That can be done by having some sort of bridging tool.
At Apple I hear there used to be an in-house tool that takes AfterEffect raw output and convert it into full transformation matrices (which covers rotation, translation and scale, which in turn covers everything within an animation) that can be directly used by CoreAnimation.
I'm actually surprised AE still doesn't have a tool that can export full transformation matrices on a frame-by-frame basis.
I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China is becoming the biggest market for many American companies, and America is still the biggest importer of Chinese goods), it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship.
A lot of the hostile postures are methods for each government to redirect its population's attention toward external problems instead of focusing on internal ones. For Americans, instead of really acknowledging weakness in our society, a simple blame like "The Chinese are stealing everything from us , including tech and jobs" is very attractive for a populist politician. For the Chinese, vilifying the U.S government as a global bully fuels nationalism internally and distract the people away from issues such as social inequality and government corruption.
But in the end, both countries' leaders totally realize they absolutely need each other, so this "frenemy" relationship will continue for quite a while.
> it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship.
It benefits China greatly to have a "hostile" relationship, at least as far as using networked computing to carry it out.
Computers and cyber-attacks bring a lot for China that are asymmetrically not as advantageous for much of the rest of the world.
- They are much more covert means of conducting espionage (either industrial or political, take your pick). Obviously NSA finds this useful too, but even if we assume NSA had an industrial espionage program as advanced as China's, what does China have for the U.S. to steal, relative to what the U.S. has for China? This question repeats itself for every other country in the West.
- Attribution of cyberattacks is difficult, which adds to the deniability aspect. If literally all that China has to worry about is a loss of face, then they can proverbially cry all the way to the bank. No one is going to be nuking or invading China for an over-active spy program.
- Because of the economic ties you mention, it is difficult for victim nations to take effective deterrence measures to convince China to change their behavior, since many measures that might cause China to feel a pinch would hurt the parties imposing sanctions just as much.
Moreover, "eye for an eye" is taken off the table by the asymmetric nature of the threat, and passive defense is taken away by the interconnected nature of the Internet. Sure, the U.S. and its critical industries can do better as far as defense, but so far it's been a case of "the bomber will always get through".
So looking at the situation from China's perspective, you'd almost have to ask why they would ever stop. Western norms and morals are not necessarily their norms and morals and in any event the deterrence/coercion framework is simply not there. There's no good reason for China to stop covert methods (even if there are good reasons to avoid being overtly hostile).
>I don't think it's going to be a cold war like the last one. With the amount of globalization and how much U.S and China rely on each other economically (China is becoming the biggest market for many American companies, and America is still the biggest importer of Chinese goods), it doesn't benefit anyone to have a real hostile relationship.
There were saying exactly the same thing for European powers just before World War I started.
The same things almost to the letter, actually: "The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved."
The thing is, relying on each other means almost nothing. It's a temporary situation, and it can change in a heartbeat when the two countries get to compete for the same resources and/or third markets. And also as the relationship between who is the supplier of "cheap labor" and who is the "market", with the affluent middle class, changes.
Sort of like two parents who deep down despise each other yet act normal, for the sake of the children, but who don't realize that the children know exactly what's going on and wish their parents would either forgive each other and love again or just divorce and move on.
Not trying to be rude, but if you've tried and actually FAILED to learn Objective-C multiple times, then you will have a much bigger problem with actually learning the Cocoa framework yourself. Objective-C does have a non-standard syntax, but its barrier of entry for actual learning is purely psychological and not technical.
I suggest http://www.raywenderlich.com/ and his fantastic books with examples. While I actually think I've been doing Objective-C longer than most of his writers, when there is some area I haven't worked in yet they usually have a high quality, simple to follow example on how do do a thing that's a great jumping off point to getting going and then understanding further once you get the main thing in front of you.
I have subsequently leveraged that ObjC experience to become somewhat proficient in plain C, a skill I appreciate today and something I might never have learned otherwise.
I'm a bit of an audiophile myself, so I wouldn't listen to Beats, but I do think "bad" is a value judgement. I want a neutral reproduction of the music, and I get that with my Grado's. The Beats customer wants lots of thumpy bass. We each get what we want.
This is exactly it - they give a 'fun' listening experience that people enjoy, and mistake for sound quality. They're paying a high price for a brand and experience, rather than for the quality of the components, like many other premium brands.
I don't wear them, but I don't hate the people who do (though I'm not huge on Beats' "the way it was meant to sound/the way the musician intended" branding)
"they give a 'fun' listening experience that people enjoy"
ding that's the crux of it. people want something that makes them feel good, which often isn't something you can quantify in a lab. so rather than trying to build a better headphone, beats built the equivalent of a booming car stereo strapped to your head, and that evokes a very specific emotional response for most of their customers.
fwiw: i have a pair of Bose QC15 cans that i got as a gift from work. i think they're crap for reproduction purposes, but the experience they're designing for is noise cancellation.
It's not really, when frequency response is a measurable quantity - sound quality can be, and is defined, and Beats do not fare well. But you're right, they do look cool, and they have a fun listening experience.
I once tried to help someone with a pair of beats headphones that they purchased as a present for a relative. The complaint was that they didn't sound right.
I tested them out. It was horrible, it sounded almost like what it sounds like when a stereo headphone jack is only partially inserted -- on three different devices and two different pairs of headphones.
They suck and are a major ripoff.
Whenever something advertises beats audio, I know that it's not a product for me.
They have come a long way since 2011. I'm listening to my post-Dre-branded Beats right now and they sound good. And I like to think I'm not just one of the gullible sub-human tools the people participating in this thread enjoy thinking they're so far above.
I've been using their streaming app since it was released and it's fantastic. It puts the others to shame IMO. I'd been using Spotify for about 4 years before Beats. The volume and quality of playlists they have created is amazing and the app design is quite nice. I find it great for discovering new music (and you still have the option to search the catalog too).
Quality when applied to speakers and headphones is typically demonstrated by frequency response, with a perfectly flat response being the pinnacle. Headphones like Beats appeal to people who have only had bargain headphones (think a few bucks), and they do this by having attractive packaging and just basically amping up the bass response because bass has a "wow factor".
This is simply untrue. The best headphones, speakers, and amplifiers, are designed to faithfully reproduce the recorded signal. Anything that does something other than that is a poorly designed product, or a product that is intentionally misleading the consumer. Most cheap products accidentally fail at this goal. Beats products are intentionally designed to be cheap to manufacture, while being bass-heavy and overly bright on top, to disguise their poor quality.
A flat response is always desirable to the listener (whether they know it, or not). If the listener desires EQ (for a bass-heavy and bright experience), they can apply it before it goes out to the transducer. Old stereos used to have a "loudness" button to slap this kind of curve onto the audio, but all modern playback devices have EQ and such available. But, I'd recommend using good quality headphones and listening as the engineer and artist intended.
Some people, perhaps most people, want a strong bass. Are they wrong?
Not to say that Beats are great or anything, but applying a bass boost to something with a flat response is not going to produce better bass than housing, speaker, etc that all resonate together at the right frequency.
Another thing to keep in mind is that most people will be using these in noisy environments.
> Some people, perhaps most people, want a strong bass. Are they wrong?
I think that if people want a strong bass, they should listen to music that has strong bass and use headphones that will accurately reproduce it.
If they want music that doesn't have strong bass to sound like it does, well that's the role of the equalizer, not the headphones. The role of the headphones is to take whatever signal they're given and accurately reproduce it.
That's what the comment you're replying to is saying.
What people aren't getting in this thread is that modern pop and hip hop is engineered to be played on systems with a lot of bass (sub woofers). Ironically this forces the engineer to limit the amount of bass in the mix, so there some truth to the claim that a headphone with exaggerated bass will produce a sound closer to the intention of the artist.
I think they sound horrendous (I'm an audio engineer) but I have a 9 year old friend who is obsessed with getting the $300 version and can't be persuaded that this is waste. So I would say Beats has a powerful brand. The margin on the headphones has to be unprecedented...
"What people aren't getting in this thread is that modern pop and hip hop is engineered to be played on systems with a lot of bass (sub woofers). Ironically this forces the engineer to limit the amount of bass in the mix, so there some truth to the claim that a headphone with exaggerated bass will produce a sound closer to the intention of the artist."
Not true. Engineers working in pop and hip hop mix primarily with the understanding that the first listen by a consumer will be on the radio in their car. This has several built-in assumptions, and the expectation of lots of sub bass being reproduce-able is not among them. Sales of records are heavily affected by how good the song sounds on the radio, and most people have the audio equipment that came with their car.
Not only that, the next stage of music marketing evolution is earbuds. So, if one were to mix for the next most popular method of getting your music into the ears of consumers, you'd mix with the expectation of being heard first through cheap earbuds.
Engineers mix knowing that their tracks will be played on a wide variety of equipment, from very bad to very good. The more accurate their equipment is, the better they'll be able to serve all of those listeners. But, the best results will always come from having accurate equipment for playing it back.
I'm also an audio engineer, and I, too, find the $300 beats headphones to be an abomination to both good sense and good taste. But, I disagree with your suggestion that engineers are mixing with less bass because subwoofers exist.
Good mastering requires accurate monitors, as well. Every stage gets tested in various types of speakers and playback devices and formats (so, the engineer checks it out in their car on the way to the studio, on their iPod, on their laptop, etc., as does the mastering engineer). There is no stage where the engineer (recording or mastering) doesn't want an accurate monitoring setup, however. And, there is no stage where checking the mix against various listening environments is a bad idea. High dollar recordings are listened to hundreds of times by at least a half dozen people on the way to being shipped to listeners.
I'm probably commenting more on my experience, which does not extend to actual hits. But I am called on to emulate the sound. It has been a struggle to get the bass right, often I find if I mix to have perceptually a lot of bass on, let's say small computer speakers, it's easy to have blown out bass on a system with a sub.
The bottom line is that virtually all playback systems that exist in the real world are nothing remotely like an accurate studio monitor. The engineer is always concerned with how the mix translates to different systems. In this process accurate monitoring is profoundly helpful, but that doesn't mean the engineer expects any listeners to have such a system.
Bass enhanced headphones like Beats have become yet another listening environment to be considered.
This is simply untrue. The best headphones, speakers, and amplifiers, are designed to faithfully reproduce the recorded signal.
Have you seen the actual frequency response curves of headphones? They are by no means flat! They can approach flat from 20-20k, but there are always trade offs, at least until you get to certain price points.
What is good or bad sound is largely subjective and socially conditioned. The expectations around binaural recordings of natural sound are very different from highly produced studio production. What is bad in one context is good in another and vice versa. And while I'd go for headphones with better frequency response, it's not the be-all end all measurement either.
Then again, maybe Beats are a tragedy, since we are getting to a point technologically where every headphone could have reference class performance, if that is what the market wanted. That's not what the market wants. Maybe that's the real tragedy.
"Have you seen the actual frequency response curves of headphones? They are by no means flat!"
Yes. And, as I said: Most cheap products accidentally fail at this goal.
It costs a bit of money to produce a quality transducer that is stable, reliably mass-produced, and lasts a long time. Not as much for headphones as for larger transducers, however. For $100 you can buy any of several models that are extremely accurate (compared to what $100 would buy you in speakers). Sennheiser, Shure, AKG, and Audio Technica all offer several models in the $50-$100 range that will destroy Beats offerings at even much higher price points.
Nonetheless, just because most people's cheap headphones suck doesn't mean that a company producing expensive headphones that suck should be given a pass. In a world with good products in a field I care about, why wouldn't I encourage people to choose them over a clearly inferior product? Beats is a demonstrably inferior product with good marketing.
You don't even need to go to the $100 level to get better than Beats. I've convinced a bunch of Beats owners at my work by loaning out my $30 Sonys. Not only does everyone agree that they sounds better, but there's near universal agreement that they're more comfortable to wear as well.
I'm not saying a $25 pair of headphones is particularly good, but it gets past the "obviously bad" test that Beats headphones fail and allows me to leave them at work without worrying about losing or breaking them.
Combining the speaker and the EQ might not work for your use case. That doesn't make it a bad choice by the manufacturer or the consumer. Targeting a particular class of user by combining products that are often used together has been very successful in a plethora of markets. Apple is kind of the poster child for integrating accessories in an opinionated fashion. The built-in camera on the iMac comes to mind. Even the choice to use a 3.5mm jack on the iPod could fit the frame of your argument.
Me, I'm a Skippy Natural guy, but I see a place on the shelf for Goober too ;)
It's disingenuous to say that this is the way the engineer intended it to sound. It's probably how it did sound to the engineer, but that's not the same as how he or she intends it to sound. Any competent engineer knows that people will be listening to the music on a wide variety of sound systems.
The NS10 has been out of production for years, and I haven't seen them in a studio in quite some time. Though, when I was in college (I went to college for audio engineering), every studio I worked in had a pair (in addition to one or two other types of monitor).
It is true that for a decade or two, the NS10 was the monitor on which more records were produced than any other. And, they are reasonably accurate. There are more accurate speakers than the NS10, even at similar prices, but part of the value of the NS10 was that you'd have them wherever you were working. The mastering engineer would have a pair of them, too, so you'd know everybody in the path from tracking to cutting the master would be hearing roughly the same thing. But, it's worth mentioning that I've never been in a professional studio that only had a pair of NS10s. They were considered the sanity check speakers...not the speakers used for all of your mixing and such.
Anyway, the newer models (HS series or MSP series) from Yamaha might be a good choice, if you want good reference monitors.
But, a reasonable level accuracy should be the goal of every transducer. Just because consumers make often make poorly informed decisions based on marketing and tricks played on the ear (because a "hyped" sound, like the Beats headphones and devices, will sound louder and thus "better"...but will also be more fatiguing and will have other negative effects on your listening experience) doesn't mean people who know better should just shut up and let manufacturers do so without criticism.
NS10s are so popular because they're so non-complimentary. Yamaha (and I've read conflicting accounts) either deliberately created a speaker that was so non-flattering to any audio, or accidentally released a product that became a studio mix engineer hit for the same reasons.
I've heard producers and studio engineers say that if something sounds good on NS10s, it'll sound good on anything.
This is the same reason professional mastering engineers will sometimes insist on listening to mixes on average car stereos, ipod headphones, and cheap consumer audio systems. It doesn't matter how good it sounds on your $100,000 studio system if it sounds terrible to 99% of the population.
Typically you aim for as much of the audible spectrum as possible with as flat of a response as possible... From there you adjust for personal listening preferences. Some cans tend to accentuate bass a bit, others mids or trebs. Flat headphones are preferred for mixing/mastering of course. That's about as objective a measure as you can find.
Bose is a damn bad example as a premium brand to compare Beats to. Their consumer headphones are widely considered to be way overpriced and gimmicky. The brands Beats should really be compared to are Sennheiser, Shure, A-T, Denon, Beyerdynamic and the like. Any offerings from these brands at a price point from $100 and up offer at least as good sound quality as Beats' cans and for a much lower price, and many of their phones look pretty good as well.
And yet... Bose QC15 are simple, light, comfortable and sound fine. The real point, however, is that they are amazing at tuning out the outside world, and thus are fantastic for coding. Their lack of audiophile cred means absolutely nothing compared to all the above, and if you are in an environment with noisy children or coworkers you won't want open headphones anyway. So for the actual use cases of many of us here, QC15 are actually a good choice. Regarding Beats, I actually have no opinion since I've never tried them, but people who like them enjoy them...
I'll go one further and assert that in a noisy environment, the Bose QC15 have the absolute best overall sound quality of any headphone I'm aware of. By a very, very long mark.
I had a few very sophisticated sets of expensive headphones (plus a headphone amplifier) and I just don't use them any more. When I don't need to wear headphones, I'll sit down in my theatre room. When I need to wear headphones, it's because I'm in an environment with other noises (office, travel, etc) and the noise cancellation trumps any other cans' refinement.
Absolutely; the 770 Pro are one of the cans I own (the 80 ohms model). They're exactly the set I reach for when I want to listen at home with privacy.
In a noisy environment though, they just can't compete. Yes, the 770 Pro have excellent passive isolation characteristics, but they do absolutely nothing for low frequencies  whereas the QC15 achieves 20db . This makes all the difference in the world when you're trying to escape into music while flying.
I know what you mean about active noise cancelling being fatiguing. I've been lured into noise cancellation before, only to be repelled by the strange feeling of pressure within the ear. I wouldn't have given a moment's consideration to the QC15 had I not been loaned a pair by a friend. I'm not going to say the QC15 are perfect for everyone, but to my ears the pressure phenomenon is pretty much nonexistent. I've worn them for an entire 13 hour flight without a moment's discomfort.
This - I bought AT headphones (c£150) at Christmas, and they're astonishing. I had a listen to some Beats 'phones in the apple store (£279) last time I was getting a repair done, and they were astonishingly bad - fuzzy, tinny high end, massive overbearing bass.
But - from an Apple perspective, they're not buying just the headphones tech, but the manufacturing capacity as well, I'd assume.
I tend to agree when it comes to headphones. I'd go with sennheiser over any other brand anytime.
But the bose soundlink mini (bluetooth speaker, they are quite fashionable these days) has an incredible sound and a similar price tag as the vastly inferior beats pill.
I would second this statement strongly. The only other brand I'd add to the list is AKG as they also have some wonderful headphones at around this price point.
I've done AB comparisons with friends who've bought Beats, Sony, Skull Candy etc. and they're always blown away by the difference between the product they bought, and my AKGs, A-Ts or Sennheisers. I recently tested some Beyerdynamics and would highly recommend them, although I still think A-Ts are the best bang for buck around.
I don't know anything about build quality or customer satisfaction, but this video gives you an excellent idea how they sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK7QbLNjno — try to listen to the demo with relatively neutral headphones. FWIW, I listened to Beats at an Apple store, and the video fits nicely with my impressions.
I'm not sure that's how it works when it comes to accuracy of medical screening devices.
Say if there is a device that offers 99.9% accuracy but is used to screen a disease that occurs 1 in 100,000, then applying your logic would mean out of the 100 people who were identified positive, only 1 actually was accurate, thus makes the actual result of the device 99% false.
The 85% here is likely to refer to that out of the positive results, there is a 15% false-positive rate.
Medical screening device accuracies aren't calibrated to how rare the actual disease is.
It's not about rarity of the disease. The problem with those percentages is that they're commercial bragging. The 99.9% accuracy is indeed very poor accuracy in case where there is 99.999% chance that one doesn't have a disease at all. It's just measuring the length of a bacteria with carpenter's tape ruler - the tool is too poor.
I'm from Shanghai, ironically, most of the "out of town" license plates you see there are actually results Shanghai residents buying cars from nearby provinces.
In order to counter this, there are rules/restrictions against out of town license plates such as during rush hour or holidays their access to highway is limited, are not allowed to park in certain areas, etc etc.
It's all kind of crazy actually.
It is one of the goals, and they are still actively investing in that area, for example the sapphire plant they recently invested/built. However given how much cash they have ($150bil+), spending all of that on operation and manufacturing in a short amount of time is actually infeasible. A state of the art chip fabrication plant would only run you around $2bil these days, even if you build it in an expensive country like the U.S (kinda tells you how over-valued WhatsApp was huh), so even if Apple decides to build 20 of such plants (Intel only has around 10, and a lot of them are older ones)), they STILL have over $100 billion in CASH that they don't need, which is still more than any other tech companies' cash reserve.
How is a company like Amazon able to constantly funnel cash back into their company while Apple's reserves just grow? Do you think it's the nature of the business (small margins for Amazon, giant for Apple) or different company priorities?
Profit margin sure is a big difference, and also Apple makes more profit in one quarter than Amazon has EVER made in its entire company's history. Amazon is in the retail business, and it's razor thin profit margin when compare to traditional tech.
Apple simply CANNOT funnel that much cash back into the company, unless you consider paying absurd amount of money buying over-priced social networks a smart investment.
Amazon and Apple are very different companies. Apple designs, manufactures (well, mostly contracts out manufacturing), and sells a relatively small number of relatively high margin products that they sell boatloads of. (And, like Amazon, they have some cloud services but at Apple's scale these are a pretty small piece.)
Amazon on the other hand continues to build out enormous infrastructure both for Amazon Web Services and Amazon.com. AWS is also in something of a price was with Google right now with various headlines today somewhat hyperbolically predicting that cloud services were headed towards essentially free. That said, Amazon is arguably building a huge (and costly) moat around its business.
They're both impressive companies. But Apple's business requires a whole lot less reinvestment relative to revenue both now or in any near- to mid-term foreseeable future.
Nature of the business. Amazon is a growing company and invests heavily in itself to stay relevant, to grow, to achieve long-term success in a very competitive environment. Amazon's customers care mainly about price. Apple has been successful in high-quality innovation and has created a remarkably valuable brand. Apple's customers care mainly about quality and are willing to pay a high price for it. Also, geographies: Apple has achieved far greater economies of scale than Amazon, and Apple will continue to enjoy the benefits of global scale combined with high margins so long as its products stay ahead of the competition.