can't even cope with 16bit CD dynamic range (96db). If you've got a really quiet room (say 40 db background noise), then you need a system (and ears) capable of 136db to hear the full dynamic range of CD.
Higher bandwidth audio is all about selling you the same record collection over and over again, and nothing about improved quality.
The only positive thing that higher sampling rates bring is a moving of the brick wall filter further away from the audio zone - and there are ways to do that without upping the sample rate and wasting all that disk space.
Higher number of bits (24bit v 16bit) gives an advantage at the recording stage, but produced a dynamic range unreproduceable by amps and speakers, so is of no advantage at the playback end of things.
The fact is, that CD ripping works fine, and has done for many years. You can rip the same bit twice if you want and compare bit for bit to see that each rip is the same. CD Paranoia is just the word for it. For all their technical voodoo, they sound like they're talking bollacks. CD ripping is a perfectly mature technology that works well.
For most music, the CD is identical to the master! If Apple are using anything other than the CD or the CD Master (which would be less convenient, harder to work with and give no percievable benefit) then you'd be getting slightly different music (in terms of recording balance, compression etc.) than you'd buy in the shops.
Master recording? They'll use the CD like everyone else.
Jitter? You don't know what you're talking about. Jitter is a phenonema that occurs ONLY in the D to A converter. If you load a program from CD, do you get the wrong bytes because of jitter? If you're going to use an audiophool buzzword, at least understand what it's about beforehand.
Eat this troll - every computer bar M$ runs on a Linux/Unix/BSD/OS X operating system. M$ is the only stand out. You could apply the same reasoning to M$, because they're not an OS company, but a software vendor, and they should join the Unix crowd.
They're not giving it away for free. Are you suggesting that the P2P users are stealing their bandwidth??
Seriously, the RIAA give away their music for free - it's called Radio. P2P is the new radio.
It costs musicians to have their music on the radio (ie the artisit looses money), at least they don't loose money by being on P2P.
They're good. You're paying for the custom format - ie very small though. If you need small (and low power / heat), I know of nothing better.
Nope. They're not macs, they're CHRP, which is totally legal and not Apple infinging at all.
I ue briqs - www.totalimpact.com for a renderfarm ad they are G4 PPC CHRP boxes, running yellow dog linux and custom render management software that Total Ipmact have written. They're great little general purpose computers.