I just read your article entitled, “MP3 for Mac OS X Server.” While I think the advent of an MP3 player for OS X Server is wonderful, I wanted to (kindly) take exception with two of the statements you made. The first is that MP3 “is a perfect solution.” The second is that MP3s provide “CD-quality sound.” Since you point out that OS X Server is intended as a server OS, an MP3 player for OSXS is, by definition, a “bad idea.” The reason is that MP3s require quite a bit of processor power to reproduce the sound that you appreciate. Audio CDs require zero processor power because they play through a patch cable directly to the audio chip on the motherboard. Imagine if you had to stream the audio data from the CD across the SCSI chain before converting it into audio, and you can imagine the resources required. This is a moot point for a desktop or home computer, since the new G3s possess enough power that the average user will not likely notice (unless doing something very intensive, such as Photoshop). However, MOSXS is too costly for the average user at the desktop, and arguably too expensive for development as well. For a machine that is acting as a server, then, the sysadmin generally wants as much power as possible to serve files, web pages, etc. MP3 compromises that power. Maybe it’s insignificant, but I feel it’s worth mentioning. Of course, if you’re talking about the Darwin release of OS X, then this discussion also doesn’t apply since the OS is essentially free. But I don’t expect that’s the case. As for sound quality, I will be the first to admit that MP3s sound great. However, to say that they are “CD quality” is misleading. I remember years ago when audio CDs first came out and the purists among the audiophiles pointed out that we, the general public, were accepting a compromise in terms of quality by using a digital representation of somthing (soundwaves) that is analog by nature. Now, with MP3s, we reduce the file sizes by a factor of 10 from that found on audio CDs. I believe that the paraphrase of one of the laws of thermodynamics applies here: you can’t get something for nothing. MP3s are popular because for some people they are an acceptable tradeoff between sound quality and file size. They are not CD-quality audio, even though their sound quality is commendable. From a more philosophical viewpoint, I keep wondering how far “we” are willing to trade audio quality so that the music industry can create even smaller, cheaper media while increasing their profit margins. Just some food for thought. Regards, Matt Warner

Page Last Updated Mon, Nov 29, 1999