Hill(s) you're Willing to Die on
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
chop2chip
Well-known member
The M series chips are on a different planet than any chip Intel or AMD make.
If you are a creative and do a lot of content creation, video/photo editing, etc., you are crazy to not own a Mac.
(This is coming from someone who builds PC as a hobby)
Last edited:
Fair - My wife bought a Mac for this purpose.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I don't think M Series chips are significantly better. I think they do produce a unique advantage in that they're designed for the system.
Which is smart, Apple should be optimizing chips for macs. That's a smart move. Other companies should be too. There's no real reason to buy a dell vs. hp, but if hp worked with AMD to custom tweak a processor to their system and improve performance that would be an advantage.
You're partially right on point 2. It's changed significantly. It was the standard, and many people stick with it because of familiarity, but PC has made massive grounds. Mainly because Adobe took over the market on software and because of such many people prefer PCs. If you're doing hard core graphics work, you'd much rather have a PC with an AMD Threadripper and a dedicated GPU to a MAC. Macs are the better "home" product because they aren't as expensive to get off the ground at a respectable level, but they're also just much more limited if you go to the high end level.
The M series chip is also powering apples upcoming head set. If I didn’t suffer from vertigo I’d give the head set a shot.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Countless people.
I've told everyone who owns a mac that if you want a better experience than MAC learn a tiny bit of work and install Linux. It's going to be more like a Mac experience, but much better.
I personally don't love the Linux experience, I prefer Windows warts and all. But that's just me. Microsoft is brilliant at making PCs user and poweruser accessible. Even if I've been spending a week bashing my head into figuring out why network printing just stopped and how to fix it without enabling SMB 1.0 and opening computers up to being hacked.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Sure the Threadripper ($3,000 CPU plus the $1,000-$2,000 GPU)) is going to be more powerful (and you have to run it in a tower with an AIO with fans running like a jet engine), but it will beat Apple’s M2 ultra that can run in a laptop with just a small fan and heat sink.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I'm not gonna deny Apple's M2 is a great processor for it's cost. But it can't outhit x86. And APple is ahead in the ARMs race vs. PC (M2 is much better than SQ2)
And yeah I threw out threadripper because it's silly overpowered. but current gen i9s and 7950x are both much faster too. You're right there are advantages to the M2 (and just to ARM processors in general) but they still have a long way to go to compete with x86 on power levels.
But compare the Studio with the M1 Ultra to a comparable PC and you'll find the PC comes out on top more times than not. Especially when future upgradability comes into play (aka next year you can sell your GPU and CPU and buy new ones on a PC but you can't on a Mac)
chop2chip
Well-known member
As in all things, it depends what the user values.
You can go buy the flagship i9 chip that could heat a home with how much power it requires and you’ll get some modest performance gains in certain workflows (and infinitely better with gaming). For this type of user, having a 360mm AIO in a full ATX tower with six fans is part of the fun.
For creatives that do primarily video compiling and editing, Mac users are better off with a chip that uses 1/4 of the power consumption (hello battery life).
I have a Mac laptop and my daily driver PC is a 12700k / RTX 3090. I like the combination, especially since my MBP plays so nicely with my iPhone and AirPods.
You can go buy the flagship i9 chip that could heat a home with how much power it requires and you’ll get some modest performance gains in certain workflows (and infinitely better with gaming). For this type of user, having a 360mm AIO in a full ATX tower with six fans is part of the fun.
For creatives that do primarily video compiling and editing, Mac users are better off with a chip that uses 1/4 of the power consumption (hello battery life).
I have a Mac laptop and my daily driver PC is a 12700k / RTX 3090. I like the combination, especially since my MBP plays so nicely with my iPhone and AirPods.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I mean the minor pentatonic was a blues standard. Like Jazz standards it's the language of the music.
I think what keeps most people sounding the same is that the average music consumer is a nincompoop who only wants to hear the same basic thing.
I forget the stat but something like 21 times Taylor Swift has used the I V vi IV progression on released songs. Which is a lot. But it works because there's only so many things that you can do that organically resolve and are pleasing to pop sensibilities.
Runnin
Well-known member
I went that route for years but I now think it's a hack and will stunt your improvement if you stay there. It quickly makes you sound pretty good, but the chords and playing the changes are the better way, imo.
There are a lot of great rock songs that use the major pentatonic scale too. And the melody of songs are almost always from the major pentatonic.
My point is that a huge majority of guitar players think all they have to do is learn the minor pentatonic scale and they can sound like they know what they are doing. And they are right. They will sound like they know what they are doing to a lot of people. But the minor pentatonic is still only part of it.
Runnin
Well-known member
It has become the language of the blues, but wasn't always like that. Analyze the melody of the old blues singers. It's mostly major with blue note decorations. Go back to T-Bone Walker, Lonnie Johnson, Robert Johnson, etc. The melodies and riffs are mostly major, that's why the minor sounds so good against it. You can only get away with playing the minor pentatonic exclusively if you've got a bass and rhythm player supporting you playing the major chords and lines.
But there are a lot of minor key blues songs too.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I mean it's fair enough. As early blues was heavily christian choral singing based. Melodies would mimic that.
That being said, the pentatonic box is a clean thing. It makes for quick and easy riffing/soloing and it sounds good.
A lot of my favorite solos tend to blend the blues and neo-classical. Think Randy Rhoads, Paul Gilbert, Marty Friedman. But something about those pure blues solos just hits the heart.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
There is no reason for someone to own vinyl. It's very easy to own superior audio quality and store it on a PC and listen to it through headphone amps and get a superior audio experience than putting your record player through some junky speakers.
But I own records because I like the novelty of them, album art and liner notes, and I've been into unique albums. Like my copy of 2012 that shows Starman when you shine light on it while it plays. I preordered the Legend of Vox Machina soundtrack that has animation tiles drawn onto the disc that plays essentially gifs while you play the album. I have an awesome full cover album art version of Hemispheres. I have an interesting (it's not as cool as any of the ones above) designed Appetite for Destruction. I once bought and audiophile LP and just didn't find it worth it. Aside from giving money to stores and artists I like, I mainly have vinyl as show pieces. Someday I"ll have a house with a music room adn all my records will have individual spots on the wall or at least like display units. Because that's the reason to own vinyl. To show that you have the luxury to waste money on a pointless form of media.
But I own records because I like the novelty of them, album art and liner notes, and I've been into unique albums. Like my copy of 2012 that shows Starman when you shine light on it while it plays. I preordered the Legend of Vox Machina soundtrack that has animation tiles drawn onto the disc that plays essentially gifs while you play the album. I have an awesome full cover album art version of Hemispheres. I have an interesting (it's not as cool as any of the ones above) designed Appetite for Destruction. I once bought and audiophile LP and just didn't find it worth it. Aside from giving money to stores and artists I like, I mainly have vinyl as show pieces. Someday I"ll have a house with a music room adn all my records will have individual spots on the wall or at least like display units. Because that's the reason to own vinyl. To show that you have the luxury to waste money on a pointless form of media.
striker42
Well-known member
It's not always about audio quality. Sometimes it's about the quality of the audio if you get my meaning. You can get digital versions of songs that are more true in terms of sound with less distortion or noise. So you can absolutely get better audio quality. But vinyl offers its own sound experience. There's a certain quality to the sound of a vinyl record that's unique. It gives a different experience.
I own a decent number of vinyl records and I don't own them because I think the quality of the sound is better or as status symbols. I own them because listening to them is a different experience than listening to a digital copy.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
We're leaving a golden era of sports. Will the next era be amazing? Of course. There's always legends, but 2000-2020 was a golden era that produced icons.
People wax poetically about superstars of yesteryear, but we have guys like Pujols, Trout, Mookie, Kershaw, Sabathia, A-rod, etc. all ballers. And it's one of baseball's "worse" eras. But really what we saw was the transition of an era. NFL produced the 2 greatest Quarterbacks to throw the ball. multiple legendary other players too (moss, AP, LT, etc.) Soccer saw 2 of the best ever battle it out (Messi and Ronaldo) but also just massive and drastic improvement to the global game where teams that weren't footballing powerhouses are starting to assert some level of improvement. The Africa boom is the biggest boon to the sport since the SA boom in the 70s. Basketball saw a luminary talent in LeBron, people said there would never be another Jordan and they were right because LeBron was a different level of freak. Durant is an all-time shooter and is barely talked about because of how singular of a talent LeBron is. Hockey saw the legendary best competition of Crosby and Ovechkin.
And coverage, from a golden era of ESPN to the era of social media and straming we never had more access to sports either.
People wax poetically about superstars of yesteryear, but we have guys like Pujols, Trout, Mookie, Kershaw, Sabathia, A-rod, etc. all ballers. And it's one of baseball's "worse" eras. But really what we saw was the transition of an era. NFL produced the 2 greatest Quarterbacks to throw the ball. multiple legendary other players too (moss, AP, LT, etc.) Soccer saw 2 of the best ever battle it out (Messi and Ronaldo) but also just massive and drastic improvement to the global game where teams that weren't footballing powerhouses are starting to assert some level of improvement. The Africa boom is the biggest boon to the sport since the SA boom in the 70s. Basketball saw a luminary talent in LeBron, people said there would never be another Jordan and they were right because LeBron was a different level of freak. Durant is an all-time shooter and is barely talked about because of how singular of a talent LeBron is. Hockey saw the legendary best competition of Crosby and Ovechkin.
And coverage, from a golden era of ESPN to the era of social media and straming we never had more access to sports either.
