This is like the glossy vs matte discussion. I prefer matte and I use the ODD.Does the ODD have to be included in the machine or is external fine as well. I think external is fine as well.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do You Use Your Optical Drive in Your MBP?
- Thread starter mox123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have used my ODD 1 time in 4 years... yes I have used it, that doesn't really equate to a YES in your poll.hmmm....wouldn't "rarely" qualify as "yes"
Well, for those not living in the USA and don't have access to all the TV shows, movies and books online/on iTunes, the optical drive still is useful. Also, having the option to rip/burn CD:s is never wrong.
Right. I need an optical drive. I still buy my music on CD; it is nice having a physical backup and I still buy and listen to "albums". There is also a good amount of music (especially children's) which is not available online.
The thing is, do I need it in my MacBook Pro? Not really. While I use it, I would not miss it if it was not around. Before I went to Mac OS for my portables, my previous two notebooks were sans optical drive (and each weighed under 3 lbs.).
I use it but not enough to justify having it taking up space in my machine. Would prefer an external OD and beef up the HDD and/or battery, or even thin it up some, maybe an ssd boot drive.
Externals are not much bigger than a dvd case, if your carring dvds its not that big of a deal to carry an external OD.
I thought this year it would at least be a BTO
Externals are not much bigger than a dvd case, if your carring dvds its not that big of a deal to carry an external OD.
I thought this year it would at least be a BTO
I have always thought this argument was funny. People want a physical backup "just in case"
I ask, in case of what? I can assure you that you are much more likely to lose or scratch your physical media than for apple's servers to "forget" what you have purchased. You can always re-download your music if a hard drive fails, or you accidentally delete it, etc. And for those "extra paranoid" there is no reason you couldn't back up a digital album to whatever medium you want (CD, DVD, HDD, Thumb Drive, SD card, etc.)
Also, I do believe online retailers sell "albums" for your listening pleasure!
The bad thing about optical drives is everything else is getting smaller as technology advances, but optical drives have been the same size since the 90s. They can't get physically smaller because they have to be at least the same size as the disks, which is quite large when your talking about laptops.
Back in the 90s when all computers were pretty large optical drives seemed small, and some computers even had 2 or 3 CD-ROM drives in them! But now its the other way round...
Back in the 90s when all computers were pretty large optical drives seemed small, and some computers even had 2 or 3 CD-ROM drives in them! But now its the other way round...
Of course I still use my optical drive
I usually buy my music on CDs. iTunes quality isn't quite up to par yet
But when iTunes start selling in AAC 256kbps, MP3 320kbps or Apple Lossless, then I may abandon the optical drive and CDs for Music
I usually buy my music on CDs. iTunes quality isn't quite up to par yet
But when iTunes start selling in AAC 256kbps, MP3 320kbps or Apple Lossless, then I may abandon the optical drive and CDs for Music
I am glad I amuse you.
With a CD, you have uncompressed 44.1kHz/16-bit audio. With the way music is currently recorded, mixed and distributed, it is currently the best available starting point available today (DVD-Audio and SACD are not distributed widely enough).
Re-encoding is possible. Not so long ago, 128kps was acceptable because of storage limitations. Plenty of my collect was encoded at 128kps. Last year, I re-encoded everything I own at higher bit-rates. I did about 10 discs a night for most nights for about a month on my Mac Pro. Relatively painless.
For iPhones and iPods, 128kps is probably still acceptable because of the awful DA conversion included in the units likely degrades the audio more, but I listen to the encoded files on better systems as well.
Also, I do believe online retailers sell "albums" for your listening pleasure!
They are rarely cheaper than the physical media for my selection of music. And often, albums are not available for what I listen to. I am not taking into account people buying used CDs, which have been ripped many times over). If there is a reason we are going to see CDs disappear, I think it is the lack of control with the current physical media.
If I was just interested in buying singles, buying CDs would not make sense on a cost-per-song basis. I still like listening to albums. Shuffle rarely does it for me.
Since the purchase(2 weeks after mbp came out this year), I haven't used it once. We stream everything. SINCE mbp is so expensive, OD should be standard and then for people who don't want it, they should take $50 off from the price. Hey why not? Apple is already rich and should do something for people who are busy supporting the damn company.
-- why do I sound so bitter about the company I love?????
-- why do I sound so bitter about the company I love?????
lol.
I buy my music on CDs primarily for three primary reasons
1) I would rather support the local artists I see by buying their CDs at live shows from them rather than iTunes or something which takes ~30%
2) CD quality > mp3 quality, a good speaker system will show this
3) I like having the physical CDs
I don't live in the US. I live in a country running a heavily dated copper network. I was also being a little bit humorous? Personally i think Apple should give the options of not having it but not make it compulsory.
None of this is except 3) is correct;
1) Even CDs sold at shows try have to give a portion of their profits to labels etc, before they even get the CD to sell
2) this is grossly wrong iTunes quality is many many times higher then CD, just go get yourself a good pair of speakers and you will notice.
it seems to me that avarage age of parties on this forum is about 50, 60, slaves of their habits, just like my grandpa and grandma, but they are a lot older
Fair enough, music quality is a valid reason to want to own the physical cd, but stating it's for backup purposes is what makes me laugh. Nothing wrong with wanting physical media, I just personally have never understood why people say they need a physical backup
I beg to differ. AAC is a lossy format so how can it possibly be at a higher quality than CD? FLAC is a lossless format and is a direct bit-for-bit copy of the original but iTunes doesn't use this format. In a lot of cases, many will not hear the difference in quality but this will depend on how sensitive and well tuned one's ears are and also the quality of the output equipment (player/amp/speakers).
For instance, try playing a 128 kb/s AAC classical piece of music on a good pair of headphones through a MBP and comparing it with the equivalent CD on some classy bit of audiophile kit. There's a pretty good chance the CD quality will win. However, if the CD player, amp and speakers were completely crud, then yeah, AAC/MBP combo might be better.
Anyway, that's all besides the point and is also going off topic. I like and use my internal SuperDrive but what I don't get is what has this got to do with preferring music on CD or not? Don't get me wrong, I love my music on CD but I certainly wouldn't use the internal SuperDrive as my main CD music player.
Proper sleevenotes rule!
Really? The majority of the CDs I have purchased recently were recorded by the artists themselves. This is perhaps true for much larger and more popular bands and not more local bands (the music scene I am primarily involved in). Most of them record themselves and are not associated with a large label.
as to your second point, lol? I have a really nice sound system and in fact this is why I have noticed differences. Classical music and music with depth really loses on the conversion to smaller formats. The loss is less noticeable on tracks with fewer instruments or vocals because there is less to lose.
Not true. No compression format can come close to CD audio's uncompressed 44.1kHz/16-bit audio for bass and treble detail. If compressed music sounds better on a system, either your speakers were not made for CD audio or your room acoustics suck and you are getting standing waves.
Most recordings are now done at either 48kHz or 96kHz at 24-bit and mixed down to either stereo or stems for the purpose of sending to mastering houses, where it is dithered down to 44.1kHz and reduced to 16-bit lengths.
I just lol'd out loud when I read that!!!! I suggest you stay WELL away from any audiophile forums mate....... you wouldn't return to it again if you ever mentioned that!!
Those audiophile forums also have people convinced they can hear the difference with $5k power cables. Yeah... Lots of pseudo science in those forums. You cannot cheat physics.
If you are interested in the science of it, just google John Sayers. There are some audiophile guys that get it, but the vast majority just buy expensive gear and throw it in an untreated room. A complete waste of money; might as well buy your mains at radio shack.
I beg to differ. AAC is a lossy format so how can it possibly be at a higher quality than CD? FLAC is a lossless format and is a direct bit-for-bit copy of the original but iTunes doesn't use this format. In a lot of cases, many will not hear the difference in quality but this will depend on how sensitive and well tuned one's ears are and also the quality of the output equipment (player/amp/speakers).
For instance, try playing a 128 kb/s AAC classical piece of music on a good pair of headphones through a MBP and comparing it with the equivalent CD on some classy bit of audiophile kit. There's a pretty good chance the CD quality will win. However, if the CD player, amp and speakers were completely crud, then yeah, AAC/MBP combo might be better.
Anyway, that's all besides the point and is also going off topic. I like and use my internal SuperDrive but what I don't get is what has this got to do with preferring music on CD or not? Don't get me wrong, I love my music on CD but I certainly wouldn't use the internal SuperDrive as my main CD music player.
Proper sleevenotes rule!
iTunes isn't 128 kb/s ?