[Lando]

Quote:

Originally posted by clintf "Another one of those 'Macs are slow and everything Apple is inferior' attitudes."

From Maximum PC, March 2003 issue:
I'll skip the everything but the benchmarks, just to save time. All machines were dual-processor rigs with 2GB of ddr266 ram at their disposal.

Quake3 1.32 1024x768
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 135 fps
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 186 fps
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 290 fps

Quake3 1.32 640x480
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 152 fps
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 193 fps
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 327 fps

Jedi Outcast 1.04 1024x768
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 40 fps
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 69.8 fps
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 101 fps

Jedi Outcast 1.04 640x480
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 41 fps
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 68.9 fps
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 101 fps

Photoshop 7.0 MPC script
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 60 sec
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 35 sec
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 34 sec

Premiere 6.5 export to QT
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 430 sec
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 335 sec
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 328 sec

LightWave 7.5 RayTrace 8 threads
PowerPC G4s @ 1.25Ghz: 105.3 sec
AMD Athlon MPs @ 2.0Ghz: 88.3 sec
Intel Xeon P4s @ 2.8Ghz: 55 sec

I think the results speak for themselves, especially since both the Athlon MPs and Pentium4's were being limited to the G4's lower memory speed. I can't wait to see what the performance gap is when the PC world has moved on to 800Mhz DDR2.

FrostyMMB: I too have done listening tests, with about half a dozen tracks from differnent genres. I was only comparing low bitrates (128kbps cbr for mp3 and aac and q4 for ogg, which is in the low 120's usually). While the aac's sounded better on average (less pre echo, fewer stereo artifacts) the really complex tracks had nearly as many artifacts as the mp3s did. You may think I'm being biased, but I don't really care who wins and who loses. I won't ever encode at anything less than alt preset extreme for mp3 or ~196kbps for aac. The exception is ogg, which I would probably encode at q4 instead of q6 if I had a portable player with limited memory. It'd still be q6 or better for use on my computer or with a large-capacity player, though.

 

[MacDEF]

Lando, your post is exactly what he was talking about -- people seem to use any excuse to try to "prove" that Macs are inferior.

(By the way, there's no question that right now (at least until the 970 comes out, and possibly then, too), the fastest Macs are slower, in terms of raw horsepower, than the fastest PCs. Anyone who says otherwise is either high or trying to sell you a used Mac

However, anyone who thinks that raw speed is the measure of a computer's value, quality, or even the ability to accomplish tasks quickly is either a hard-core gamer with the very latest games, or an idiot

)

Now let's stick to the topic of the thread, shall we?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by clintf I think I remember Ivan Dimkovic saying he thought Apple's Quicktime's AAC encoder was a type of fastenc

He's wrong on that count, but the overall discussion here isn't that far off. QuickTime itself uses a variable AAC encoder -- you can choose slow encoding to get the highest quality, or you can choose the fastest encoding and get lower-quality files (and several levels in between). iTunes uses one of the faster speeds and therefore sacrifices a bit of quality. If you want the best AAC encoding, you need to use QuickTime Pro.

 

[Lando]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Lando, your post is exactly what he was talking about -- people seem to use any excuse to try to "prove" that Macs are inferior. Clintf, let's not take this thread off-topic and get into a debate over "speeds" of processors.

Sorry you don't appreciate the post, but whenever someone suggests that Macs are not inferior in performance, I feel a need to correct them, because it opinion and not fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF However, anyone who thinks that raw speed is the measure of a computer's value, quality, or even the ability to accomplish tasks quickly is either a hard-core gamer with the very latest games, or an idiot )?

Never said that. But until Apple gets squeezes out faster processor clockspeeds, increases the lowly 167Mhz bus speed, or gets more efficient processors, they will always be behind in performance, which does matter if you use a computer for a living. Don't even hint around about the Megahertz Myth when you're arguing with someone who is making judgements based on benchmark scores, not raw clockspeed.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lando whenever someone suggests that Macs are not inferior in performance, I feel a need to correct them, because it opinion and not fact.

But your "correction" is just as subjective. "Performance" isn't clearly defined. Is performance clock speed? Is it benchmarks? Is it how productive the user can be in a certain time period? The relative "performance" of different systems is completely dependent on the measure used.



Quote:

until Apple gets squeezes out faster processor clockspeeds, increases the lowly 167Mhz bus speed

For the record, both clock speeds and system buses are severely overrated, but I agree in general that both are lagging.

Quote:

or gets more efficient processors

Actually, the PowerPC is WAAAAAY more efficient than any Intel or AMD chip. The difference is that the Intel and AMD chips have been able to overcome their inefficiency via brute force (i.e., much higher clock speeds).


Quote:

they will always be behind in performance, which does matter if you use a computer for a living.

Again, if you're talking clock speed or benchmarks, yes. But if you're talking productivity, except for the most processor-intensive applications (and VERY few people use those "for a living"), there comes a point where the OS and the applications being used become more important than the speed of the processor. For most people -- the VAST majority of computer users in the world -- that point came LONG ago. That's why I object to the blind use of benchmarks and clock speed when discussing computers.

 

[clintf]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Clintf, let's not take this thread off-topic and get into a debate over "speeds" of processors.

Please read the context of what I said earlier, I didn't compare processors so don't put words in my mouth. I said that Apple is probably trying to be considerate of those still on slower Apples, you have to assume there are many people still on first generation iMacs which IIRC were around 450Mhz or less, they sold a ton of them or are you saying everyone dumped them and upgraded to new Apples so it's relevant. Your debate over "speeds" of processors is off topic though.

Quote:

He's wrong on that count, but the overall discussion here isn't that far off. QuickTime itself uses a variable AAC encoder -- you can choose slow encoding to get the highest quality, or you can choose the fastest encoding and get lower-quality files (and several levels in between). iTunes uses one of the faster speeds and therefore sacrifices a bit of quality. If you want the best AAC encoding, you need to use QuickTime Pro.

Interesting and looks to be correct, at least at 128kbps CBR encoding. A couple days ago guruboolez did some testing of various AAC encoders at 128kbps CBR and he rated Quicktime 6.1 higher overall by a fairly large margin to either Psytel or ahead. He has done quite a lot of testing of various audio formats in the past so I trust his results. It would be interesting to see how they all compare at other bitrates or preferably with VBR.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...13&t=9443&hl=&

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by clintf Please read the context of what I said earlier, I didn't compare processors so don't put words in my mouth.

clintf, I apologize -- lando incorrectly attributed the quote in his post, and I repeated it. It wasn't you whose comment prompted him to post "benchmarks." Very sorry. I edited my post accordingly

 

[bjjp2]

Can someone please explain to me exactly what software I should use to convert .wav files to AAC? Post a link? (I'm running Windows XP). There's obviously been a lot of talk about AAC lately, but for us none iTunes folks I've had a surprisingly hard time finding a clear explanation of how to make them. Thanks.

 

[Moguta]

Quote:

Originally posted by bjjp2 Can someone please explain to me exactly what software I should use to convert .wav files to AAC? Post a link? (I'm running Windows XP). There's obviously been a lot of talk about AAC lately, but for us none iTunes folks I've had a surprisingly hard time finding a clear explanation of how to make them. Thanks.

The registered version of QuickTime (QuickTime Pro) has the highest-quality AAC encoder.

If you don't feel like paying for an encoder, though, there's the Psytel AAC encoder.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by bjjp2 Can someone please explain to me exactly what software I should use to convert .wav files to AAC? Post a link? (I'm running Windows XP). There's obviously been a lot of talk about AAC lately, but for us none iTunes folks I've had a surprisingly hard time finding a clear explanation of how to make them. Thanks.

Try here.