I'm thinking of going all digital for movies and music. I would like to know if the highend mac mini with the 2 TB FD upgrade is a good option?. I prefer to not stream music and movies.
There is no 2TB FD
Actually there is on the $999 model. It was an option that was quietly added after launch.
I had ordered the 2TB option, but then decided to get an open box base model for $399 and order a Thunderbolt External to go with it. I was going to get the faster mini and sell my Air, but by going cheap with the mini I'll keep my Air. I'm glad because I hate working on photos from 14 ft back from the TV. And I love using the Screenshare so I can remote login to the mini, it's too hard to do anything on the TV screen
So I had called Apple and cancelled, but got notice my mini shipped yesterday. So now to decide, which should I keep? $400 for base model or the 2.8 i5 with 8GB and a 2TB a Fusion drive and better graphics for $1055. I will be doing a lot of Handbrake, but that's the most intensive I would imagine.
Handbrake will be where the difference is! But for that you would be better off if you can find a 2012 i7.
For HTPC duty, I highly recommend an Intel i3 NUC (Haswell model). It's smaller than a mini, cheaper than a mini, will do 24p (23.976hz) and HD Audio bit-streaming with EASE. The mini is just not good enough these days.
By the time you buy a hard drive, memory, and operating system, a NUC is every bit as expensive as a comparable mini.
And I disagree strongly with your comments on OS X. There's no way I'd trust a windows machine to run reliably 24/7, as you want for a media machine. Windows is just too flaky and virus prone.
I tried a variety of linux machines before getting the mini. They were all incredibly frustrating, with software that was infuriatingly almost there, driver issues, and things breaking on updates. My mac is perfect. It plays everything I throw at it perfectly, does AirPlay, is easy to drive and look after, and is the quietest computer I've ever owned.
You can't disagree with my comments about OS X. They're facts.![]()
1.) No 24p support.
2.) No HD Audio support.
There's no argument that can be had here!
It's not so much that I disagree as that I don't care. I wouldn't have a clue whether OS X supports 24p. In my experience, media is released as DVD or BluRay. I'm in a PAL region, so it tends to be encoded PAL. Ain't no issues whatsoever with playing that on my mac. Smooth as they come.
Same with audio. I couldn't give a stuff about HDaudio as not a single track I own is encoded in it. They're all either in AAC or Apple lossless, having been ripped from my CD collection.
And for the record, I also don't care that my mac doesn't support all the other windows gumph. Most notably .exe files...
Oh, and the nicest thing about my mac: I don't have to even know what 24p or hdaudio even is, as it just works.
Wow.... just... wow. OK, that's fine. Clearly if the argument is you don't care about a better experience, then fine. I can't argue with that...
There are others out there that want a bit more from their HT experience, remember.
Oh but I do care. That's why I don't run windows.
I'm not sure what you're on about, but my Mac Mini runs 24p/60p and I have it set to switch depending on the source material I am viewing.
Image
Unless your player just plays the 23.976Hz as 24.000Hz.
No skip. Imperceptible (even to you) difference in length of film, and the audio is adjusted accordingly. And if the source is film it might even just be correct.
Basic players won't do it, but you don't strike me as a "basic player" kind of guy.
What really bothers me is watching 50Hz TV shows, because, well, most of my TVs don't do that.
edit: Oh yeah, the TV in the screen shot only supports 72Hz, so 23.976Hz wouldn't work anyhow. So 24Hz works out pretty well.
----------
p.s. that statement is incorrect... movies shot on film are 24fps. Not 23.976, which is "close" to 24fps for use with NTSC.
Source: Me. I worked at Lucasfilm for several years.
Actually, I think the takeaway from all this is... it doesn't work for you as a HTPC. But it works great for a lot of people, for the reasons they have, which aren't as important to you as the reasons you have for saying it doesn't work.
As Mac owners we're probably all well aware of why we choose a Mac over whatever machine for any given purpose. Trying to explain it to someone who doesn't agree just isn't worth the time. Sort of like someone who chooses a Mercedes for whatever reasons trying to explain that to someone who opts for a Toyota for whatever reasons. Or someone who likes Rolex compared to someone who likes Timex. Or Prada shoes to Hush Puppies. Or... well you get the idea.
----------
Well... you said MOVIES. Movies are filmed on film, or on the digital equipment is truly 24p (not the 23.976p that has taken over the 24p meaning).
But you know what I mean. And I knew what you meant. You didn't mean movies, you meant DVDs or BDROMs.
Agreed, but like you said elsewhere about getting carried away and that this is the internet...
And my position will be that movies displayed in 23.976p are not the correct frame-rate. I have a CineAlta digital camera that is nodding in agreement!