It's possible to find. Newer thought from such point - I think that most users uses lossy codecs. I'll try to find it out. At least, it's directly measurable. Can't support me with link on chip, used in ipods? Somewhere here, on./ , just can't recall.
"I notice Apple is very loathe to publish its Signal-to-Noise dB figures for its products"
1. Not Apple, but nobody publishes SNR, THD, etc for lossy codecs. 2. AFAIK Apple publishes good enough specs on Mac audiochannel, just look inside booklet that comes with your mac. Remember? I asked./ about AAC/MP3/ATRAC/whatever specs four times
"The real threat to Apple's continued success is mobile phones." So I think, but look at Apple-Motorola deal on mobiles.
would you like to explain - what the f*ck they are installing in a pc audiocard to set LOW-END price to 199? How about add 50 more and get a freaking AV tuner - 6.1x100 Watt/channel, 24/192 DAC, >100 dB SNR, etc, etc? And connect it to computer by fibre (5 bucks more) to motherboard-bazed spdif ??
Anyway, if you want pro-level digitizing, that cards will not fit.
PC (mass-market) audio after Creative domination established is frozen. No new ideas. Nothing.
Do you know, that A3D from Aureal was (years ago!) a raytrace for sound, in hardware? And before Aureal's death it was in V.3 And what? Creative bought them and now you happily can get A3D support for V.1. And so on, with HRTF, 3D-reconstruction, etc, etc. Creative bought all and uses nothing.
Anyway you'll swap out with PShop. Just install MenuMeters and check, what amount of RAM Photoshop really uses. And then check processor load on heavy task with more than 1 gig and less than 1 gig. on my dual 1.8 total load NEWER overexeeds 105-110 percent with 1.5 gig given to ps and easely goes to 180 with 960 mb assigned. got what I mean?
Anyway, here was talk about iMac, yes? And iMac isn't supposed for such workload.
C'mon, show me, what really for you'll need more than 2 G of RAM? I'm working on everyday basis with multiple 500 Mb+ Photoshop files and guess what? Never, NEVER Photoshop CS or 7 uses memory in such chunks. And if you'll set more than 1 Gb to Photoshop, it'll just get mad. And real bottleneck in such a system is harddrive speed, not RAM amount as there are more than 1 Gig. And this imac is not intended for such an operations ever.
You just got words from my mouth - my first experience was the same. At that time I was (and am, in fact, somewhere inside my heart) a big fan of BeOS - and that thing was incredibly fast! I tried a lot of systems time ago, on both PC and Mac, and have to say that at time most stable was OS/2 and fastest was BeOS (at least this is my point). I tried some flavor of Linux at that time, and was not impressed.
After about 40 seconds (on a dual-1.8GHz G5 machine), you get to the Yellow Dog welcome screen where you can log in as a user, reboot, choose the desktop environment, and the like. For what it's worth, OSX boots in a very impressive 15 seconds on the same machine.
My point was that you can distinguish lossy compressed from original in proper hearing condition. Try it yourself - just do what I wrote. And I do know that CD itself is lossy. About hearing impaired - c'mon, don't catch the 'missing word'.
At first - realise that Stereofile gets money from advertising, thats it. At second - 'difference between a $5000 amp and a $200 amp' is easely distinguishible. For example, attach speakers and NO INPUT, take amp on, set loudness to MAX and take your ear near speaker. Be sure, you'll hear the difference. Keep in mind - it's only one of many differences between them. At third - ANY not hearing impaired person can hear difference between ANY lossy compression and original. Go to local 'audiofilic' store, get a listening room with audiosystem like over 10000-15000 (cd, amp & speakers) and compare original CD and compressed sound at comfortable sound level.
That compression aimed at 'medium customer audiosystem' and 'medium listening conditions', so if you are going out of target you easily will hear difference.
By the way, having some clue and soldering skills you can build your own 5000$ amp for 200$. Like me;) And hear the difference. And compare different cd transports, cables, speakers, etc. And yes, they sounds different - you have no need in 'golden ear' to hear that. But of coarse, cables like 2000$/meter are for people, who are bying only the most expensive things. Like speakers for 140000$ each
You did a nice PC box, but missed some points: 1. sound 2. firewire, USB 2 (are they on Asus PP-DWL?) 3. Gigabit ethernet (autodetecting crossover cables) 4. dedicated, OS-controlled cooling (liquid - for 3-grand mac) 5. COST OF MANUFACTURING.
Funny Heat pipes WAS used by Apple in 2x1.43 GHz G4's Can't recall exactly, look inside your mac - if heatsink plates (thin) are PARALLEL to mainboard - be sure heatpipes are in your mac
Point 2 of Apple fineprint in full(not truncated by you) form:
Power Mac G5 systems were tested using Final Cut Pro HD and a single Xserve RAID configured with 512MB of RAM per controller, 14 drives and RAID 50. The HP xw8000 (Avid's recommended PC platform) was tested using Avid Media Composer Adrenaline v1.3.1 and a six-disk (Avid r573/320 MediaDrive 10,000 RPM) Raid 0 volume, connected via an LSI Logic dual-channel SCSI adapter
From your post: I'm guessing 14 drives with RAID 50 is not the "standard" Mac configuration.
I guess that 'six-disk (Avid r573/320 MediaDrive 10,000 RPM) Raid 0 volume, connected via an LSI Logic dual-channel SCSI adapter' is not 'the "standard" PC configuration'
Look and see: you truncated THIS ONLY PART from Apple Fineprint. So, it's you are lier.
And where from you get this: 'Finally note the use of Red Hat Linux. It's nice to know that Apple had to use a 1-2 year old OS (with the old 2.4 kernel and who knows what software running in the background) to lower the speed enough to make their new CPU look good.' Maybe you just lied again?
Oops! We seem to have run into technical difficulties and cannot complete your download request. It could be that the download link you tried to access has changed and the developer forgot to notify us. Want to let us know so we can get it fixed? Send us an email or make your way back to Mac OS X Downloads for any other downloads you need.
You get me a bit wrong. To be clean - I got MD in institute of radioelectronics some time ago. So, I do know basic digitizing principles not so bad. I asked in first place not about frequency range, but about dynamic range. Mean 20lg(loudest/quietest). Mean 20lg(2^16) speaking of 16 bit PCM (forgetting of quiet signal form) And I was at Sony (Atrac), Dolby(AC, AAC), Sorensen, etc. NOBODY of them tells nothing EXACTLY about dynamic range, SNR, intermodulations. Going to learn actual audio compression algorythms, you'd see that there have to be noticeable intermodulations and dynamic range compression. As I have no such a big interest now in this field, I have no interest to reconstruct/calculate or measure this. And yes, I can do this, but for some one-two types of simple enough input signals, which is of no interest.
For example, 5 to 7 years ago I was shocked by Sony's MD recorder dynamic range (measured) near 68 dB. Got what I mean?
By the way, remember that "104 dB on iPod" thread? NOBODY answered, where that 104 dB come from. Nowhere on Apple can't you get that digit. No digits about sound quality at all. So on Sony, Dolby, AES too.
So, again - is there some data on that to read? Some statistical/calculated/speculated even?
But... about AES statement: What hearing conditions and sound material do they use for their tests?
And seems like you possibly know: what is the MAX dynamic range of compressed (AAC, MP3, whatever) sound? WTF, not only that, but I can't find ANY (s/n, distortions, intermodulations, etc) parameters of this conversion. I really can't found that, trying hard. And I have no interest/time(to recall) in calculating by myself, so, if you have something on this, please, share info/link.
Being a medical student who has a particular interest in this stuff, you have to know that due to compression method AAC, MP3, ATRAC, etc generates artifacts during compression. I mean due to "harmonising". Furthermore, there exists some "dynamic range compression" So I have to tell that:
a) if you are listening in APPROPRIATE conditions and on APPROPRIATE sound system (mean amplifyer&speakers&QUET room) you easily can distinguish compressed from flat by dynamic range. Possibly you can't tell what's difference is, but you CAN hear it. b) it's not so hard to generate a soundwave that will compress very bad (you easily can point difference) at any bitrate.
Example: get audiotest CD, compress it, listen to what you get.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought I'll be a first poster, but when I got in (~0.5 seconds later), you was already moderated to zero ;)
Thanks about hint on Wolfson. So, here we are:
d io /
http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/digital_au
Most interesting part - about codecs, integrated with ADC and DAC - I think, one of them is in heart of iPods.
So, WORST of them (stereo):
DAC SNR - 98
ADC SNR - 95
Sampling rate max - 96 kHz
And for THD - on worst DAC:
- 84 dB
And THD for digital amp (DA)
0.01
I mean, if Apple uses WORST of Wolfson's codecs, DACs and DAs, they achieves "up to 98 dB SNR and down to 0.01 THD" easely.
keep in mind - zero iz "up to zillion"
7 77 ,00.asp
1 13 ,00.asp
7 83 ,00.asp
7 16 ,00.asp
Nomad 3 Digital Audio Player
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1157
Creative Zen Micro
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1725
Audio Codec Quality Shootout
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1560
Digital Audio Primer
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1460
It's possible to find. Newer thought from such point - I think that most users uses lossy codecs. ./ , just can't recall.
I'll try to find it out. At least, it's directly measurable.
Can't support me with link on chip, used in ipods? Somewhere here, on
"I notice Apple is very loathe to publish its Signal-to-Noise dB figures for its products"
./ about AAC/MP3/ATRAC/whatever specs four times
1. Not Apple, but nobody publishes SNR, THD, etc for lossy codecs.
2. AFAIK Apple publishes good enough specs on Mac audiochannel, just look inside booklet that comes with your mac.
Remember? I asked
"The real threat to Apple's continued success is mobile phones."
So I think, but look at Apple-Motorola deal on mobiles.
would you like to explain - what the f*ck they are installing in a pc audiocard to set LOW-END price to 199? How about add 50 more and get a freaking AV tuner - 6.1x100 Watt/channel, 24/192 DAC, >100 dB SNR, etc, etc?
And connect it to computer by fibre (5 bucks more) to motherboard-bazed spdif ??
Anyway, if you want pro-level digitizing, that cards will not fit.
PC (mass-market) audio after Creative domination established is frozen. No new ideas. Nothing.
Do you know, that A3D from Aureal was (years ago!) a raytrace for sound, in hardware? And before Aureal's death it was in V.3
And what? Creative bought them and now you happily can get A3D support for V.1.
And so on, with HRTF, 3D-reconstruction, etc, etc. Creative bought all and uses nothing.
They do exactly Microsoft way.
Will Apple be sued by Cola on outlets form, or Cola will use that in next commercial?
For this price, LCD included, do you really suppose to play DOOM III?
Throw in 200$ more and you'll get 1 Gb RAM from Kingston, then play.
And don't be troll
Anyway you'll swap out with PShop.
Just install MenuMeters and check, what amount of RAM Photoshop really uses.
And then check processor load on heavy task with more than 1 gig and less than 1 gig.
on my dual 1.8 total load NEWER overexeeds 105-110 percent with 1.5 gig given to ps and easely goes to 180 with 960 mb assigned.
got what I mean?
Anyway, here was talk about iMac, yes? And iMac isn't supposed for such workload.
C'mon, show me, what really for you'll need more than 2 G of RAM?
I'm working on everyday basis with multiple 500 Mb+ Photoshop files and guess what? Never, NEVER Photoshop CS or 7 uses memory in such chunks.
And if you'll set more than 1 Gb to Photoshop, it'll just get mad.
And real bottleneck in such a system is harddrive speed, not RAM amount as there are more than 1 Gig.
And this imac is not intended for such an operations ever.
You just got words from my mouth - my first experience was the same. At that time I was (and am, in fact, somewhere inside my heart) a big fan of BeOS - and that thing was incredibly fast! I tried a lot of systems time ago, on both PC and Mac, and have to say that at time most stable was OS/2 and fastest was BeOS (at least this is my point). I tried some flavor of Linux at that time, and was not impressed.
After about 40 seconds (on a dual-1.8GHz G5 machine), you get to the Yellow Dog welcome screen where you can log in as a user, reboot, choose the desktop environment, and the like. For what it's worth, OSX boots in a very impressive 15 seconds on the same machine.
It's just funny, how the most of ./ missed an shouted to them revolution in OS'es.
e rv iew.shtml
General Purpose Computing on Graphics Processors
Ever heard of that? Integrated as OS abstraction layer?
Go, look:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/Events/Conferences/GP2/ov
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/core.html
So what's your point? What you want to tell?
My point was that you can distinguish lossy compressed from original in proper hearing condition. Try it yourself - just do what I wrote.
And I do know that CD itself is lossy.
About hearing impaired - c'mon, don't catch the 'missing word'.
Almost perfect on this:
& th reshold=0&commentsort=1&tid=141&mode=thread&cid=84 30289
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98809
At first - realise that Stereofile gets money from advertising, thats it.
;)
At second - 'difference between a $5000 amp and a $200 amp' is easely distinguishible. For example, attach speakers and NO INPUT, take amp on, set loudness to MAX and take your ear near speaker. Be sure, you'll hear the difference. Keep in mind - it's only one of many differences between them.
At third - ANY not hearing impaired person can hear difference between ANY lossy compression and original. Go to local 'audiofilic' store, get a listening room with audiosystem like over 10000-15000 (cd, amp & speakers) and compare original CD and compressed sound at comfortable sound level.
That compression aimed at 'medium customer audiosystem' and 'medium listening conditions', so if you are going out of target you easily will hear difference.
By the way, having some clue and soldering skills you can build your own 5000$ amp for 200$. Like me
And hear the difference.
And compare different cd transports, cables, speakers, etc.
And yes, they sounds different - you have no need in 'golden ear' to hear that.
But of coarse, cables like 2000$/meter are for people, who are bying only the most expensive things. Like speakers for 140000$ each
You did a nice PC box, but missed some points:
1. sound
2. firewire, USB 2 (are they on Asus PP-DWL?)
3. Gigabit ethernet (autodetecting crossover cables)
4. dedicated, OS-controlled cooling (liquid - for 3-grand mac)
5. COST OF MANUFACTURING.
You count parts price, didn't you?
Funny
Heat pipes WAS used by Apple in 2x1.43 GHz G4's
Can't recall exactly, look inside your mac - if heatsink plates (thin) are PARALLEL to mainboard - be sure heatpipes are in your mac
Point 2 of Apple fineprint in full(not truncated by you) form:
Power Mac G5 systems were tested using Final Cut Pro HD and a single Xserve RAID configured with 512MB of RAM per controller, 14 drives and RAID 50. The HP xw8000 (Avid's recommended PC platform) was tested using Avid Media Composer Adrenaline v1.3.1 and a six-disk (Avid r573/320 MediaDrive 10,000 RPM) Raid 0 volume, connected via an LSI Logic dual-channel SCSI adapter
From your post:
I'm guessing 14 drives with RAID 50 is not the "standard" Mac configuration.
I guess that 'six-disk (Avid r573/320 MediaDrive 10,000 RPM) Raid 0 volume, connected via an LSI Logic dual-channel SCSI adapter' is not 'the "standard" PC configuration'
Look and see: you truncated THIS ONLY PART from Apple Fineprint. So, it's you are lier.
And where from you get this: 'Finally note the use of Red Hat Linux. It's nice to know that Apple had to use a 1-2 year old OS (with the old 2.4 kernel and who knows what software running in the background) to lower the speed enough to make their new CPU look good.'
Maybe you just lied again?
Exactly what I said, but in this place style it have to be Soviet Russia, not USSR, not Soviet Union.
Actually, nothing outside the Soviet Russia actually exists ;-)
Exept enemies - for both cases.
Nice link, nice download page - and:
Oops! We seem to have run into technical difficulties and cannot complete your download request. It could be that the download link you tried to access has changed and the developer forgot to notify us. Want to let us know so we can get it fixed? Send us an email or make your way back to Mac OS X Downloads for any other downloads you need.
Cheers,
Apple Downloads
You get me a bit wrong.
To be clean - I got MD in institute of radioelectronics some time ago. So, I do know basic digitizing principles not so bad.
I asked in first place not about frequency range, but about dynamic range. Mean 20lg(loudest/quietest).
Mean 20lg(2^16) speaking of 16 bit PCM (forgetting of quiet signal form)
And I was at Sony (Atrac), Dolby(AC, AAC), Sorensen, etc.
NOBODY of them tells nothing EXACTLY about dynamic range, SNR, intermodulations.
Going to learn actual audio compression algorythms, you'd see that there have to be noticeable intermodulations and dynamic range compression. As I have no such a big interest now in this field, I have no interest to reconstruct/calculate or measure this.
And yes, I can do this, but for some one-two types of simple enough input signals, which is of no interest.
For example, 5 to 7 years ago I was shocked by Sony's MD recorder dynamic range (measured) near 68 dB. Got what I mean?
By the way, remember that "104 dB on iPod" thread?
NOBODY answered, where that 104 dB come from. Nowhere on Apple can't you get that digit. No digits about sound quality at all. So on Sony, Dolby, AES too.
So, again - is there some data on that to read? Some statistical/calculated/speculated even?
Nice to read this here ;)
But... about AES statement: What hearing conditions and sound material do they use for their tests?
And seems like you possibly know: what is the MAX dynamic range of compressed (AAC, MP3, whatever) sound? WTF, not only that, but I can't find ANY (s/n, distortions, intermodulations, etc) parameters of this conversion. I really can't found that, trying hard. And I have no interest/time(to recall) in calculating by myself, so, if you have something on this, please, share info/link.
Being a medical student who has a particular interest in this stuff, you have to know that due to compression method AAC, MP3, ATRAC, etc generates artifacts during compression.
I mean due to "harmonising".
Furthermore, there exists some "dynamic range compression"
So I have to tell that:
a) if you are listening in APPROPRIATE conditions and on APPROPRIATE sound system (mean amplifyer&speakers&QUET room) you easily can distinguish compressed from flat by dynamic range. Possibly you can't tell what's difference is, but you CAN hear it.
b) it's not so hard to generate a soundwave that will compress very bad (you easily can point difference) at any bitrate.
Example: get audiotest CD, compress it, listen to what you get.