toaoc
Mar 25, 07:25 AM
...is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...
jake4ever
Apr 2, 01:36 AM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Benguitar
Nov 25, 08:58 PM
But it's a Ferrari.
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:41 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
Brianstorm91
Jan 12, 11:34 AM
Look here (http://www.adiumx.com/sparkle/?forceShow%5B%5D=model), 9to5mac has this on their front page.
Scroll down to "model" - "MacBookAir"
Scroll down to "model" - "MacBookAir"
applefied
Sep 8, 12:17 PM
belkin has some, but the order pages just say "coming soon", I don't even think you can pre-order.
http://www.belkin.com/ipod/touch/
Scosche has some pretty cool ones, you can pre-order now, they ship "mid September"
http://www.scosche.com/products/sfID1/210/sfID2/212 (scroll down to see the iPod touch cases)
http://www.belkin.com/ipod/touch/
Scosche has some pretty cool ones, you can pre-order now, they ship "mid September"
http://www.scosche.com/products/sfID1/210/sfID2/212 (scroll down to see the iPod touch cases)
macridah
Aug 6, 10:06 PM
I have a feeling tomorrow will be a great day ....
Multimedia
Sep 7, 11:10 AM
Now that iMac is Core 2 Duo, the Academic $899 17" iMac is a mini killer config.Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...Exactly. And because the 17" iMac Supports External up to 1920 x 1200 24" Second Monitor Spanning you not only can, you gain the benefit of an additional 1440 x 900 desktop space almost for FREE @ $899. It's still only Intel 950 IG, but it's cheap and doable like from the mini & MacBooks only with 3.5" SATA HD inside etc etc. It's a miracle. :eek:
boncellis
Sep 6, 09:34 AM
My first instinct was that Apple stuck with Yonah in the Mini because of something they're about to introduce next week. The "streaming video" device could very well fill the set-top box niche that the Mini does, only at a lower price for the same remote media functions.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 04:33 AM
Just need to find something to pass the time until 3 am.:rolleyes:
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
bokdol
Jul 14, 04:10 AM
... and what you'd loose when the disk goes bad :mad:
but you can say that with most drives....
but you can say that with most drives....
SchneiderMan
Nov 26, 08:48 PM
Just got done framing (: took me a minute too.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
Goldfinger
Sep 5, 08:36 AM
Go to Apple.com and you'll see there is a blank space next to the 30 inch Cinema Display ad.
feare
Apr 2, 08:43 AM
It's definitely a lot smoother than the first preview was, especially in the animation department. Mission Control is no longer choppy for me, and while opening folders in launchpad is still choppy, it is much less so than in the first preview (I'm also on my Cinema Display right now, which seems to push my 2009 13" mbp).
In fact, animations on the whole seem to be smoother than in SL. When using my cinema display, opening large stacks tended to be a little choppy, but now they open smoothly.
And the default wallpaper is much improved.
In fact, animations on the whole seem to be smoother than in SL. When using my cinema display, opening large stacks tended to be a little choppy, but now they open smoothly.
And the default wallpaper is much improved.
![selena gomez and taylor lautner kissing on the lips. [L]ocking lips with costar](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uGzH6fon6MJAEdW7ApGVS-PD0Vs7eOd46nU6UOxZhJIG2mJ1ns3jtNkEpkE4XgxrVHCPnNVFHzz9_xNERw-2OSOwafX6nudsko4aDPDrpO2nozzg6P1R9YjzTvN6zdmu_ana5K9Q=s0-d "[L]ocking lips with costar")
WeegieMac
Apr 2, 12:55 PM
THANK YOU!
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
copykris
Nov 25, 02:12 PM
They're just ****ing sunglasses...
haha
so true
haha
so true
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 03:57 PM
(Jesus, BBC reporting septics have fired 110 Tomahawks already, at $1 million each.
Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
(plus the Brits have fired some)
Nice edit. CNN was first. :p
Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
(plus the Brits have fired some)
Nice edit. CNN was first. :p
steadysignal
May 2, 07:35 PM
sounds kookie.
lordonuthin
Feb 17, 12:16 AM
dang. well all my computers are down back at my apartment, so my production will be very little. i just started folding on my mbp with an a3 unit, so we'll see how it goes
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
Silentwave
Jul 16, 11:27 AM
I'd beg to differ on that point. MemoryStick is actually doing pretty well in the market considering that the top three cards are SD, CF and MS stick. Granted they keep changing it but it is doing better then Beta, MiniDisc and MinisDisk HD(even though there are many die hard minidisk fans). Hell you even look at those multi memory card readers there is always support for MS stick. So it does look like Sony did something right there.
That's only because one of the biggest brands keeps using it. I honestly can't think of anything Sony doesn't make that uses MS besides card readers.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
That's only because one of the biggest brands keeps using it. I honestly can't think of anything Sony doesn't make that uses MS besides card readers.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
WildGuess
Apr 2, 09:16 PM
This edition will be forever known as the light bleed model. Mine has it, only slightly annoying. But it certainly knocks down the resale value, almost forcing me to consider exchanging it. Also slightly annoying.
yac_moda
Jul 21, 06:16 PM
IMO the President has very little direct effect. Since the President barely affects the economy, there really isn't much he can do to the stock market. Anything he might do in the form of stimulus packages... tax cuts, credits, etc. take years to work it's way into the economy. That said, there can definitely be a long term effect from a president's actions.
Your summation is a leap of faith, check your market history what I said has STRONG historical backing yours does NOT.
The USA President has a HUGE effect day to day ON THE WORLD scene and that effects the value of the dollar and thus everything else especially foreign investment which is THE BIGGEST money flow.
And Jimmy Carter is the BEST EXAMPLE of a disaster of foreign confidence.
However, the Fed does not care about the stock market per se.
I YOU believe THIS then you believe everything else he says and you are not paying any attention to WHAT HE DOES :eek:
The Fed is interested in controlling inflation and the economy, avoiding overheating and softening downturns. Essentially, the Fed tries to "tune" the economy.
Duuu !!
The President can not restrict money supply. What you've seen over the past 25 years was basically 3 administrations (Reagan/Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr.) that essentially transitioned during downturns in the business cycle. Coincidence.
Without any doubt the President can and does, by WHO he appoints to the position of Fed Chairman.
Presidents that have a clue also have HUGE control over the money supply by how they fine tune and enforce immigration law, the demographics of entrepreneurialism is hugely effected in a relatively short time by emigration from europe since the average age of those emigrants is around 35.
The Feds money supply adjustments are diluted by this immigration which has a BIG effect on economic growth and the job market, although I don't expect you to understand this.
And I have no idea what "hyper ww competition from the internet" means.
��� I AM NOT SURPRISED !!!
You just like to argue !
Your summation is a leap of faith, check your market history what I said has STRONG historical backing yours does NOT.
The USA President has a HUGE effect day to day ON THE WORLD scene and that effects the value of the dollar and thus everything else especially foreign investment which is THE BIGGEST money flow.
And Jimmy Carter is the BEST EXAMPLE of a disaster of foreign confidence.
However, the Fed does not care about the stock market per se.
I YOU believe THIS then you believe everything else he says and you are not paying any attention to WHAT HE DOES :eek:
The Fed is interested in controlling inflation and the economy, avoiding overheating and softening downturns. Essentially, the Fed tries to "tune" the economy.
Duuu !!
The President can not restrict money supply. What you've seen over the past 25 years was basically 3 administrations (Reagan/Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr.) that essentially transitioned during downturns in the business cycle. Coincidence.
Without any doubt the President can and does, by WHO he appoints to the position of Fed Chairman.
Presidents that have a clue also have HUGE control over the money supply by how they fine tune and enforce immigration law, the demographics of entrepreneurialism is hugely effected in a relatively short time by emigration from europe since the average age of those emigrants is around 35.
The Feds money supply adjustments are diluted by this immigration which has a BIG effect on economic growth and the job market, although I don't expect you to understand this.
And I have no idea what "hyper ww competition from the internet" means.
��� I AM NOT SURPRISED !!!
You just like to argue !
No comments:
Post a Comment