15" and 17" MacBook Airs

Only smaller in two dimensions. I can only see this working if they make it edge-to-edge (aka eliminating bezel). This would effectively fit the 15 inch screen in the current 13 inch chassis, and the 17 in a 15.

The current 17 inch MBP that's a quarter of an inch thick is just wrong on so many levels.

 

I have to have a ODD. If Apple indeed goes to a form factor that excludes a built in ODD, I certainly hope they'd at least provide an optional external drive. if not, they would leave me little choice but to return to the Windows camp. I DO NOT want to do that!
Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

they already offer the superdrive for the air

 

You may not want to hear this but in due time the Windows world will be joining the "Non-ODD" bandwagon. It won't be long after Apple does it to their entire line. But as Mr. MM said the Macbook Air Superdrive is sold separately right now for both the Air and Mac Mini.

 

I removed my ODD in week 1 of MBP ownership. Have I missed it? lol.

Software, drivers and music are all available online. The only optical format you could make an argument for is Blu-ray, and only then because the space taken up eats into HDD storage space quickly. DVD has been obselete in my world for the last few years. CDs are irrelevant, as my car has a built in iPod LOD dock.

That said, I'm not interested in a 17" ultrathin. I'd much rather buy something with 2 HDD bays in it. Perhaps the nextgen MBP's will offer that by default so that I don't have to replace another ODD with a HDD.

d

NO.

You're not hearing the difference between audio formats. You're hearing the difference between the sound processing chip built into your janky iPod compared to your car's head-unit which is processing the digital signal uninterrupted by noise and cheap Wolfson microchips like your iPod is. AND you're almost certainly listening to it by using your headphone jack into Aux in. Which offers the very WORST caliber of audio reproduction on the iPod.

If you really want to know how your iTunes tracks sound, burn them to a CD. THEN try to distinguish (have someone run a blind test for you). Also, get a LOD adapter for your head unit unless none is available. The sound that comes out of the bottom port of an iPod is MUCH better than the sound that comes out of the headphone jack.

Of course, you should have known all of this before saying anything about it.

Any difference you hear if you made the hardware in your comparison equivalent is likely to be placebo. But if you're going to compare good equipment to bad equipment, then blame the equipment; don't blame the music.

Duh.

 

You're really not aware that they've been selling external optical drives since the first Air ever launched?

Come on, people. At least TRY to answer your own questions and concerns before posting them.

 

Apple would soon vanquish all optical drives in their products, Mac Mini and Mac Air design is the future of Apple computer product design.

 

I'd be interested when they 15 inch air has ivy bridge. I wonder what kind of video card they could pair it with. Having a light laptop to play SC2, Diablo 3, Valve's DOTA, etc. would be pretty sick.

 

While I agree with most of what you said, audio format does have an impact on what you hear. I can without a doubt hear the difference between a poorly ripped 128kb MP3 and a FLAC or WAV file even through the MBP speakers, not to mention the HUGE sound difference I hear through my Westone ES5 using only the MBP on board sound card.

 

Did you actually run a blind ABX test to confirm that you were actually hearing differences or did you just witch back and forth between tracks? There is a huge difference between the two methods and simply switching back and forth between tracks is not enough. As previously established, and this is scientific fact, all audio claims like this (with particular regards to lossy vs lossless comparisons) fall flat without proper blind ABX test results to backup any claims. Blind ABX tests remove any placebo affect that the user's brain may insert and makes the tester rely solely on their ears. It is the same reason why precription drug companies always give test subjects the real drug and others the placebo without telling them what they are actually taking.

 

I'm not using the aux in audio jack. I'm using the same USB cable I use to plug my iPod into my computer. There's a USB jack in the center console of my car.

And I'm comparing iTunes tracks, and audio tracks ripped from CD in AAU format, to audio tracks ripped from CD in lossless format. With the premium audio in my 2011 Civic Si, I can't tell the difference with the Offspring, but I can absolutely tell the difference with Tori Amos. With headphones, I can't tell the difference with any sort of music. But with the right music, and the right speaker system, YOU BET I can tell the difference between CD-quality sound and iTunes-quality sound.

Wow. Maybe YOU should be rethinking YOUR assumptions. Totally incorrect assumptions about how I listen to music.

It's really disappointing that the Apple subforum is, without question, the rudest and most condescending forum on NBR. Posts like this make me wonder why I even post here at all.

 

I had an audiophile phase last year. During this phase I actually wanted to see if there was a difference between Lossy and Lossless audio formats, I did download a couple of blind tests from a site on HeadFi, and like I stated before although not in your face different, I did hear the difference nonetheless between a poorly ripped MP3 and FLAC from my MBP such as tighter bass response a bit more clearer treble. Now doing that same test with my ES5 was vastly different, everything from soundstage, treble extension, instrument separation was different.

As others who consider themselves audiophiles you can just listen to music or really listen for detail and in this regard audio format cannot be simply ignored or deemed inconsequential.

Indeed most people who listen to music with apple earbuds will not notice the difference between lossless and lossy rips but that does not mean that audio format does not matter.

 

wow... this is a little off topic... but I still want a 17inch air.

 

It's actually not off-topic, since all this discussion ties back to whether replacing the 17" MacBook Pro with a no-optical-drive Air-esque design is a good idea. Some people are contending that it's a really bad idea for multimedia-oriented users (which I suspect are a large number of 17" MBP owners); others are saying it doesn't matter because optical media allegedly is outdated (which I disagree with, but that's their position). That's why the debate is directly relevant to the original post.

 

The thing is that their audio claims would be inconsequential without proper testing results. In fact, if you were to go to a real site that prided itself on true audio quality testing (such as Hydrogenaudio), any claim (whether it is from a self-proclaimed audiophile or not) would be shot down without proper testing. Without proper testing, people can make all sorts of audio quality claims. That is why we have $300 HDMI cables, a $1000 Ethernet cable, and so on. We would live in a world where people could make whatever comment they wanted and it would be taken as fact if we did not have proper testing. It is the same reason why prescription drug companies run a series of placebos when they are testing a new drug.

Like it or not, it is a scientific fact that proper blind ABX testing is required before any comments can be made about lossy audio quality, period. I am confused as this is not a matter that is up for discussion. We have proper testing in place for a reason. What would the world be like without proper testing? Snake Oil merchants would still be all the rage, people would be buying $5,000 headphones made of aloe plant because it produced "fuller, richer sound," and we would only live until the age of 25 as modern medicine would not be able to test new drugs before they are released.

So no, it doesn't matter if one is a self-proclaimed audiophile (more like an audiophool) or if the differences between a lossy and lossless files are "drastic." You still need proper testing.

 

But there have been multiple tests. There were 3 or 4 that I remember reading off the top of my head on HeadFi that provide actual data to backup the fact that there is a difference between lossy and lossless music.

For your benefit I just did a blind ABX test on two tracks, I used LAME 3.98 and using my Westones I was able to tell differences/artifacts from V3 on, V2 was where the file became transparent

Using my MBP Speakers I had to go to V6 to tell differences.

So I don't get what your issue is? It is as I stated there is a DIFFERENCE between lossless and lossy, whether it is at 100, 128, 256, 320, 400 etc there is a difference. Which is what I was trying to sat that audio format does matter.

I am not arguing the fact that at a certain point lossy rip is no different from its lossless counterpart. What I am saying is that there are DIFFERENCES between the lossy and lossless because of the fact that is lossy compression now there are different lossy compression methods so some might be better than others. My original point to AJ was the fact that audio format does matter. Given a 128KB and a lossless audio file there would be a difference.

Also a claim is not inconsequential because there is no evidence to support it is what it is a CLAIM. It would be inconsequential if evidence was provided that refuted that claim.

If all claims were inconsequential then no one would go on to prove or disprove it as it is inconsequential (irrelevant, trivial)

 

I'm not talking about banning life-saving drugs from the market. I'm talking about preferring audio CDs to iTunes downloads. I can hear the difference with the right speakers and the right music. That's not impeding your quality of life in any way, and it has nothing to do with this crazy apocalyptic vision you've painted. I'd like an optical drive in my computer. Big frickin' deal. Why on earth are you freaking out?

 

If they do make a 15" MBA... I hope they use 1920x1200 resolution.

(cue the debate on pixel density...)

 

Sweet Jebus on toast. I am not freaking out, I am simply pointing out the reasons why we, as human beings, need to conduct proper blind testing for certain aspects. I am not weighing this down any further, it is simple fact. You need proper testing in order to show that you can actually differentiate between lossless and lossy audio sources, period. It has nothing to do with you wanting/not wanting an optical drive on your computer. It has everything to do with making claims when you are likely falling ill to the placebo affect. It is the burden of the person to show evidence of their claims, not the other way around. Any comment along these lines would have been shutdown many posts ago in a proper audio related site (i.e. not an audiophool site) simply for the lack of any type of blind testing.

Which is why I quoted that portion of your text as audiophiles making claims doesn't mean anything unless they have tests to back up those statements.

Sure it is. That turns a claim into an opinion and means that it can't be taken seriously. I can claim that the sky is green and I can fly around like Superman but what good is that if I don't actually have proof to backup what I am saying?

 

I think you are getting the definition of inconsequential confused, inconsequential and not taken seriously are different. You can claim the world will end tomorrow that doesn't mean its inconsequential. On the other hand giving a billionaire a penny would be inconsequential to him.

 

Do I need to do double-blind testing to say that a Lenovo has a better-feeling keyboard than an HP Pavilion? Or that a Macbook Pro's case feel's more solid than a Toshiba Satellite A's case does? Or that Mexican Coca-Cola tastes better than American Coca-Cola? We make observations in life, and we rely upon those each and every day. Your assertion that it's wrong to decide what we find more pleasant in our day-to-day lives without double-blind testing is frakking absurd.

 

No it isn't because some things do need double-blind testing especially if you are going to make audio quality claims. That is the whole point. It can be your unprofessional non-scientific opinion that one format/bitrate sounds better than the other but it must be stated as such. Saying "I can clearly hear a difference" is not an opinion but rather a statement of fact that isn't backed up by anything and can easily be due to the placebo affect.

 

Ah, the great audiophile debate.
If you want a laugh, check this out: Coconut-Audio.
I'm pretty sure it's a parody of Machina Dynamica advanced audio concepts.

I have some decent audio gear, but being an engineer I tend to lean towards the objective side of the debate.

Some of the core guys at Hydrogenaudio take it too far though, calling any ABX null a placebo regardless of how the experiment was designed, whether there was any validation of the method, calibration, tests for sensitivity, masking or bias, and regardless of the fact that ABX can't prove a negative. When I used to lurk there, I also saw many cases where positive results were called fakes because they didn't fit the prevailing belief system.

 

Although I think some members of HA take things too far, for the most part, I also think that they are pretty good especially since they enforce the bare basics of scientific research. You need to have the right testing methods, the right setup, and the right sample size. I have seen many people go onto that site saying they can hear something and they are shot down without any ABX tests. They then come back with an ABX test, post their results, and then the amount of times they actually tried to distinguish was somewhere around 3 or 4 (sample size). I know everyone thinks I am some type of testing Nazi but I am taking things far less seriously than many other places. Continuing to make claims without any type of testing on HA is a good way to get banned while also having your butt handed to you.

No I wasn't. Any claims made by someone without proper testing would be inconsequential (or at least they should be) to anyone who is seriously looking at lossy vs lossless audio tests to gauge things for themselves.