chebby
Well-known member
It is still downright ungrateful of them considering the Herculean efforts Ashley has made towards promoting all things Apple.
Umm, we're talking about a computer company here. I doubt his efforts, far from being seen as Herculean, even register on the corporate radar...
I don't think it is as much a case of plugging Apple as advising on the best Media computer of the moment based on our experience with our customers. It is clearly the direction Apple is taking and very successfully. Apple computers also sound extremely good, so can be used without the need to purchase a DAC at the same time.
As someone dealing with customers and agents on a day to day basis, I get a feel for the way the market is developing. It's obvious to me that traditional hi fi is being displaced by Apple at the moment. I'd estimate that 95% of our customers have switched and sold expensive separates to do it. Of the remaining 5% most are IT types who can handle Windows.
As Andrew has pointed out we are statistically insignificant in Apple's scheme of things, but we were making expensive hi end hi fi products and selling them to appropriate distributors around the world. Two years ago when we changed, many were derisory, but not now. Even in South Korea, they are beginning to realise how much hi end business is being lost to Computers, to far lower prices (and margins) and to crossover Pro Audio gear. People want all their media in one place and for it to blend aesthetically into their homes. Traditional black boxes and racks are passe.
Big changes are taking place and mocking me is misplaced because we're probably ahead of the game right now.
Ash
As someone dealing with customers and agents on a day to day basis, I get a feel for the way the market is developing. It's obvious to me that traditional hi fi is being displaced by Apple at the moment. I'd estimate that 95% of our customers have switched and sold expensive separates to do it. Of the remaining 5% most are IT types who can handle Windows.
As Andrew has pointed out we are statistically insignificant in Apple's scheme of things, but we were making expensive hi end hi fi products and selling them to appropriate distributors around the world. Two years ago when we changed, many were derisory, but not now. Even in South Korea, they are beginning to realise how much hi end business is being lost to Computers, to far lower prices (and margins) and to crossover Pro Audio gear. People want all their media in one place and for it to blend aesthetically into their homes. Traditional black boxes and racks are passe.
Big changes are taking place and mocking me is misplaced because we're probably ahead of the game right now.
Ash
The 'applebank' was just gentle fun-poking - it does get a bit relentless, Mr J.
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
the_lhc:TractorBoy, the point you still seem to be missing and the flaw in your argument is that the PC won't start playing the ripped file until it's finished ripping it, ie it can buffer 100% of the track(s) and keep re-reading until it's got everything. You stated that your PC rips a CD in 20 minutes (why is it taking so long? My old P4 averages about 5 minutes per CD, in FLAC) but your CD player has 60 minutes to read the CD, thinking the CDP should have plenty of time to re-read but you're forgetting that the CD player has to start playing almost instantly, so it doesn't have a 60 minute buffer at all it has maybe a second or two, but no more than that. That's why it can only read the CD once (especially as it's spinning the CD at single-speed, the last CD-ROM drives were up to 54x spin speed, I don't know what DVD drives top out at but it'll be similar) and that's why they have to employ more error-correction, especially if the CD is in any way scratched or damaged.
The lengthy ripping time is due to me using EAC in secure mode on a somewhat elderly but still fully functioning laptop. I think that's normal?
As regards possible / probably flaws in my argument, please bear in mind that they are really questions more than arguments, and I'm more than willing to accept that I could be missing the point ;-)
One thing though, can anyone confirm that CD players really only do read the disc once and once only?
The lengthy ripping time is due to me using EAC in secure mode on a somewhat elderly but still fully functioning laptop. I think that's normal?
As regards possible / probably flaws in my argument, please bear in mind that they are really questions more than arguments, and I'm more than willing to accept that I could be missing the point ;-)
One thing though, can anyone confirm that CD players really only do read the disc once and once only?
Andrew Everard:
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
Couldn't agree more! But Windows have handed Apple the market on a plate for the moment.
Ash
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
Couldn't agree more! But Windows have handed Apple the market on a plate for the moment.
Ash
"One thing though, can anyone confirm that CD players really only do read the disc once and once only?"
Try Google.
Try Google.
Oh come on, Ash - i'm a massive Mac fan, rarely touching a PC these days, but they still have a tiny share of the computing market worldwide.
Ashley James:Andrew Everard:
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
Couldn't agree more! But Windows have handed Apple the market on a plate for the moment. Ash
I worked with MacOS9 and MacOSX for two years and was always happy to go back to my PC at home. Throwing something into garbage bin to eject was always counter-intuitive! Jocking aside, Macs that I used at work (design studio) crashed just as often as my old WinXP.
I agree Vista is a failuire because its a resource hog (otherwise good) but with Win7 coming out and so many favorable reviews, Msoft may have the next software to get back to the top of their game.
EDIT: I have an Ipod and an iPhone and unfortunately have to use this bloated software called iTunes occasionally.
As for the comments about Made for iPod, I was simply putting chebby straight on how Apple sees the world - there's a distinct feeling of 'you need Apple more than Apple needs you'. Apple's a big business, and just as given to hubris as any other in its field.
Couldn't agree more! But Windows have handed Apple the market on a plate for the moment. Ash
I worked with MacOS9 and MacOSX for two years and was always happy to go back to my PC at home. Throwing something into garbage bin to eject was always counter-intuitive! Jocking aside, Macs that I used at work (design studio) crashed just as often as my old WinXP.
I agree Vista is a failuire because its a resource hog (otherwise good) but with Win7 coming out and so many favorable reviews, Msoft may have the next software to get back to the top of their game.
EDIT: I have an Ipod and an iPhone and unfortunately have to use this bloated software called iTunes occasionally.
chebby
Well-known member
The trouble is that Ashley thinks we are all (me especially) 'luddite' PC tower users in need of conversion
And that Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n base station is not 'scotch mist' either.
I simply prefer my digital lossless music from my laptop system rather than the iMac.
It is more convenient and sounds no different. (Both tested - with iMac via optical connection and laptop via USB - with lossless files from iTunes into my DAC with all the usual settings on both systems optimised.)
And that Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n base station is not 'scotch mist' either.
I simply prefer my digital lossless music from my laptop system rather than the iMac.
It is more convenient and sounds no different. (Both tested - with iMac via optical connection and laptop via USB - with lossless files from iTunes into my DAC with all the usual settings on both systems optimised.)
chebby:
The trouble is that Ashley thinks we are all (me especially) 'luddite' PC tower users in need of conversion
on both systems optimised.)
No I don't Chebby because you obviously know what you're doing, but I do think old fashioned Windows PCs might be the reason people are put off using computers for media. That was what Dell did to me.
My main system has a Panasonic TV and an Apple TV (and a Mini) and the sitting room just has an Airport Express controlled by my iPod Touch, so I can help myself to whatever library I fancy.
Ash
The trouble is that Ashley thinks we are all (me especially) 'luddite' PC tower users in need of conversion
on both systems optimised.)
No I don't Chebby because you obviously know what you're doing, but I do think old fashioned Windows PCs might be the reason people are put off using computers for media. That was what Dell did to me.
My main system has a Panasonic TV and an Apple TV (and a Mini) and the sitting room just has an Airport Express controlled by my iPod Touch, so I can help myself to whatever library I fancy.
Ash
nads
Well-known member
Ashley James: Airport Express controlled by my iPod Touch, so I can help myself to whatever library I fancy.
Ash
which app is this?'
sounds interesting.
Ash
which app is this?'
sounds interesting.
professorhat
Well-known member
tractorboy:POST EDITED for house rules violation
POST EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss moderation
According to a recent review of the Cyrus CD Xt SE transport, one of the big advantages of this transport is that it spins CDs at 1x speed, concentrating on laser accuracy and getting as much of the data off the disc as possible in this one pass.
This led me to deduce (possibly incorrectly) that other CD players spin the disc faster, say at 2x speed for example. This in turn led me to deduce (again probably incorrectly) that other CDs thus read parts of the disc more than once.
Is this totally wrong (i.e. has the wording of the review misled me)?
POST EDITED BY MODS - please do not discuss moderation
According to a recent review of the Cyrus CD Xt SE transport, one of the big advantages of this transport is that it spins CDs at 1x speed, concentrating on laser accuracy and getting as much of the data off the disc as possible in this one pass.
This led me to deduce (possibly incorrectly) that other CD players spin the disc faster, say at 2x speed for example. This in turn led me to deduce (again probably incorrectly) that other CDs thus read parts of the disc more than once.
Is this totally wrong (i.e. has the wording of the review misled me)?
I have a Rega Apollo, on a couple of occasion I have opened the lid and the cd has kept spinning (it should stop) - on removing the cd I was still hearing the music play for another 20 seconds - so the Rega does buffer
Bert Puttocks:I have a Rega Apollo, on a couple of occasion I have opened the lid and the cd has kept spinning (it should stop) - on removing the cd I was still hearing the music play for another 20 seconds - so the Rega does buffer
Sorry, guvnor, this is the Apple vs PC thread.
Oh, hang on a minute...
Sorry, guvnor, this is the Apple vs PC thread.
Oh, hang on a minute...
So, the Apollo clearly buffers. Unlike portables, the point of buffering certainly isn't to allow it to recover from knocks which put the tracking out. So what IS the point of buffering? Is it to allow the CD to reread if necessary? Or is it just to reclock the data and cut out jitter?
Yes, the Rega is indeed one that does buffer, for all the reasons stated above.
Tractorboy, the rotation speed is set by the standard, and varies between 500 rpm at the centre (a cd is read from the inside out) to 200 rpm at the outside. It slows down as the play progresses.
I'm not really sure where this leaves the Cyrus claim - I was under the impression that the speed for a cd player is the same for all makes, and they all have to do precisely what Cyrus describes.
Tractorboy, the rotation speed is set by the standard, and varies between 500 rpm at the centre (a cd is read from the inside out) to 200 rpm at the outside. It slows down as the play progresses.
I'm not really sure where this leaves the Cyrus claim - I was under the impression that the speed for a cd player is the same for all makes, and they all have to do precisely what Cyrus describes.
The buffering is to allow for more time to apply the jitter correction/error correction firmware to do its stuff.
The rash assumption that all CD players read in real time is, frankly, quite wrong.
It depends on the drive mechanism employed and the firmware driving it. Pure CD mechanisms are getting really difficult to source now, a lot of manufacturers use DVD mechanisms. These are of course capable of reading faster than 1x. Other CDPs can read MP3 CDRs so similar logic applies - these machines usually have a buffer as part of the MP3 decoding DSP.
I don't think that the error argument is significant - real time CD players can correct errors, that's why the data is on the disc in an interleaved fashion. The quality of the DAC (especially the DAC power supply) makes far more of a difference to sound quality. If you buy an audiophile CDP you get an internal DAC that has been listened to by experienced engineers and tuned for best sound quality whereas a computer DAC or a non-audiophile or budget DAC is simply made to work and off it goes.
It depends on the drive mechanism employed and the firmware driving it. Pure CD mechanisms are getting really difficult to source now, a lot of manufacturers use DVD mechanisms. These are of course capable of reading faster than 1x. Other CDPs can read MP3 CDRs so similar logic applies - these machines usually have a buffer as part of the MP3 decoding DSP.
I don't think that the error argument is significant - real time CD players can correct errors, that's why the data is on the disc in an interleaved fashion. The quality of the DAC (especially the DAC power supply) makes far more of a difference to sound quality. If you buy an audiophile CDP you get an internal DAC that has been listened to by experienced engineers and tuned for best sound quality whereas a computer DAC or a non-audiophile or budget DAC is simply made to work and off it goes.
FWIW my Arcam also buffers as it takes a good few seconds to load...and I'm using one of my Macbooks to type this post and and and a CDP and and and a TT, and 2 amps, and 2 sets of good speakers, and a talking Iggle Piggle that also dances so I'm hardly a luddite.
ÿ
ÿ
Seems a popular debate this PC v CD thing. I get what is trying to be conveyed here by the post.
My own view is that a CD player is put together by designers / engineers or whoever to do a specific job and compete in a highly competitive market. They are there to concentrate on producing as best a playback they can at the price level they are aimed at using the best components that can be managed. And as WHF show us different CD players do project different presentations / sound so its not all simply about the data reading.
In this respect i feel a CD player will still do far more to produce a likeable and enjoyable overall sound but probably at a higher price.
My own view is that a CD player is put together by designers / engineers or whoever to do a specific job and compete in a highly competitive market. They are there to concentrate on producing as best a playback they can at the price level they are aimed at using the best components that can be managed. And as WHF show us different CD players do project different presentations / sound so its not all simply about the data reading.
In this respect i feel a CD player will still do far more to produce a likeable and enjoyable overall sound but probably at a higher price.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Problem with turntable on samsung scm-6550- Started by darkmanearweinydd
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram