RME Hammerfall and HDSP series (26 channels), M-Audio Delta 1010 (10/12 channels), AudioScience (8 channels) and at least 4 others fully and well supported on Linux are at least equal to the quality of ProTools HD.
Bullshit. Those prosumer cards don't light a candle next to the sound quality and processing power of a PT HD setup.
They cost significantly less than PT HD hardware. I leave it up to you to figure out why that is.
Because PT HD hardware handles DSP processing for you so your CPU isn't choking on software synths and effects? Come on. You're comparing prosumer cards where processing is on the CPU to professional dedicated hardware designed to run DSP.
Disclaimer: author of Ardour, the RME Hammerfall & HSP drivers, and an RME reseller
Well, what a surprise! I'm sure you'll get modded up while the dissenting opinion gets modded down, because your post has built-in appeal-to-authority.
The kernel (2.6.12) does not have realtime scheduling support built in, which is very popular with computer musicians. More on that later. Additionally, the hard drive is not tuned with hdparm, which is recommended for serious audio work.
And with that, most musicians turn away in disgust. Let's recompile the kernel and tune hard drive parameters on the command line!
Meanwhile, DAWs on Windows and Mac just work. Seriously.
A friend in the industry tells me he's converted at least a dozen pro audio editors to ardour, leaving behind pro tools and logic for good.
Great, meanwhile, Pro Tools marketshare increases every year, especially with the upcoming version 7 release.
Looking at Ardour, the interface is a complete rip-off of Pro Tools anyway, so it's difficult to imagine a studio purposely moving to a less-supported platform to use a Pro Tools-alike when they could be using the real thing, get support from the company, and have access to hundreds of thousands of professional plug-ins.
You're not gonna be able to load FXpansion BFD or Amplitube in Ardour.
Frankly any study that uses the phrase "liberal bias" in their conclusion is highly, highly suspect, since the word "liberal," like conservative, is mostly subjectively defined.
You appear to be dismissing the study for reasons that go beyond simply the data in the study.
The U.Md. (rightly) does not delve into ideological bias, as that is a political morass not a subject for objective study. It simply shows which viewship has a more accurate perception of certain realities.
How does the U.Md. note delve into ideological bias while the other does? The UCLA/Stanford study examined actual news reporting to see what groups were cited, what quotes were presented, and what opinions were given. You're disregarding one study and propping another. Why could that be?
Picking and choosing studies based on which ones fit the conclusion you'd more likely want to be true can be dangerous.
Haha...I didn't add the "Avalon versus Quartz" in the subject line of the previous post. Apparently Safari did that automatically because of a past post. Disregard. Sorry.
I forgot to add my commentary. I included that study just to illustrate my point that there is always a contradictory study against what might be accepted conventional wisdom. I'm not arguing that Fox News and Drudge Report are the most centrist. But I will say that I'm not politically biased toward either end, and I do read Drudge Report often, and I always see both pro-Bush and negative Bush stories (the site in fact links to other stories and doesn't write its own except for exclusives). So when someone tells me a site like Drudge Report is "right-wing," I'm curious as to what makes it that and why I'm not seeing it. Then I examine the person making the claims--they are almost always a Democrat, or at least left-leaning on the political spectrum. While it doesn't automatically invalidate their claims or make them not worth examining, it does suggest a reason for such a perception to be made.
I think the real truth is that the people who are always claiming "bias!" of various news media are the fringe left and fringe right, who have the time and energy to be the loudest and make it appear as though their claims are the norm, while we middle-ground people are too busy living our lives to argue with them.
Two researchers have combined these two disparate ideas to come up with a measure of media bias that doesn't depend on journalists' own perceptions of where they fit on the political spectrum, or on subjective judgments about the philosophical orientation of think tanks. Tim Groseclose, of UCLA and Stanford, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago used data comparing which think tanks various politicians liked to quote and which think tanks various media outlets liked to quote in their news stories to estimate two ADA scores for each media outlet in the study, one based on the number of times a think tank was cited, and the other on the length of the citation.
The media outlets were The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the three network news shows, Fox News' Special Report and The Drudge Report (the [Yale study is online here]).
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias," they write. "One of our measures found that The Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist." And all three papers, plus NBC and CBS, "were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives." Fair and balanced, anyone? To use a simplified example, they say, suppose there were only two think tanks, and The New York Times cited the liberal one twice as often as the conservative one. Then the newspaper's ADA score would be the same as that of a member of Congress who did the same.
The estimated ADA score for Fox, based on citations, was 35.6. That puts it in the company of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and a few points below the House median, 39.0. The two highest were The New York Times, at 67.6, and CBS Evening News, at 70.0. The average Republican in Congress has an ADA score of 11.2, and the average Democrat 74.1.
The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree." So when people say, for example, that The New York Times may be tilted left, but people can compensate for that by watching Fox News, they don't take into account that the Times is much further from the center than Fox. "To gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading The New York Times."
Like I said, examine the source of the bias claims. Media Matters claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called conservative bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.
Accuracy in Media claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called liberal bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.
You can't trust either organization exclusively. You have to trust yourself. It's all partisanship.
Well, I'll be honest, back in 2000 and 2001, I just started watching Fox News more. I didn't think it was any more conservative or biased than CNN, and I was unaware of who Murdoch even was. It just seemed more interesting and they covered things more quickly.
After September 11th when Fox News got really big, I started hearing the claims of bias. The only evidence I ever heard about was that documentary "Outfoxed," which I also found out was a hack edit job (zooming in on split-screen footage to make it look like only conservatives were guests when there was a liberal guy on the other side of the screen, editing Brit Hume's dialog to make it sound like he was giving an opinion instead of quoting a Bush official...etc.).
About the only thing I've really noticed is that they're America-centric, but they report what everyone else reports (and a lot of stuff that others don't, like Rilya Wilson...I guess if you're a black girl and you disappear in America, only Bill O'Reilly will give a crap...weird).
I do notice that stuff that happens at CNN, like their head guy resigning after claiming US troops were purposely targeting journalists, or CBS News using a completely false memo, don't get mentioned as bias. But any little thing at Fox News gets interpreted as such.
When I hear claims of bias, it's always important to examine the source of the claim., who I 99% of the time find to be greatly biased themselves. Instead of disagreeing with someone today, you call them a "shill" or "biased." It sucks.
Why is this in the politics section? Genuinely curious.
For the record, all my liberal friends tell me constantly that Fox News is oh-so-biased and CNN is oh-so-great, without EVER citing a single example for either case. It's just become conventional wisdom for them without question.
Heck, one could make the case that Slashdot is extremely biased and inaccurate every day.
The former. It would not be natural English to use it in the latter sense.
Why not? Hopefully means "with hope." It's an adverb describing an action. If Joe hopefully went to the store, you're describing his action of going to the store as being hopeful.
I guess people are too busy spelling Microsoft with dollar signs to recognize how silly they look when they use poor English.
It's also a way for the new management to kiss up to Steve Jobs, who happens to be the CEO of the successful animation company that walked away from Disney recently because of the old management...
It should also be noted that Apple is a member of the Blu-ray group, so expect to see those drives in next year's Macs. I thought it was obvious six months ago that HD-DVD was dead in the water, and now with Dell, HP, a ton of movie studios, Apple, and others backing Blu-ray and H.264 over HD-DVD and VC-1 (WMV9), the writing's on the wall.
Right now, Apple's videos are at 320x240, probably for bandwidth reasons as well as the fact that HD H.264 decoding requires a powerful machine that most don't have yet. But this is a start--Apple is quickly becoming the forerunner of "digital media" (finally, a use for that buzzword that actually applies).
Don't forget the best reason to use iTunes 6--they softened the sharp window corners.:)
Seriously though, they smoothed out the sharp corners of the whole interface. It was actually bugging me in version 5, as trivial as that is. I didn't like the really sharp corners at all, and I know a lot of people were complaining about that. When you're using an app all the time like iTunes, it helps to have it look and feel nice.
Uh, is anyone kind of wondering why Slashdot didn't also mention iTunes 6 (five weeks after iTunes 5), Apple releasing a living room media center app called FrontRow with an iPod-like remote (which has 6 buttons compared to Microsoft Media Center's 40 buttons), a new iMac with built-in iSight cam, television shows for sale from ABC, etc.?
Instead, it's kind of like..."Yeah, it looks like they released video-based iPods and some other stuff. Hey, here's stuff about cars. Ho-hum."
This is ridiculous. I'm sure I'm not the only one of the several thousands who must have submitted all the OTHER news:
-iTunes 6 -New iMac with built-in Firewire camera -New app called FrontRow for playing media from your sofa, 6 button iPod-like remote -compared to Microsoft Media Center's 40 buttons -New PhotoBooth app for taking pictures that actually uses iMac's screen as a flash -Television shows and music videos for sale through iTunes at $1.99.
Etc....
Instead, we get "Yeah, they mentioned iPod video today, and here's a lame car link. Disregard all the other news, like Apple taking Microsoft on directly in the living room..."
With PC sales slowing as the market saturates, Microsoft is salivating over the potential of faster-growing areas such as television and mobile phones.
Salivating? More like clawing desperately at taking over the living room. They already failed with WMA thanks to iPod.
All Apple has to do is release a video-based iPod, and it's bye-bye Windows in the living room as well--to be more specific, WMV (VC-1) will be dead along with H.264, which is already the primary codec for Blu-ray movies (Sony is already threatening X-Box 360's streaming movie capabilities thanks to Blue-ray, thereby making X-Box 360 useless since it has no Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive).
I'm sorry, the features sound cool, but a lot of Microsoft tech gadgets have come and gone that sounded cool on the surface but just didn't provide the right interface or were too cumbersome. As usual, I'll wait and see (and hope Apple does something to actually legitimize it).
Antivirus, spyware protection, firewall, internet browser (to name a few) --- these are things that should come in any OS product. In fact, they should be as mandatory as TCP/IP protocol.
Ladies and gentleman, this is the mindset Microsoft has fostered in the populace. "It's good to diaper your OS like a baby with layers of applications to protect your OS from the Internet."
Spyware protection should ABSOLUTELY NOT be mandatory or part of the TCP/IP protocol (ha)--spyware takes advantages of flaws in Windows architectural design, and Microsoft should fix that design. Viruses rely on propagation, and systems like OS X simply don't have the mechanisms to allow for that--hence no viruses in five years. It doesn't even have a firewall enabled by default, because it keeps no open ports--an OS should NOT require a firewall to operate. It shouldn't keep open any port it doesn't need and shouldn't use any to begin with.
All I have to say is, Macs are 15% of the computing install base, and yet OS X has not had a virus or trojan infection in the past five years. Such malicious software relies on the ability to propagate, and on Windows, such mediums are plentiful. OS X just doesn't have the infrastructure--no registry to exploit, no "interactive services" exploits, no ports open, and so forth. Malicious software gets stopped in its tracks to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
RME Hammerfall and HDSP series (26 channels), M-Audio Delta 1010 (10/12 channels), AudioScience (8 channels) and at least 4 others fully and well supported on Linux are at least equal to the quality of ProTools HD.
Bullshit. Those prosumer cards don't light a candle next to the sound quality and processing power of a PT HD setup.
They cost significantly less than PT HD hardware. I leave it up to you to figure out why that is.
Because PT HD hardware handles DSP processing for you so your CPU isn't choking on software synths and effects? Come on. You're comparing prosumer cards where processing is on the CPU to professional dedicated hardware designed to run DSP.
Disclaimer: author of Ardour, the RME Hammerfall & HSP drivers, and an RME reseller
Well, what a surprise! I'm sure you'll get modded up while the dissenting opinion gets modded down, because your post has built-in appeal-to-authority.
From the article:
The kernel (2.6.12) does not have realtime scheduling support built in, which is very popular with computer musicians. More on that later. Additionally, the hard drive is not tuned with hdparm, which is recommended for serious audio work.
And with that, most musicians turn away in disgust. Let's recompile the kernel and tune hard drive parameters on the command line!
Meanwhile, DAWs on Windows and Mac just work. Seriously.
A friend in the industry tells me he's converted at least a dozen pro audio editors to ardour, leaving behind pro tools and logic for good.
Great, meanwhile, Pro Tools marketshare increases every year, especially with the upcoming version 7 release.
Looking at Ardour, the interface is a complete rip-off of Pro Tools anyway, so it's difficult to imagine a studio purposely moving to a less-supported platform to use a Pro Tools-alike when they could be using the real thing, get support from the company, and have access to hundreds of thousands of professional plug-ins.
You're not gonna be able to load FXpansion BFD or Amplitube in Ardour.
Its handling of NULL, for starters.
Frankly any study that uses the phrase "liberal bias" in their conclusion is highly, highly suspect, since the word "liberal," like conservative, is mostly subjectively defined.
You appear to be dismissing the study for reasons that go beyond simply the data in the study.
The U.Md. (rightly) does not delve into ideological bias, as that is a political morass not a subject for objective study. It simply shows which viewship has a more accurate perception of certain realities.
How does the U.Md. note delve into ideological bias while the other does? The UCLA/Stanford study examined actual news reporting to see what groups were cited, what quotes were presented, and what opinions were given. You're disregarding one study and propping another. Why could that be?
Picking and choosing studies based on which ones fit the conclusion you'd more likely want to be true can be dangerous.
Haha...I didn't add the "Avalon versus Quartz" in the subject line of the previous post. Apparently Safari did that automatically because of a past post. Disregard. Sorry.
I forgot to add my commentary. I included that study just to illustrate my point that there is always a contradictory study against what might be accepted conventional wisdom. I'm not arguing that Fox News and Drudge Report are the most centrist. But I will say that I'm not politically biased toward either end, and I do read Drudge Report often, and I always see both pro-Bush and negative Bush stories (the site in fact links to other stories and doesn't write its own except for exclusives). So when someone tells me a site like Drudge Report is "right-wing," I'm curious as to what makes it that and why I'm not seeing it. Then I examine the person making the claims--they are almost always a Democrat, or at least left-leaning on the political spectrum. While it doesn't automatically invalidate their claims or make them not worth examining, it does suggest a reason for such a perception to be made.
I think the real truth is that the people who are always claiming "bias!" of various news media are the fringe left and fringe right, who have the time and energy to be the loudest and make it appear as though their claims are the norm, while we middle-ground people are too busy living our lives to argue with them.
And in the interest of fairness, here is the group that covers liberal bias in the media:
http://www.aim.org/
Like I said, examine the source of the bias claims. Media Matters claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called conservative bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.
Accuracy in Media claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called liberal bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.
You can't trust either organization exclusively. You have to trust yourself. It's all partisanship.
Well, I'll be honest, back in 2000 and 2001, I just started watching Fox News more. I didn't think it was any more conservative or biased than CNN, and I was unaware of who Murdoch even was. It just seemed more interesting and they covered things more quickly.
After September 11th when Fox News got really big, I started hearing the claims of bias. The only evidence I ever heard about was that documentary "Outfoxed," which I also found out was a hack edit job (zooming in on split-screen footage to make it look like only conservatives were guests when there was a liberal guy on the other side of the screen, editing Brit Hume's dialog to make it sound like he was giving an opinion instead of quoting a Bush official...etc.).
About the only thing I've really noticed is that they're America-centric, but they report what everyone else reports (and a lot of stuff that others don't, like Rilya Wilson...I guess if you're a black girl and you disappear in America, only Bill O'Reilly will give a crap...weird).
I do notice that stuff that happens at CNN, like their head guy resigning after claiming US troops were purposely targeting journalists, or CBS News using a completely false memo, don't get mentioned as bias. But any little thing at Fox News gets interpreted as such.
When I hear claims of bias, it's always important to examine the source of the claim., who I 99% of the time find to be greatly biased themselves. Instead of disagreeing with someone today, you call them a "shill" or "biased." It sucks.
Why is this in the politics section? Genuinely curious.
For the record, all my liberal friends tell me constantly that Fox News is oh-so-biased and CNN is oh-so-great, without EVER citing a single example for either case. It's just become conventional wisdom for them without question.
Heck, one could make the case that Slashdot is extremely biased and inaccurate every day.
That's like saying "Stupidly, he left on Tuesday" suggests an implicit "I am stupid."
The former. It would not be natural English to use it in the latter sense.
Why not? Hopefully means "with hope." It's an adverb describing an action. If Joe hopefully went to the store, you're describing his action of going to the store as being hopeful.
I guess people are too busy spelling Microsoft with dollar signs to recognize how silly they look when they use poor English.
It's also a way for the new management to kiss up to Steve Jobs, who happens to be the CEO of the successful animation company that walked away from Disney recently because of the old management...
It should also be noted that Apple is a member of the Blu-ray group, so expect to see those drives in next year's Macs. I thought it was obvious six months ago that HD-DVD was dead in the water, and now with Dell, HP, a ton of movie studios, Apple, and others backing Blu-ray and H.264 over HD-DVD and VC-1 (WMV9), the writing's on the wall.
Right now, Apple's videos are at 320x240, probably for bandwidth reasons as well as the fact that HD H.264 decoding requires a powerful machine that most don't have yet. But this is a start--Apple is quickly becoming the forerunner of "digital media" (finally, a use for that buzzword that actually applies).
Well, no, but my eyes "feel" better...
Don't forget the best reason to use iTunes 6--they softened the sharp window corners. :)
Seriously though, they smoothed out the sharp corners of the whole interface. It was actually bugging me in version 5, as trivial as that is. I didn't like the really sharp corners at all, and I know a lot of people were complaining about that. When you're using an app all the time like iTunes, it helps to have it look and feel nice.
Uh, is anyone kind of wondering why Slashdot didn't also mention iTunes 6 (five weeks after iTunes 5), Apple releasing a living room media center app called FrontRow with an iPod-like remote (which has 6 buttons compared to Microsoft Media Center's 40 buttons), a new iMac with built-in iSight cam, television shows for sale from ABC, etc.?
Instead, it's kind of like..."Yeah, it looks like they released video-based iPods and some other stuff. Hey, here's stuff about cars. Ho-hum."
This is ridiculous. I'm sure I'm not the only one of the several thousands who must have submitted all the OTHER news:
-iTunes 6
-New iMac with built-in Firewire camera
-New app called FrontRow for playing media from your sofa, 6 button iPod-like remote -compared to Microsoft Media Center's 40 buttons
-New PhotoBooth app for taking pictures that actually uses iMac's screen as a flash
-Television shows and music videos for sale through iTunes at $1.99.
Etc....
Instead, we get "Yeah, they mentioned iPod video today, and here's a lame car link. Disregard all the other news, like Apple taking Microsoft on directly in the living room..."
Especially when you can plug it into any television or monitor and enjoy the comfort of any living room you happen to be in.
'scuse me, how did the iPod do anything to harm a VIDEO-format?
Beats me. I never said it did. I said an iPod video would kill WMV like the normal iPod has killed WMA. Reading comprehension...it's a good thing.
All the iPod did was to inflate the price fo the standard mp3-player. And get alot of people robbed off the iPod becuase their unique design.
Yeah, that's "all" it did. And all the Apple II did was legitimize the home personal computer.
Apple legitimize?
Yes, just like they did with the iTunes Music Store, which now has greater than 80% of the market.
You're talking about the company that tried to force all their customers into using a single button mouse.
Force? I was using multiple-buttoned mice in 1998.
Next.
With PC sales slowing as the market saturates, Microsoft is salivating over the potential of faster-growing areas such as television and mobile phones.
Salivating? More like clawing desperately at taking over the living room. They already failed with WMA thanks to iPod.
All Apple has to do is release a video-based iPod, and it's bye-bye Windows in the living room as well--to be more specific, WMV (VC-1) will be dead along with H.264, which is already the primary codec for Blu-ray movies (Sony is already threatening X-Box 360's streaming movie capabilities thanks to Blue-ray, thereby making X-Box 360 useless since it has no Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive).
I'm sorry, the features sound cool, but a lot of Microsoft tech gadgets have come and gone that sounded cool on the surface but just didn't provide the right interface or were too cumbersome. As usual, I'll wait and see (and hope Apple does something to actually legitimize it).
If MacOS X meets or exceeds Windows in every area that matters to a user, why does Windows still have a 90+ percent market share?
Cheap commodity PCs that need a GUI to run them. It's the only reason Windows got big in the first place.
Antivirus, spyware protection, firewall, internet browser (to name a few) --- these are things that should come in any OS product. In fact, they should be as mandatory as TCP/IP protocol.
Ladies and gentleman, this is the mindset Microsoft has fostered in the populace. "It's good to diaper your OS like a baby with layers of applications to protect your OS from the Internet."
Spyware protection should ABSOLUTELY NOT be mandatory or part of the TCP/IP protocol (ha)--spyware takes advantages of flaws in Windows architectural design, and Microsoft should fix that design. Viruses rely on propagation, and systems like OS X simply don't have the mechanisms to allow for that--hence no viruses in five years. It doesn't even have a firewall enabled by default, because it keeps no open ports--an OS should NOT require a firewall to operate. It shouldn't keep open any port it doesn't need and shouldn't use any to begin with.
All I have to say is, Macs are 15% of the computing install base, and yet OS X has not had a virus or trojan infection in the past five years. Such malicious software relies on the ability to propagate, and on Windows, such mediums are plentiful. OS X just doesn't have the infrastructure--no registry to exploit, no "interactive services" exploits, no ports open, and so forth. Malicious software gets stopped in its tracks to begin with.