Glossy =(

Re: Glossy =(

Can't wait for the 30" version of it!

Re: Glossy =(

I prefer matte, but that picture's not fair: it's far off to the side, increasing the reflectivity while not representing how anyone would ever use the monitor.

What I don't understand why Apple still doesn't have a DisplayPort to DVI adapter. I understand the move to a new connection type, but it seems like bad business to prevent 90% of your customers from buying your new, expensive (and high margin) product.

Re: Glossy =(

I agree it is not fair. The Mac isn't even turned on so there is going
to be more reflection.

I have a glossy Macbook Pro and a glossy iMac. Neither of them,
looking straight on, give off that kind of reflection.

In fact, at my workplace, I work directly under bright overhead
lighting and have never gotten severe reflection from a glossy screen.

Look, I understand this is a preference thing. Some people like
glossy some people do not. I also understand that glossy screens
tend to show off oversaturated colors and what some may feel to
be unrealistic image quality.

However, it is obvious that Apple still feels confident with their
glossy screens. Whether you like them or not is a personal thing,
but I just want to be certain nobody is wrongly swayed by the above
photo. There just isn't that kind of reflection problem looking straight
forward with the Mac powered on.

You know what, Sam?  As much as I tire of
you pushing how much you hate glossy screens
I will admit something to you....

My new 27" iMac gives off a lot of reflection due
to the fact I have huge windows behind where I sit.

However, I am coping with it because when it gets
dark later in the day, that screen comes to life in
ways that I cannot fully describe.  It's the most
gorgeous screen I have ever stared at endlessly.

I would never, ever, trade it for a matte.

So, I'm afraid you and I are never going to come
to an agreement on this issue.  Heck, this topic
is the biggest argument starter on any Mac forum. 

Well, if you want to get into the compressed vs.
uncompressed audio debate we can do that....

Of course, I prefer uncompressed audio.

But since I deal with thousands of songs that
I have transferred to my iPod from CD, Amaon
downloads and other sites I can definately hear
the difference in bitrate....

between a CD and music at 320kbps

between a song at 320kbps and a song
at 192 kbps.

While my hearing is not the greatest I still
have an ear for music and I can tell if something
has been compressed vs. a CD.  All the
shortcomings are revealed in the highs of the
music and at louder volumes.

I think, if I remember correctly, you told me
there is no audible difference between 250kbps
music and CD audio.  Not sure if that was your
argument, but if it is, I disagree

I know we have somewhat gotten off-track here but
the reason I can easily hear compression is because
I have been an avid listener of CD music since they were
introduced in the 80s.

For the past few years I hear nothing but Sirius radio
which sounds like crap with its ridiculously low broadcast
bitrate.  So, when you listen to satellite radio there is
nowhere to go but up.

Then, as I pointed out, I download new music simply
because its cheaper than buying a CD.   I find that those
MP3s that you can find at the 320kbps bitrate sound
pretty close to CD quality and are actually hard to distinguish,
that is, until you hear cymbals and other highs.  If you
can turn it up only at a fairly high volume and it starts
to distort thats another indication of a low bitrate recording.

It's rather sad that the general public no longer cares
about good sound quality.  They are rather content with
downloading and listening to low quality MP3 music.  I
suppose the same can be said for the video format.

Ahem, Mods, this thread is getting off track

Gee, and i was gonna tell Sam he has nice wood floors!

I think both of these issues are interesting.  I will say that, in general, I disagree with Sam on the glossy issue.  I think you guys know I have a more than casual background in imaging, photography and so on, even though I have moved on to another field of daily work.  At work I use 2 of the "classic" matte Apple 24" LCD monitors and at home I have some considerably less expensive, newer HP glossy models.  The real issue (in my humble opinion) is not so much that one reflects and the other doesn't, but that they reflect differently.  On the matte screens, all light in the room reflects off the screen more or less in all directions, which degrades the dynamic range of what can be seen in the image.  It also diffuses the image.  I'm sorry, but it is a physical absolute.  Matte means diffused.  Diffused means loss of detail and dynamic range.  With a matte screen, a light off to the side will create a diffuse reflection back to the viewer, with glossy, it doesn't.   OK, yeah it has to a little, but considerably less than with matte.  I admit, when put in a horrible environment for viewing, matte may (I'm not convinced though) have a leg up. So, it might be better for laptops.

With music, I have converted my entire catalog into 320 mb/s MP3 using LAME in high quality mode, which produces noticeably better results than iTunes.  It also takes about 10x the processing power.  For most of my casual listening, it is fine.  I started converting everything to lossless, but found certain music gave almost no compression.  I mean, I was getting some stuff (mainly dense European Metal and stuff like that) which gave maybe 15% compression, so I stopped.  To this day, I like CDs, so everything I have started out on CD.  I've never bought a download in my life.  So, can I hear a difference?  Yeah, especially on certain things.  The thing is, most of the time it is a difference I am hearing, but not something I would judge as better or worse.  Occasionally, even with the compression I have used, I still hear that subtle but recognizable "warble" that compressed audio gets.  So, the silly thing is, when I really want to listen to music at its best, I play a CD.  I'm sure I could use lossless and run the digital output through the same outboard DAC I use for CD, but why?  This way the file sizes are much more manageable, since I clone the drive to use at work.  Still, I say if you can make use of lossless, go for it.

Ron, I think it is a weird fascination with technology, which a lot of people seem to treat almost like a Deity.  With a lot of people, if you mention that the sound quality of music downloads from an iPod (such as when they connect it to a receiver) isn't the best they can get, they tend to look surprised and confused.  I think it is actually a similar ignorance that leads to people complaining about grain on video transfers, to the point where we get grainless, lifeless DVDs and BRs.  Practically everyone uses the technologies, but very few want to bother to understand anything about them.

BTW, Sam, a lot of it comes down to playback.  With the encoding I use, I doubt I will ever hear much difference on my living room system, but with the Thiels and better equipment on my good system, comparing the sound from a regular CD with its playback system comparing to what comes from the Apple TV with the music network.  Yeah, there is a difference.  It's just cleaner and fuller.

Well that's exactly what I do -- my entire ~1100 CD library is compressed into Apple Lossless and I have an optical Toslink cable running from my Mac to my Denon AVR.  

Why? Good grief, it has changed my life.  The convenience and capabilities of iTunes vs. popping CDs into a CD player is HUGE.  From the amazing Apple Remote for the iPhone/iPodTouch which allows me to browse and play my entire library without moving from the couch, deck or dinner table, to playlists, to various modes of shuffle, to the ability of playing multi-CD sets seamlessly, all of this makes the idea of going back to the old one CD at a time way of doing things unthinkable.

As for MP3/AAC vs. Apple Lossless, for home listening that choice should be a no brainer: a 1TB disk (which is more than enough to fit any mortal's CD collection in Apple Lossless) is less than $100.  You could spend more than that on useless stuff like fancy cables.  Using Apple Lossless is by far the most bang for your buck way of improving your sound quality.

I think you misunderstood me Ted. What I do now is connect either an Apple TV or AirPort Express to a receiver with a digital connection.  I run that through a network at home and have 5 systems where music can play simultaneously, and I clone the drive and take it to work.  When I want the best possible sound I can get though, I play a CD on my main system because my CD playback equipment is better than I would get from the network, even if I did use lossless.  Plus there is SACD I can listen to as well.  When I started realizing my entire collection probably wouldn't fit on a 1TB drive in lossless, that's when I stopped going that direction.