Is Mac really better for music?

[iemslie]

£ for £ I wouldn't expect a Mac to be any better at anything compared to a Windows PC.

That said, Apple do make some very nice looking kit that for the most part just seems to work.

Also the OS seems to be agreeable with most people that try it out.

For many that seems to be enough of a justification - and if you've got the cash, why not

 

[chebby]

No - wrong again! The reason why some "spend a fortune on stuff that doesn't do anything" or drop a clanger is far simpler than whether they are educated or not. It is because they think hi-fi mags are a bible and are thus too lazy to get off their backsides and audition before buying.

Have you seen the circulation figures for the UK hi-fi magazines lately? Even all added together they still only total a (dwindling) dot on a dot on a dot compared to the number of people buying some kind of audio or AV system or device each year.

I doubt whether the number of people who regularly buy a hi-fi magazine and are then influenced to (unquestioningly) buy it's 5 star / globe / blob recommendations, without listening first, even run into a few thousands at most. (And most of those recommendations - in the case of WHF? - are for non hi-fi related items.)

 

[Covenanter]

People's lack of technical knowledge in these forums is frightening. :help:

It says a lot about our education system that so many have no knowledge of even the simplest principles.

Chris

Yes, yes. And young people have no respect and the buses used to run on time (they didn't) and people could leave their front doors unlocked and Wagon Wheels were bigger and only cost a halfpenny ... etc.

These things are not connected as I am sure you realise. You world does change and we are materially a great deal better off than we were in the past and I don't hanker for the old days in any way. However that doesn't stop my basic point being true, our education system does right now produce people who are lacking in basic knowledge as evidenced by many of the posts to this forum.

Chris

Have you not tumbled yet that some couldn't give a s*** about how a hi-fi/AV component works.

Which presumably is why some of them spend a fortune on stuff that doesn't do anything!

Chris

No - wrong again! The reason why some "spend a fortune on stuff that doesn't do anything" or drop a clanger is far simpler than whether they are educated or not. It is because they think hi-fi mags are a bible and are thus too lazy to get off their backsides and audition before buying. To say that a lack of education is to blame is so detrimental - people, strange as it may seem, aren't stupid. What they don't have is a williness to see whether the mags are right or wrong.

But can't you see that some basic knowledge can keep you from even thinking about spending money on certain things? Similarly to "think hi-fi mags are a bible" implies a certain lack of insight!

Laziness might come into it too of course!

Chris

 

[Covenanter]

You don't have to have studied all those things in order to have gained basic knowledge, it just takes a little research.

Most people don't care though.

As for "right now" maybe that wasn't the best wording. I'm not sure when people stopped gaining a basic understanding of science but it was evidently some time ago.

If you think the average "man on the clapham omnibus" has EVER had a basic understanding of science then you're sorely deluded. If you have anything like a basic understanding of science then you're far from average, in my experience.

I suppose what gets to me is that a lot of hi-fi enthusiasts nowadays seem to see it as some kind of mystical hocus-pocus. I guess I shouldn't care that people waste their money on stuff that can't possibly do what is claimed for it but for some reason I do. I wasn't aware of this until I used this forum to help me find new kit (and there are many sensible people who post here) and to be frank I was amazed.

Chris

PS I think science teaching has changed since my day as the emphasis has moved away from fundamentals. To that extent I believe people used to have a better understanding than they do now. I may be deluded!

 

[Anonymous]

You don't have to have studied all those things in order to have gained basic knowledge, it just takes a little research.

Most people don't care though.

As for "right now" maybe that wasn't the best wording. I'm not sure when people stopped gaining a basic understanding of science but it was evidently some time ago.

If you think the average "man on the clapham omnibus" has EVER had a basic understanding of science then you're sorely deluded. If you have anything like a basic understanding of science then you're far from average, in my experience.

I suppose what gets to me is that a lot of hi-fi enthusiasts nowadays seem to see it as some kind of mystical hocus-pocus. I guess I shouldn't care that people waste their money on stuff that can't possibly do what is claimed for it but for some reason I do. I wasn't aware of this until I used this forum to help me find new kit (and there are many sensible people who post here) and to be frank I was amazed.

Chris

PS I think science teaching has changed since my day as the emphasis has moved away from fundamentals. To that extent I believe people used to have a better understanding than they do now. I may be deluded!

This has been so for the last 30yrs at least since I've been into HiFi, it's just now with the internet and forums and it's out there more and laptop warriors write what they like. Some good some bad. Always been the same always will. IMHO

'PS I think science teaching has changed since my day as the emphasis has moved away from fundamentals. To that extent I believe people used to have a better understanding than they do now. I may be deluded!'

Must disagree and as has been mentioned before most people on here left school many many years ago. The fundamentals are still taught in schools I know I have a teenage daughter and also a sister in law who is a teacher(with an engineering degree). In many ways science is taught better now. IMHO again

 

[Covenanter]

You don't have to have studied all those things in order to have gained basic knowledge, it just takes a little research.

Most people don't care though.

As for "right now" maybe that wasn't the best wording. I'm not sure when people stopped gaining a basic understanding of science but it was evidently some time ago.

If you think the average "man on the clapham omnibus" has EVER had a basic understanding of science then you're sorely deluded. If you have anything like a basic understanding of science then you're far from average, in my experience.

I suppose what gets to me is that a lot of hi-fi enthusiasts nowadays seem to see it as some kind of mystical hocus-pocus. I guess I shouldn't care that people waste their money on stuff that can't possibly do what is claimed for it but for some reason I do. I wasn't aware of this until I used this forum to help me find new kit (and there are many sensible people who post here) and to be frank I was amazed.

Chris

PS I think science teaching has changed since my day as the emphasis has moved away from fundamentals. To that extent I believe people used to have a better understanding than they do now. I may be deluded!

This has been so for the last 30yrs at least since I've been into HiFi, it's just now with the internet and forums and it's out there more and laptop warriors write what they like. Some good some bad. Always been the same always will. IMHO

'PS I think science teaching has changed since my day as the emphasis has moved away from fundamentals. To that extent I believe people used to have a better understanding than they do now. I may be deluded!'

Must disagree and as has been mentioned before most people on here left school many many years ago. The fundamentals are still taught in schools I know I have a teenage daughter and also a sister in law who is a teacher(with an engineering degree). In many ways science is taught better now. IMHO again

My children are rather older than yours but my son happened to do the same 'A' levels as me, Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. I still have my exam papers and we compared them. I could do his exams easily, although there were about 30 years between the two exams, and he said that my papers were very much harder than anything he had ever seen. Now my son is pretty smart but ...

Chris

 

[Dommer]

I would also say use a NAS to store your music files and a dedicated steamer to play them.

Alternatively use Foobar2000 to play your music from a Windows computer and decide if you can hear the difference in SQ.

I bought Audirvana for my Macbook Air and noticed an improvement in SQ right away. So yes software does make a difference,

but I don't think a Mac would sound any better compared to a Windows machine if configured properly.

 

[professorhat]

My children are rather older than yours but my son happened to do the same 'A' levels as me, Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. I still have my exam papers and we compared them. I could do his exams easily, although there were about 30 years between the two exams, and he said that my papers were very much harder than anything he had ever seen. Now my son is pretty smart but ...

Chris

Conclusive evidence if ever I saw it. If only your wife had just walked into the room though...

 

[Covenanter]

My children are rather older than yours but my son happened to do the same 'A' levels as me, Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. I still have my exam papers and we compared them. I could do his exams easily, although there were about 30 years between the two exams, and he said that my papers were very much harder than anything he had ever seen. Now my son is pretty smart but ...

Chris

Conclusive evidence if ever I saw it. If only your wife had just walked into the room though...

By no means conclusive but I would argue indicative! I could also tell you for example that my daughter, who has a 2/1 in Anthropology, can't do long division because she was never taught it.

Chris

PS My (ex-)wife was a botanist so her maths was never that good.

 

[chebby]

...wife was a botanist so her maths was never that good.

One doesn't automatically follow the other (botanist = bad at maths) as you have written it.

Competence in maths and being a botanist are not mutually exclusive.

 

[hammill]

...wife was a botanist so her maths was never that good.

One doesn't automatically follow the other (botanist = bad at maths) as you have written it.

Competence in maths and being a botanist are not mutually exclusive.

I am not sure about botanists, but I took the first year economics course as part of my degree (I had to choose computing, maths and one other ) and those studying economics to degree level couldn't do maths. Interestingly the computing faculty said that I could choose economics but the course did not count as a full unit for those studying computing as it was too easy so I would have to take an extra module in mathematical economics with lots of partial differential equations. None of the economics students took this course and it has somewhat coloured my view of economics as a subject ever since.

 

[andyjm]

..of course MACs and PCs sound the same.

It terms of reliability however....

OS X can trace its parentage via NeXT Step back to UNIX, arguably the Rolls Royce of operating systems designed by the genius engineers at Bell Labs.

Windows can trace its parentage via MS DOS back to QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) from the now defunct Seattle Computer Products company.

If you were choosing a car, would you rather have one based on a Rolls Royce or a Trabant?

 

[professorhat]

That's not actually true - Windows 2000, XP, 7 and 8 all trace their lineage back to Windows NT, not MS-DOS. Windows NT was developed from the ground up, originally intended as a follow up to OS/2, but later switched to the Windows brand. Leading this development was Dave Cutler, who is also hailed as a genius by many.

Windows ME was the last Microsoft OS to be based on the MS-DOS operating system, and very thankful we all are that it was retired (none too soon).

 

[Covenanter]

...wife was a botanist so her maths was never that good.

One doesn't automatically follow the other (botanist = bad at maths) as you have written it.

Competence in maths and being a botanist are not mutually exclusive.

I should have put a smiley in as it was meant as a joke. My ex was a top-notch computer programmer so very logical with good maths.

 

[The_Lhc]

By no means conclusive but I would argue indicative! I could also tell you for example that my daughter, who has a 2/1 in Anthropology, can't do long division because she was never taught it.

Perhaps you should have sent her to a better school, my nephew's 9 and he's being taught it.

 

[andyjm]

That's not actually true - Windows 2000, XP, 7 and 8 all trace their lineage back to Windows NT, not MS-DOS. Windows NT was developed from the ground up, originally intended as a follow up to OS/2, but later switched to the Windows brand. Leading this development was Dave Cutler, who is also hailed as a genius by many.

Windows ME was the last Microsoft OS to be based on the MS-DOS operating system, and very thankful we all are that it was retired (none too soon).

I see your Dave Cutler, and raise you Dennis Ritche, Brian Kernighan and Ken Thompson.

 

[jcbrum]

Who wrote 'AppleDos', - was it 'Woz' ?

 

[chebby]

I am learning so much.

The reason most forum members are technically and scientifically ignorant is the fault of the education system 'right now'.

Botanists can't be good at maths.

There is no division amongst anthropologists.

Today's A'level maths students can't solve their dad's problems.

 

[Sospri]

You don't need all the academic tokens, after all they prove the ability to record and recall information,

All you need is oodles of common sense.........................

 

[Alec]

Heh. Oodles as a unit of measurement. I've heard it all now. Lamentable, I tells ya!

 

[professorhat]

That's not actually true - Windows 2000, XP, 7 and 8 all trace their lineage back to Windows NT, not MS-DOS. Windows NT was developed from the ground up, originally intended as a follow up to OS/2, but later switched to the Windows brand. Leading this development was Dave Cutler, who is also hailed as a genius by many.

Windows ME was the last Microsoft OS to be based on the MS-DOS operating system, and very thankful we all are that it was retired (none too soon).

I see your Dave Cutler, and raise you Dennis Ritche, Brian Kernighan and Ken Thompson.

Hey, I'm no Microsoft lover (I mostly use Mac OS X at home), but just pointing out that Windows of today is a very different (read much more reliable and more secure) beast compared to the detestable versions based on MS-DOS.

 

[Sospri]

Heh. Oodles as a unit of measurement. I've heard it all now. Lamentable, I tells ya!

Never heard of irony, obviously not.

Sad...............

 

[chebby]

Heh. Oodles as a unit of measurement. I've heard it all now. Lamentable, I tells ya!

I think Le Système International d'unités once considered the 'Oodle' as a basic SI unit but went for the 'Mole' instead.

 

[John Duncan]

Heh. Oodles as a unit of measurement. I've heard it all now. Lamentable, I tells ya!

Never heard of irony, obviously not.

Sad...............

I blame the education system.

 

[Paul.]

Heh. Oodles as a unit of measurement. I've heard it all now. Lamentable, I tells ya!

A jiffy is a unit, 1/100th of a second.