CarmB
About
- Username
- CarmB
- Joined
- Visits
- 56
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 344
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 123
Reactions
-
Apple employees fear MR headset could be an expensive flop
The $3,000 price point is utterly unworkable. That alone should have caused Apple to simply not release this device. When Apple launched the iPad, the genius of that product, the one element that launched widespread interest in tablets was an excellent price. There were tablets before the iPad but none that delivered a decent, useful product at the right price point.
Simply put, $3,000 is not the right price point for any personal media consumption device. This thing is dead on arrival.
-
Apple Silicon Mac Pro could combine two M1 Ultra chips for speed
Whatever Apple does with the Mac Pro, it has to consider a price target and the needs of the pros who would be seeking out such a model. The Mac Studio appears to be powerful enough to meet the needs of a particular set of users. So in developing the Mac Pro, it needs to be designed for a somewhat different group of users. This will dictate exactly what choices Apple makes. Either the Pro will offer expandability that isn’t available in the Studio or it will deliver so much computing power out of the box that there would be no need for the vast majority of users to consider adding power beyond what is already there. Probably it will be a little bit of both. More expandability and a lot more power under the hood. I’m not one of those potential Mac Pro buyers. Really, I’m not even in need of something like the Studio. Definitely not in a position to properly set out what the Pro needs to be. But certainly Apple will focus on what those potential buyers want, select a price target, and deliver what can be delivered with the technology available. The Studio has picked off some of the Mac Pro buyers so it will be interesting to see what exactly Apple aims for with the Pro itself,
By the way, the cynic in me suspects that the Studio is, among other things, a high-powered device intended to entice those with the means to buy more computer than they really need because the prospect of having all that horsepower under the hood is too good for some of us to pass up. The Pro is another matter. It needs to be focused on the needs of pros that go beyond what a Studio can provide. I know from personal experience that I overspent on computers at one time not to meet a need but to own something more impressive. Most distressing is that had I put a lot of that money into Apple stock back in the early 2000s instead of Apple computers, I would be in a whole other place financially.
-
Apple Music announces Lossless Audio, Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos
zimmie said:
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated the ability to differentiate between 256-kbit AAC and lossless audio in ABX testing when the sources are sample-synchronized and controlled for volume. I don't pay too much attention to audio specifically, so someone may have managed it since I last checked.CarmB said:
Don’t be so sure about that. There is a misconception that it’s about frequency range but it’s more complicated. If you’re ancient ears have a reduced ability to discern detail in sound, that’s one thing but if it’s the usual, namely losing the ability to pick up higher frequencies - myself, I can’t really hear anything above 13k hz - then a better grade of sound file still matters. It’s less about how high can you go and more about the quality within the range you are capable of picking up. Not saying the difference is so clear as to be undeniable but I would not assume that being older means it’s off the table to get something out of a higher quality audio format.bonobob said:My ancient ears don’t really care about lossless audio. They just aren’t capable of hearing the difference anymore. Dolby Atmos, on the other hand, should be noticeable and much appreciated, especially when listening via Apple TV and my surround system.
44.1 kHz sample rate can perfectly reproduce any signal up to 22.05 kHz, and 16 bits can perfectly reproduce any sound quieter than a chainsaw a meter from your head.
There is a difference between if going to a higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz and a higher bit rate than 16 bits yields a worthwhile upgrade and if there is a gain in upgrading from a 256-kbit lossy file to a higher bitrate lossless format. Heavily compressed lossy files cannot hope to convincingly recreate the analog original even when fed into a decent Digital to Analog Converter. Doing less compressing, certainly gives you a better chance. It is, though, questionable if 44.1 kHz/16 bit is not good enough to get a result that is perfectly fine for human consumption. It’s the heavy compression that is a step too far, in my view, to accommodate convenient file sizes. I’m a lot less concerned about the decision way back when to opt for the 44.1 kHz/16-bit standard. As DAC tech improved in the decades after CDs were launched, the results using decent equipment became quite convincing. Way back in 2003 I picked up an Arcam FMJ CD23 CD player and to this day I enjoy using it (sat for a while so it’s still working fine). Engineers have been quite effective at extracting quality results from plain old Redbook CDs, though it took a few years to get there. Sadly by the time they had it sorted out, many consumers were less interested in sound quality and more anxious for the convenience of stuffing thousands of songs in their pockets. It became more about good-enough reproduction rather than the best possible. Fine for casual use but disappointing for those who are more interested in as close a proximity to the original performance as possible.
-
Apple Music announces Lossless Audio, Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos
Don’t be so sure about that. There is a misconception that it’s about frequency range but it’s more complicated. If you’re ancient ears have a reduced ability to discern detail in sound, that’s one thing but if it’s the usual, namely losing the ability to pick up higher frequencies - myself, I can’t really hear anything above 13k hz - then a better grade of sound file still matters. It’s less about how high can you go and more about the quality within the range you are capable of picking up. Not saying the difference is so clear as to be undeniable but I would not assume that being older means it’s off the table to get something out of a higher quality audio format.bonobob said:My ancient ears don’t really care about lossless audio. They just aren’t capable of hearing the difference anymore. Dolby Atmos, on the other hand, should be noticeable and much appreciated, especially when listening via Apple TV and my surround system.
-
Apple TV+ ranks low in streaming industry surveys despite market boom
The cost of about 7 months worth of the top tier of Netflix covers the cost of year-round subscription to Amazon Prime and Apple TV+, at least here in Canada. So, looking at it one way, you can either subscribe to Netflix year-round or you can subscribe to Netflix for five months of the year and carry Prime and Apple TV+ year-round. In my case, I can take in all the best Netflix content using the service for five months out of the year and yet still be able to check out the content available from those two other services. More bang for my buck, I would say, in being able to access Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV+ as opposed to being limited to Netflix exclusively. The best of what Prime and Apple TV+ offers is of a higher calibre than the second- and third-tier offerings from Netflix. So I plan to check out the best of Netflix five months of the year and also have access to the best of Prime and TV+. Far preferable to scouring the depths of Netflix offerings once I had burned through the stuff I really wanted to check out. I could further tweak this approach by only carrying TV+ for part of the year as well. There is greater flexibility these days, which is progress, I think. It would be a shame to not take advantage of it.asdasd said:
Get rid of cable, you can subscribe to all.cypresstree said:
Even though Netflix has way more content. No way I can justify $17.99 per month for 4K content and multiple streams. That’s madness and not worthy of comparison to Apple TV+ at $4.99 per month.spice-boy said:I have to say the show's I've "watched" were well written, and overall quality shows. Having said that, compare the depth of variety other platforms offer ATV+ might not be worth a steady subscription at least for me. When my trial ends, that will be it for me.
Netflix probably had hit the top of its price range but there's always something to watch. I just started the French show Cal my Agent, on my list to watch is Lupin. They just released SuperStore in Europe. The back catalog is hit and miss but it is substantial ( except for movies).
I am happy with Apple TV+ being free, but there were very few shows I thoroughly enjoyed except Lasso. I might add it to AppleOne, if I get into the fitness+ which I have just signed up for.
