I've been lurking here for many years now. I hate that my first post here will make me out to be a huge Apple fanboy, but I honestly couldn't care less. I'm only posting because of the FUD some of the anti-Apple sheep are spreading in this thread.
I have heard the sound out of a dell d620 though, which uses the same chipset(i assume, it would be nice if apple actually published their specs for once) and it sounds like crap compared to both my iriver and my chaintech.
Chipset is just one one thing in a long chain of components that makes up the sound that comes through your headphones and into your ears.
I have a perfect example for you.
I recently went through THREE HP laptops. The one I had purchased more than a year ago, the "loaner" I received while that one was "fixed" (the loaner ended up being defective), and then the system HP eventually replaced my dead laptop with.
All three used the exact same "Conexant HD Audio" chipset. But all three had vastly different sound coming out of the headphone jack. The original laptop, a dv5000z, was fatiguing, distorted, lifeless, and the volume couldn't be turned up passed 1/5 without becoming incredibly distorted.
The "loaner" dv6000z sounded more akin to a $50 modern portable CD player. Bloated bass and somewhat muddy mids. But not distorted or fatiguing like the previous system.
The final system they sent me, a dv6000t with the Conexant chip, again, sounds completely different from the other two. The sound is pumped up, bass is punchy, no distortion whatsoever. It actually sounds "decent".
So, even if a MacBook and a Dell had the same audio processor, that doesn't mean they will produce the same end results because of other components in the chain.
Also, many PC fans (including Linux users) forget the fact that Macs are bit perfect out of the box. Windows XP, Vista, and even Linux all resample to 48KHz.
Apple is great for people who don't know how to use a computer, but i run windows with NO real time antivirus (i do have a few scanners and stuff that i can use occasionally, but again, no real time) and i havent encountered any problems in the past year. Its just common sense about what you should and shouldnt click.
I can't help but laugh out loud when people say things like this. It's just pure ignorance and it shows that the person in question has absolutely never used a Mac.
Anyway, most of us who have Macs are former PC users. We switched to OS X because we got tired of using an operating system that is still stuck in 1995. Macs are for people who want something that is easy to use, MODERN (unlike XP and Vista), and even more advanced than Windows.
Me? I've built multiple PCs, picking out each individual component that went into the system. I know how to use a computer. But Windows is just so maddeningly outdated that its ridiculous.
Everything from installing software to connecting USB flash drives is stuck in the past in Windows. To use my two printers in Windows requires gigabytes worth of drivers and software to be installed. In OS X? Simply connect them. No drivers to install, no "new hardware found" junk. They just work. Installing software in OS X? 90% of the time you simply click on the .dmg file and drag and drop the resulting icon to the Applications folder. In Windows? Run through the installer.
Then there are other problems with Windows. Even Vista is STILL built around the registry, STILL requires HDD defragmentation, etc. Whats worse is that security reports put Vista as even more insecure than XP! Even Microsoft admitted that its just as easy to run unsigned code in Vista as it is in XP.
Which brings me to another point. Avoiding viruses and spyware is not a matter of "having common sense". Why? Because both XP and Vista can and do run unsigned code without the users knowledge. You can have a virus or spyware installed without your knowledge at all. Even declining an agreement can result in software installed. Case in point is the Sony "rootkit fiasco". Browsing seemingly innocent sites can result in spyware or virus installation.
As for OSX, it is horrible. Ive tried to "sit down" with it several times, but it is just the most unintuitive and poorly designed interface i have ever seen.
And here we have another comment that just makes me literally laugh out loud. These comments prove who has or has not used OS X.
How is it poorly designed? How is it unintuitive? Explain please. Give a real example.
You want to talk about unintuitive, lets talk about Windows/Linux (since most Linux window managers are poor ripoffs of OS X, like Gnome, or Windows 98 like KDE). Dealing with multiple windows? In XP/Linux you can alt-tab through them or click on the little bars on the top or bottom of the screen. In Vista you can do something slightly better by using Flip3D to scroll through them. In OS X you can hit F9 or set up hot corners. All your open windows show up on screen and you can click what you want. Its that simple.
Installing software? In XP/Vista you have to run everything through an installer. In Linux, for many things, you have to spend far too much time in the command line enabling "repositories" or other nonsense just to be able to do something. In OS X? Double click the .dmg and drag and drop the icon. Uninstall? Right click > send to trash.
And you, an admitted Linux user, how can you say anything about "unintuitive" when even the most "user friendly" Linux distros require far too much time spent in the command line to just get something as simple as DVD playback going. Installing drivers for certain GPUs or wireless cards, that would simply just work in OS X or Windows, can require 20-30 minutes in a command line configuring things, compiling packages, etc.
OS X simply works like a modern operating system should.
It is too dumbed down, it doesnt give you much ability to configure it. I also hate the dock and the way you cant maximize windows. I also cant stand the fact that every little app is shareware and your computer is basically useless without buying a million different little apps.
Again, completely untrue.
Whats wrong with the dock? It's more useful and more customizable than the taskbar or equivalent ripoffs in Linux. You can also auto-hide it.
Doesn't give you much to configure? Again, why not try to actually use Mac OS X before saying bad things about it? I can change just as much about it as one can in Linux and far more than XP or Vista.
Can't maximize? You can make windows fullscreen if you like. Though it is entirely pointless. OS X is designed to maximize the use of your screen space through things like Expose. Why would I want an application fullscreen anyway?
Every application is shareware? Again, try using OS X. There is as much freeware out there for the Mac as there is Windows. Whats better is that its not all junk like Linux. But compared to Windows, I only had to buy a couple of extra pieces of software. With my previous HP machine I had to buy an entire software suite to make it useful. With Linux you basically have second rate software that really isn't good for anything.
And if apple cares so much about SQ, then why does the ipod hp out sound so bad and why have they been selling lossy music on itunes?
The iPod headphone out sounds bad? Says who?
I did a lot of research on MP3 players before I bought my first iPod a few years ago. I tried everything from the iRiver H320 to several different Creative players that were available then. None of them could stand up to the quality put out by the iPod.
Same thing recently. I put the 5.5G iPod up against the Zune, Zen Vision: M, and iAudio X5L before settling on the iPod. The iPod simply sounded better than all of them. It was flat, natural, very detailed. All other players sound extremely bloated and muddy in comparison. Especially that iRiver H320. I remember people here at this very forum describing the H3x0 series as "mud".
The iPod has extremely good sound quality. Hence the reason it has sold more than 100 million units and everyone else has basically failed in comparison, especially iRiver.
Oh dear. Apple and audiophile kool aid combined. I always find a condemnation of PC hardware and Windows preceded by an admission of incompetence such a compelling argument.
What "Admission of incompetence" did he have? Please explain that.
If you examine the manufacturer published specifications, you will find that its analogue performance is somewhere between that of an Audigy 1 and an Audigy 2 ZS.
Thats funny because I had an Audigy 2 ZS and the MacBook absolutely blows it away.
I do love how all of the anti-Apple sheep here do seem to forget that Mac OS X is bit-perfect out of the box and doesn't subject sound to awful resampling like Windows and Linux.
macbooks with core 2's and the 945G chipset, do have really bad audio quality, ive been getting numerous complaints from mac owners around here, complaining about muddy/hissy and not even functioning sound in the new macbooks, but it seems to be only the macbooks with the 945 chipset and core 2 duo's
Proof? Sorry, its hard to believe negative comments about Macs coming from a Zune owner.
Anyway, now that all that is taken care of, I am a former PC user. After getting tired of Windows problems and having a not even 1 year old HP system die on me, only to have it replaced with a "loaner" that was defective as well, I bought a MacBook.
Aside from the fact that OS X is leaps and bounds beyond any other OS and works like a modern OS should, the sound quality out of the MacBook is amazing. Its certainly MUCH better than the Audigy 2 ZS Notebook I had previously, and better than any other Creative card (or MP3 player) I have heard. It's not quite up to my 80GB iPod, but the sound quality is nothing short of amazing compared to the HP systems I have had and the Creative cards I had in the desktops I built myself.
Linear Mode
