

MacBook Pro, Thousands of Colors - ams1
http://mantia.me/blog/macbook-pro-thousands-of-colors/

======
tptacek
[...] _They offered to give me a full refund of my purchase. I suppose this
would be fine, if I could go to another Apple retail store and purchase a
portable machine of this size that had an 8bit screen._ [...]

Here's where I stopped reading. I, too, would like a pony.

~~~
eli
Agreed.

They don't _owe_ you anything beyond a refund.

~~~
padmapper
I'm not sure about this - if false advertising (millions of colors) caused him
to sell his old laptop with a better screen, then he's still worse off, as a
result of Apple's actions.

Then again, I think the whole MBP line has had 6 bit displays for their whole
history, so I'm not sure why he's complaining now.

~~~
wenbert
I thought that the 13" inch Macbook Pro had the 6 bit display while the others
had 8 bit :-/

If the entire MBP line has 6 bit displays, then why complain?

I am a bit concerned of Apple's false advertising though. So my 2006-ish 17
Macbook Pro is not able to display millions of colors? That is sad...

~~~
sgk284
Damn near every LCD is 6-bits per channel, people are getting upset over
nothing.

~~~
Lol_Lolovici
Damn nearly everybody was a poor peasant or slave in the 1000s, people where
getting upset over nothing.

Just because the status quo is such it doesn't mean it is good and cannot be
improved. I was searching for a quality LCD screen lately and I couldn't find
a reasonable 8-bit screen at any shop, just 6-bit. I read a lot of reviews
from seemingly professional sites and they all say the same thing: 8-bit MVA,
PVA or IPS panel types are much much better than 6-bit TN at anything except
price and maybe a bit of extra latency (not important for anyone except
hardcore FPS gamers). The sad state of affairs is that all the reasonably
priced 8-bit screens I wanted were out of stock for an unknown period of time
at all shops (like the HP LP2475w) or out of production for good. It seems
I'll have to pick the best of the worst and be happy just because everybody
has the same.

When your product is theoretically a pro product aimed as such and is pretty
expensive to begin with you expect the best quality out of all the components.
I own a PowerBook Pro and this thing is amazing. More than 5 years old and and
everthing works perfectly except some scratches on the metal surface due to
drops from heights. The screen in it is the best I ever saw, even compared to
new expensive Dells, HPs and others I saw at friends and colleagues. It will
be a sad day when I have to change it with a MacBook Pro and the screen will
be worse.

------
jonknee
Alternate headline choice: Man with ability to research decides not to and is
disappointed in purchase but offered full refund

~~~
jm4
That's not entirely fair. The specific information he was looking for is not
made available to the public by Apple. He was only able to find the
information after getting the model number for the display and checking with
the vendor.

There was no way of knowing exactly which display was used without access to a
MacBook Pro because that's not information made public by Apple, either. It's
an awfully roundabout way of finding out how many colors can be displayed.

In hindsight it's easy to say he could have done the research ahead of time,
but think about this: 1) It's called a MacBook _Pro_ and is marketed at more
demanding users, i.e. _professionals_ , 2) Apple advertises it as being able
to display millions of colors despite the fact that it really only displays
262,144. Under those circumstances, it's probably easy to take a look at the
specs on the Apple site and feel confident that it's the right product.

There's still the matter of Apple refusing to disclose which of its products
do, in fact, display millions of colors as advertised. At least they offered
him a refund in the end, but in my opinion the whole thing sucks. I don't have
a problem paying more and getting my money's worth, but they're clearly
skimping on parts for products directly targeting the most demanding users.

~~~
jmillikin
_Apple advertises it as being able to display millions of colors despite the
fact that it really only displays 262,144._

A 6-bit display is capable of displaying more than 6 bits of color
information, using a technique named temporal dithering. For an example, open
this image on a 6-bit display: < <http://imgur.com/BeVicl.png> >. If the
display could only display 262k colors, the squares would look identical.

~~~
Skeuomorph
Thank you, as this puts paid to anyone here saying there's no visible
difference except to pixel peepers.

(Well, assuming one is comparing on a true 8 bit screen.)

~~~
jmillikin
Please note that the 6-bit image is _not_ what will be present on an Apple
screen. The difference between 8-bit and dithered 6-bit is difficult to notice
for most people.

------
old-gregg
I am anxious to see a class action lawsuit against hardware manufacturers
claiming "millions of colors" on 6-bit panels. One doesn't need to be a
designer/photographer to tell two screens apart: a true 8-bit panel with 16.7M
output and dithered 6-bit junk. And don't get me started on lack of
standardization for contrast ratios and viewing angles.

Once consumers will see real "262K colors" stickers on their laptops, who
knows maybe we'll get back our FlexView screens on Thinkpads.

~~~
sp332
Some people tried to get a class-action going back in '07, I don't think it
panned out though. [http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/05/lawsuit-over-
mac-b...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/05/lawsuit-over-mac-book-mac-
book-pro-displays.ars)

------
lorax
He mentions a couple of times about dithering, saying it is "blending nearby
colors". I have heard notebook displays also use temporal dithering where they
quickly change the color of single pixel and your eye merges it into an
intermediate value. (strictly speaking, blending nearby colors could refer to
nearby in time, but I think he was refering to spatially nearby)

------
TrevorJ
Surprising hardware spec choice given the the market penetration Apple has in
the design profession.

~~~
cabalamat
Indeed. A 6 bit display in 2009 is inexcusible; I had to check the date of the
article because I wasn't sure it had been written this millenium

~~~
old-gregg
If you've been paying attention you would have noticed that the tech goes
backwards in the world of LCDs: as time goes on, high-quality LCDs are being
displaced by 6-bit junk-panels not only in laptops (there isn't a single one
8-bit LCD laptop available in US right now) but even in desktops as well: 20"
iMacs are 6-bit too.

Viewing angles and contrast ratios are shrinking as well, hence the disgusting
proliferation of contrast-enhancing glass/film panel covers: it's like forcing
every customer to wear permanent sunglasses: just because your panel is junk.

~~~
marcocampos
"...there isn't a single one 8-bit LCD laptop available in US right now..."

Yes, there is. The HP Elitebook 8730W can be ordered with the a DreamColor
8-bit IPS (or PVA not sure...) LCD panel. And Lenovo used to ship the T-series
line with IPS panels. I think the W700 can also be ordered with a IPS WUXGA
panel.

~~~
jsares
Looks like the Sony TT line has an 8bit display:

[http://www.sony.com.sg/microsite/vaio/products/vaio_tt/8bit....](http://www.sony.com.sg/microsite/vaio/products/vaio_tt/8bit.html)

------
DarkShikari
I've noticed a phenomenal variance in LCD quality recently, and 6-bit is the
least of the problem.

My Asus G1 has an incredibly good screen--very high-contrast, a near-perfect
viewing angle: I can read text as far as 80 degrees to the side or top, where
90 means unable to see any of the screen. It's high-DPI (1680x1050 on a 15.4")
as well. Odds are it's a 6-bit TN, and all the research I've done suggests
that. But it's amazing despite that.

My company gave me a Thinkpad for personal use. It has a similar size screen.
The contrast is _abominable_ ; the screen is bright gray when it's black and
no matter how much I adjust contrast/brightness I can't make it usable. The
viewing angle is atrocious. And yet from what I can tell... it's also a 6-bit
TN.

Bits are, IMO, one of the less important problems in LCD panels these days;
the overall quality as a whole is suffering greatly in new screens.

------
lutorm
Regardless of what you think of the dude writing it, saying "millions of
colors" is false advertising if it's done by dithering. Why stop at millions,
why not advertise billions or trillions of colors? (Though I guess it's
limited by the number of pixels on the screen.)

I had no idea about this, and that's the most dishonest piece of marketing
from a reputable company I've heard in a long time.

------
proee
I purchased my first mac last year ( a white macbook, right before the new
unibody models came out).

The screen on the thing is a piece of dung. Gradients look terrible.

My acer travelmate from the days of the dinosaurs even has a better screen.

I enjoyed reading about this guys little quest and it's one of the reasons I
prefer to keep my distance from Apple.

~~~
moe
MacBook screens have been crap for as long as I can remember, since the days
when they were selling PowerBooks and iBooks, long before the first iPod.

I have no idea why the "demanding" Apple audience let's them get away with
that but the panels on these things have always had lower contrast and
(sometimes ridiculously) lower viewing angles than comparable notebooks, e.g.
the sony vaios.

I've done plenty side-by-side comparisons and both problems are fairly obvious
even to the untrained eye. For example the RGB color #fefefe is generally
indistinguishable from white on MacBook displays. Some of our designers refer
to them as WashyBooks and spend time to make sure their palettes are
"WashyBook safe".

~~~
bodhi
I suspect that would be a gamma difference with OSX, not an artifact of the
screen quality. If you look at windows computers, the lighter greys are
generally a bit darker than the same colour on a mac.

~~~
jomohke
Apple is changing this in Snow Leopard: The default gamma will be the same as
windows.

------
midnightmonster
PITA dealing with Apple on this, and the screens should indeed do what they
advertise.

Still, since you already knew about 6-bit vs 8-bit issues, why did you not
look in the store before buying? The dithering is visible to the careful eye
just by looking for it on my 13" Macbook (white, plastic, relatively cheap).

------
bcl
Interesting. The Apple MacBook Pro website makes no distinction between the
models as to the color support. They all say "millions of colors", and as
someone who doesn't deal with colors for a living I would expect them to have
identical support.

~~~
GHFigs
Technically, a 6-bit display can display all of the same colors that an 8-bit
display can. What it can't do is display all of them _at the same time_.

Edit: Why all the drive-by downvoting? This is true to the best of my
knowledge.

~~~
philwelch
I remember 16 color systems that could load different palettes of 16 colors
each, too. Doesn't make it a >16 color system.

~~~
GHFigs
I didn't say they were the same thing, or that 6-bit displays were not 6-bit
displays.

------
fortybillion
This article seems to indicate the exact opposite; that the new Pro displays
(including the 13") have markedly improved colour accuracy.

"Colour accuracy in the three MacBook Pro displays is as right as we've seen
in a laptop display, equal to or better than some midrange desktop displays
and not that far off the level of colour correctness found in a premium
desktop display."

[http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-...](http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146&sr=hotnews)

~~~
lutorm
Color accuracy isn't so much color resolution. That's like the difference
between precision and accuracy, you can have something accurate with poor
precision, and vice versa.

~~~
fortybillion
When dealing with digital content, isn't accuracy what you're looking for?
Properly calibrating a display would take care of the precision.

(Unless I'm confused here, which is entirely possible.)

~~~
joshwa
Situations when you need all 8 bits of color resolution:

\-- performing color matching against a sample - fabric, print, etc \-- soft-
proofing for print output (spot colors) \-- when performing any color/contrast
adjustments on photographs or art that have fine color/value gradients. A
common example is a grey sweep backdrop--zoom in past a certain point and you
can see visible banding

That said, anyone doing prepress on a laptop is stupid. Get thee to a color
booth and a 10-bit LUT Eizo (or even better to your cache of discontinued Sony
Artisans you keep in a closet somewhere and replace as they age).

~~~
asciilifeform
I think the main problem is the visual artifacts introduced by the time-domain
dithering done to compensate for the 6-bit DACs, rather than the lack of color
resolution itself. This affects everyone, not just artists foolish enough to
use laptops.

The fact that, to a first approximation, one _can no longer buy_ a laptop with
an LCD of the same quality as those made 10 years ago - _at any price_ \- is
disturbing all in itself, and suggests that technology is marching backwards.
What's next, the abolition of 44.1KHz audio?

Compare a 1980s keyboard to a modern one. It is entirely conceivable that the
UI technology we will be using in a decade or two will be of such abominable
quality that one might be ashamed to design it into a children's toy computer
today.

~~~
cabacon
|What's next, the abolition of 44.1KHz audio?

Actually, it's funny that you pose that question in this article. I think MP3s
are a great example of "44.1KHz" audio that is not the fidelity of what you're
probably thinking of, the CD-Audio standard.

People are clearly prioritizing things other than the sheer quality of the
material, be it visual or audio. I think it's impressive that the LCD folks
have been able to engineer LCDs at the prices they have. And, much like MP3s
shrunk music file sizes by throwing away parts of the music that people aren't
supposed to miss, the LCD guys are throwing away quality that, apparently,
people don't care about either.

~~~
asciilifeform
> the LCD guys are throwing away quality that, apparently, people don't care
> about either.

The problem is that a substantial minority _does_ care about quality - and we
are left out in the cold. Have you ever priced a "specialist" monitor? That is
where all non-lowest-common-denominator user interface technology seems to be
headed - squarely outside the budget of the individual. And as we can see from
the article, it has become entirely _impossible_ to purchase a new laptop with
both a decent screen and a decent operating system.

~~~
cinkler
It is a trend in everything that surrounds us - cars, fridges, clothes, shoes,
buildings - everything is made cheaper. Compare computer case from 1990 and
now - modern economy class cases are ultra light. Reason is simple - market
doesn't care about 8 or 10 or 12 bit displays, so they are not offered. Cost
to the company to introduce them far overweights benefit of selling it to .01%
of individuals who care. Or who think that they care.

------
SwellJoe
So how does one tell whether a monitor is 6-bit or 8-bit?

~~~
jjs
If you can't tell by sight, then you don't need it.

~~~
SwellJoe
If I have two monitors side-by-side, one 8-bit and one 6-bit, I'm pretty sure
I could see the difference (just like, as an audio engineer, I can clearly
hear the difference between high end monitors and consumer speakers). The
question is...how do I know, if I don't know? You know?

I have multiple monitors, but the only one that I knew was 8-bit (a high end
Viewsonic intended for designers, and from a time when specs were easy to find
and very clear and generally accurate, at least on high end devices) has long
since left the stable as it was only 19". I'm certain the differences are
subtle, as they are in good consumer speakers vs. good studio monitors. But,
it'd be nice to know if what I'm working with is altering my perception of
things. Particularly as I've just done several thousand dollars worth of
design work for print on my new laptop which may or may not have an accurate
display. It's just nice to know what I'm dealing with is all.

------
cesare
Even his old MacBook Pro 17" has a 6bit display.

Moreover, different batches have different monitors.

Manufacturers keep lowering prices (remember how much the Powerbooks did
cost?) so they must use cheaper technology, and most people are mostly
ignorant about specs anyway.

Glossy screens are another example (they're cheaper to make and they look
better at first sight).

~~~
9oliYQjP
Exactly. I've heard many "graphics professionals" who buy a new MacBook Pro to
replace an old one and blame the 6-bit panel for poor colour reproduction.
It's not the fact that the panel is 6-bit. They came from a 6-bit panel,
although most were under the impression it was 8-bit. The fact is just that
Apple is using cheaper displays. It's a crappy 6-bit panel, not the fact that
it's specifically a 6-bit panel that's the problem. After all, they didn't
complain with the old 6-bit panel they were using.

It's funny to hear some of these guys talk about how they buy the MacBook Pro
over the MacBook because of the 6-bit vs 8-bit panel when all of those laptops
have only ever had 6-bit panels in them. The Pro just happens to use a better
quality panel, that's all. But it's still 6-bit.

------
ghshephard
Does anybody know why Apple won't just come out and declare whether the 13"
MacBook has 6 Bit or 8 Bit color?

As a side note - this is why I love HN - I remember the class action lawsuit
over colors and Apple a few years ago (or at least discussion around it) - but
I didn't know what it was over. Now I have insight into the differences in LCD
color qualities and get the insight that the 13" MacBook pro isn't _really_
totally Pro.

<http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.htm>

~~~
CamperBob
Probably because they want to reserve the ability to switch panel vendors or
part numbers in mid-production. This isn't uncommon.

~~~
wmf
If it's true that all panels are now 6-bit, that wouldn't matter. Also,
specifying a 6-bit display wouldn't prevent them from silently shipping a
better one in the future -- Apple has been known to ship faster processors or
optical drives than specified.

------
ajg1977
I'm not sure what this guy is looking for. Regardless of whether the display
is 6-bit, or just 8-bit that looks crap, you're still going to have a problem.
Unless you're harboring a fantasy that Apple will give you a MacBook with a
custom screen as way of an apology.

They've offered you a refund. Take the money and use it to buy the 15" MacBook
with a better screen. And this time try checking out the product to make sure
it meets your needs before splashing down thousands of dollars.

~~~
proee
You didn't read the article. He would be glad to upgrade to the 15" MacBook
but Apple will not tell him if it's a true 8-bit display.

He's simply wants the TRUE specs on the machine.

~~~
eli
Yeah, and they don't want to tell him. So...

He can either A) do a google search (which indicates that yes, the 15" does
have 8-bit color) or B) Give up on Apple and get a different brand/OS

~~~
vetinari
Sadly no, MBP15 has also 6-bit TN display.

~~~
palehose
Can you back up this assertion? Since one person in this topic already said
that the 15 inch model does have 8bit and you just say that it doesn't, how am
I supposed to believe you?

~~~
vetinari
Well, there are very few notebooks with other than TN displays. Thinkpads used
to have IPS, but since the introduction of latest generation (T400, T500),
they have TN too. For a very short list, see a poster above
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=706579>), he mentions one HP, one Lenovo
model with optional IPS (W in series designation means workstation) and one
Sony model.

------
JimmyL
_There are 8bit portable displays, you know, and Apple should be a company
that uses them, especially when they are generally known for great quality
products, but instead, they went with the cheaper option, a lower bit
display._

Translation: I am unhappy that Apple made a business decision to use a cheaper
component that won't affect most users of the machine, but negatively affects
my particular use of it.

More broadly, in this day and age I'd also be skeptical of the author's notion
that the word "Pro" means it's explicitly designed for "professionals" as
opposed to normal people. Look at most advertising - the word has come to mean
nothing more than high-end consumer grade. For the most part, if something is
made explicitly for professionals in a certain field it will rely on industry-
specific promotions/reviews and knowledge to make itself known, as opposed to
outright advertising. This is similar to the frequent use of the word
"exclusive" in reference to availability - if it was really exclusive, it
wouldn't be advertised.

And even if I'm wrong about those two points, when did "professional" come to
mean "digital art professional"?

------
thenduks
WOW. I'm finding this hard to believe. So the MacBook Pro 13" doesn't have an
8bit display, that's a little lame, we agree. But, here's the problem. You
were _in_ an Apple store and used the laptop and didn't notice. Then you took
the laptop home and somehow 'found out' it doesn't support the millions of
colors you apparently need (I'm no designer so I have no appreciation for
this)... So... go back to the store and do the same 'check' you did for this
laptop on a 15" model -- if it passes, problem solved, if not... well, maybe
you should just do your designing on your 30" cinema which you now have
working after receiving a $70 discount on the adapter (granted a $70 discount
- the pain involved in not having it for a week or whatever). /rant

------
jsz0
Does anyone know the price difference between 6-Bit and 8-Bit display panels?
I can't really find any info on it. I've always thought, by comparison, that
Macbook displays looked fantastic compared to the HP PC laptops I'm used to
using at work. Just as good as the Samsung displays I use on my desktop. I do
believe Apple still has their 30 day no questions asked, no restocking fee,
return policy though so there's that.

~~~
fortybillion
The main difference is with the technology used in the panel -- cheaper panels
(TN panels) generally only use 6 bits for each colour element of the display
(Red, Green and Blue), meaning that it is capable of producing a much more
limited range of colours (the thousands indicated by the article).

For playback purposes (DVDs, games, etc), most consumers won't notice the
difference. For content creation, though, 6-bit panels are a disaster. I've
seen cheap panels from Dell that simply could not display colours in the light
blue or light yellow range correctly, and light greys not at all.

Wikipedia has an excellent article about the different types of LCD panels
available, but the takeaway is basically "you get what you pay for."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcd_monitor>

------
cracki
oh my... just find the nearest apple store and direct your sharp eye at the
displayed 15" and 17" macbook pros.

------
jrockway
According to list-faces-display, I only need 376 colors.

------
philfreo
So do the 15" and 17" have 6bit or 8bit displays? I keep reading conflicting
answers...

------
scapegraced
Ah, the infallible Apple is, in fact, fallible.

------
siukwai
Maybe I didn't read the article correctly, but if this guy is outputting to
another screen, isn't it the video card that's not outputting the
colors/resolution correctly, and that has nothing to do with whether the
laptop screen is 6bit or 8bit?

~~~
wysiwtf
He doesn't have a color issue with his 30" display (they only sold him the
wrong adapter). He's only complaining about the screen on his laptop.

------
buugs
Wait a second this guy is an icon/ui designer .... Which means he works on
computer design so to be realistic most of his customers do not have "millions
of colors".

He has a 30 inch cinema display that he can now use for designing and checking
colors with the replacement cable but he still would rather rant and rave and
call support hours on end rather than just replace the laptop.

~~~
SwellJoe
Professionals in any creative industry need to be able to see or hear exactly
what they are _actually_ creating. This is why audio monitors for recording
studios cost a lot, and don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear. Accuracy
is what you are paying for. If it is inaccurate in any one direction, the
potential for problems during reproduction on client machines (which could be
inaccurate in the _other_ direction; doubling the magnitude of the problem) is
much higher.

Cheap monitors are bad in many different ways. One cannot predict exactly how
it will diverge from what it ought to look like. So, if your source has been
designed on a device that is accurate and balanced, you have a dramatically
higher chance of it looking or sounding good on the majority of devices.

I think it's a valid criticism of Apple. It is information that is valuable to
consumers who work in the design field, and it's information that _I_ would
expect to find on the "Tech Specs" section of their site. The fact that they
don't provide that information, for quite pricey machines intended for
"professional" users, makes me very much less likely to buy their products.
But, then again, I'm generally surprised that anyone puts up with the abuse
that Apple inflicts on their customers.

~~~
derefr
> This is why audio monitors ... don't "sound as good" to the untrained ear.

I've never understood this, myself. If it was mixed on monitors, and made to
_sound good_ on monitors, then shouldn't it sound best when _replayed_ on
monitors?

~~~
arebop
I think the idea is that taste can be developed. A musician probably will like
the sound best from a monitor, but someone who doesn't pay as much attention
to sound has a less nuanced appreciation and taste. Cheaper speakers are often
biased to exaggerate the qualities that are appealing to the majority (whose
tastes are less refined), hence the scare quotes acknowledging the subjective
interpretation of goodness.

~~~
SwellJoe
I didn't actually intend to make actual speaker "goodness" into a factor in
the discussion, but I see now that it seems to have done so; the scare quotes
were to indicate that a non-engineer (even a musician who isn't also an
engineer) would possibly prefer consumer speakers because they often smooth
the sound and boost some frequencies often perceived as being "good".

As you note, consumer speakers (at most price points under the obscenely
expensive mark) tend to hype certain frequencies: bass and highs in
particular. Folks hear it and think, "Wow, so bright and clear! And dig that
bass! You can really feel it." Studio monitors do none of those things, on
purpose. The job of studio monitors is not to lure a consumer at Best Buy into
thinking this set of speakers is better because it is louder and brighter in a
room full of noise. Their job is to accurately reflect what is on tape.

So, engineers very rarely talk about whether monitors sound "good". The word
engineers use as praise is "accurate". And, when they do use the word "good"
in this context, they usually mean "accurate", where someone else probably
means "hyped".

~~~
shiranaihito
I've got a pair of Quested F11's (the sexy purple version) at home, and I
think they sound _really_ "good" :)

They're the best investment I've ever made, but I'm just a music-enthusiast. I
was roughly aware of the issues you brought up, and it was a very good and
thorough explanation.

I guess I just wanted to point out that there are even "normal people" out
there who appreciate accuracy/quality in speakers.

It's important to know that _anyone_ can benefit from using studio monitors
for listening to music. They reproduce music in such a lovely way - accurate,
detailed and _pleasant_. Listen to your favourite music, but in a new way.
Discover things you didn't know were there.

Even - shall we say, despite the accuracy - there's plenty of bass to go
around, and your studio monitors can put out insane levels of volume and still
reproduce everything beautifully.

~~~
SwellJoe
Actually I agree that folks who want a really great set of speakers probably
should go for a reputable brand of studio monitors and appropriate amp (these
days some studio monitors are powered and need no amp). You'll get better
accuracy and less hype (marketing and/or frequency response, or both) than
from high end audio speaker manufacturers. I'm suspicious of most high end
"audiophile" products, because there's so much superstition and snake oil
surrounding the business. Magic cables that cost hundreds of dollars,
electronics suspended to prevent vibrations from altering the sound (this is
sane for speakers and mics, not sane for solid state electronics), light
switch and cable jack covers that claim to improve the sound of the room, etc.
All with obscene price tags. A good set of studio monitors and a good amp
isn't cheap, but most of the money you spend goes towards important stuff;
like high quality components and a good design.

Folks are always amazed by the audio in my living room...it doubles as my
office and home studio, and I have an obscenely overpowered Hafler amplifier
driving a pair of Tannoy System 600 speakers. Those little speakers can shake
the house, and they do it while being really precise and clear. I also have
bass traps in all the corners and have made more than a passing attempt to
make the room balanced and non-reactive, which is something most music
consumers have never experienced (a good sounding room is at least as
important as the speakers you put in it). It's still not exactly a studio
experience, but it's pretty awesome for Rock Band Taco Night. I also just
bought a projector and an 80" diagonal screen for our booth at OSCON next
week...Rock Band Taco Night will never be the same.

~~~
shiranaihito
> Actually I agree that folks who want a really great set of speakers probably
> should go for a reputable brand of studio monitors and appropriate amp
> (these days some studio monitors are powered and need no amp).

Right. This is what I keep telling anyone who's interested. Of course, most
people are blissfully oblivious to quality (wrt. lots of things)

My speakers are powered though. I'd have no idea what kind of amp to get.

> Magic cables that cost hundreds of dollars

A timeless classic :) Some time last year, I was investigating headphones, and
came across a pair of Grados at some shop.

I mentioned that the earpieces felt abrasive, and the "helpful" shop owner
suggested I buy a pair of thicker, fluffier ones for around 50 euros. Yes, 50
euros for two pieces of foam or whatever. _"THIS.. IS.. FINLAND!!"_

He claimed, with a straight face, that the headphones would sound better with
the thicker earpieces too, "because they're shaped to better direct sound into
your ears" .. :P

> a good sounding room is at least as important as the speakers you put in it

This is particularly unfortunate for me, since I live in a crummy apartment
with concrete walls. There's not much I can do about acoustics, short of a
considerable (and very costly) renovation.

I bet your Rock Band Taco Nights are awesome :)

By the way, what kind of headphones would you recommend? I'm leaning towards
Beyerdynamic DT880(PRO?)'s.

~~~
mblakele
I'm not SwellJoe, but I'll jump in to recommend Sony's MDR7506 headphones.
These aren't consumer junk. They're comfortable, sound good, and are widely
used by professionals for soundboard, editing, and broadcasting work. Next
time you go to a show, take a look at the soundboard - chances are the folks
working it will be wearing 7506 headphones.

I think they're about 1/2 to 1/3 the price of those Beyerdynamics, too.

~~~
shiranaihito
Thanks for the tip! :)

------
jws
Without dithering, 6 bit LCDs produce 191 colors. 8 bit LCDs produce 767
colors. If you want more than 767 colors you will be using dithering.

I think where people get confused here is the naive dithering where a group of
3 pixels (one of each color) are logically grouped together gives your the
252k and 16m numbers, but there is no reason that is the only desirable
solution.

Consider sub-pixel rendering of typography. This abandons the traditional
groups of 3 pixels and uses alternatives to gain better horizontal spatial
resolution. Consider a white, lowercase 'L'. Depending where it appears on my
screen it could either be a single white pixel under the naive "groups of
three" dithering, or a yellow pixel next to a blue pixel. The catch is that
unless I show you the borders of the screen you can't tell which it is.

Fortunately, I have a brand new 15" MacBook Pro under my fingers. Tonight when
it gets dark I'll take a picture of a gradient, enlarge it beyond the
capabilities of my eyes, and we will have an answer about what Apple does.

~~~
duskwuff
You are confused. "6 bit displays" have 6 bits of color data per channel, and
hence can display 2^18 (262,144) colors without dithering. I'm not sure where
you're getting 191 and 767 from.

~~~
jws
I am in no way confused. The three color components of an LCD pixel are not in
the same spatial location. Look closely and you will find three rectangular
areas, one for each color. The only colors you can make without combining
elements are at the 2^6 or 2^8 variants of red, green, and blue. I subtract
two because (ok, I am confused, I only subtracted one before) because the
blacks are all the same.

~~~
duskwuff
1\. If you're seeing the RGB elements separately, you need to sit a little
farther back from the screen. :) I can't pick them out individually at all (I
can just barely see the pixel grid with the screen an inch from my face), so
it's not particularly useful to think of color this way - because nobody sees
it like that.

2\. Even ignoring this, your numbers are still wrong. 2^6 = 64, and 2^8 = 256.

~~~
jws
Continuing our long, invisible thread…

2^6 = 64, but I have red, green, and blue pixels, so times three, but subtract
two because all the blacks are the same.

I suppose I'll need to write a small article on this with some pictures. In
the process of researching this I was impressed with how useless
macrophotography of a screen was. Small changes that are obvious to the human
at a distance are invisible when looking at the individual r,g,b elements up
close.

I'm away from my camera that can output RAW data, maybe with it and some
numerical image analysis I can tell if there is multipixel dithering going on,
but my human eye isn't going to tell, even from magnified pictures.

~~~
duskwuff
There's a much easier way to demonstrate multipixel dithering: create a 50%
gray bitmap (the scrollbar on an xterm works fine for this) and drag it around
on screen. If you see weird color effects, there's multipixel dithering
happening.

