New iPad

[ken long]

Still not tempted.

That is all.

[John Willett]

Oooh - I am - I will get one.

[ken long]

to remote control that Nagra VI, no doubt.

[ConcertinaChap]

If I get anything it'll be a Raspberry Pi. That thing's got geek chic like nothing I've seen these 20 years gone. I hear it calling me ...

CC

[The Elf]

I'm with you Ken.

And is it me, or is there so little practical difference between the iPad 2 and 3 that I'm thinking "big deal"?

[Richard Graham]

If i didn't already have the 2 I'd be buying the three... Retina display and decent camera are significant upgrades but not enough to tempt me. The iPad rules.

[forumuser695516]

And is it me, or is there so little practical difference between the iPad 2 and 3 that I'm thinking "big deal"?

Apart from that much improved screen? Oh, and the much improved camera? And lets not forget the much beefier 4 core CPU.
Sure, not much practical difference at all..

[Bossman]

And lets not forget the much beefier 4 core CPU....

actually its a dual core CPU, with a quad core GPU built into the same chip.

Dual-core Apple A5X custom-designed, high-performance, low-power system-on-a-chip with quad-core graphics

[ken long]

I think this will be a debate between the haves and have nots (ipad owners)!

I'm sure if I owned one, I would also see the benefit.

But, I can't see it bringing me anything other than convenience.

I still enjoy step sequencing...

[Dave B]

Still only a dual core cpu ... according to the tech specs. Quad core gpu ...

Nice .. but I'm not sad I bought a 2 and it's fine for my needs. ho hum..

[Guest]

I can't see what was wrong with the Etch-A-Sketch.

[Bob Bickerton]

I think this will be a debate between the haves and have nots (ipad owners)!

Yes, I was skeptical to begin with and got one in the end to drive my Presonus digital desk (read justifiable excuse here) but I have to say its now what I use for most browsing, emails, (basic) room analysis, diary, live sound playback, reminders, contacts, reading Sound On Sound, in other words it's fully integrated into my work flow.

When I tour I only take the iPad with me now as I have all my desktop files synced over SugarSync.

Not much point in upgrading from iPad 2 to 3 except Siri can be a time saver.

Bob

[forumuser695516]

2 core, 4 core, 6 core!? It is supposedly 4 times faster than an iPad 2. So still hugely more oomph.. And speaking of the iPad 2.. You can still buy them, and they start at a mere £330 now. Which seems like a pretty good deal to me, if the added benefits of the iPad 3 don't jam your donut..

[Mixedup]

I think this will be a debate between the haves and have nots (ipad owners)!

Yes, I was skeptical to begin with and got one in the end to drive my Presonus digital desk (read justifiable excuse here) but I have to say its now what I use for most browsing, emails, (basic) room analysis, diary, live sound playback, reminders, contacts, reading Sound On Sound, in other words it's fully integrated into my work flow.

When I tour I only take the iPad with me now as I have all my desktop files synced over SugarSync.

Not much point in upgrading from iPad 2 to 3 except Siri can be a time saver.

Bob

You was robbed My ageing laptop can do all that and a whole lot more.

[Dave B]

yes, but his iPad is light, easy to carry and hold, pleasant to look at and can go more than a couple of hours without needing a recharge...

[ramthelinefeed]

I can't see what was wrong with the Etch-A-Sketch.

lol

What is a 'retina display'? I have seen this term bandied about all over the media, without any explanation whatsoever. This generally means nobody has a clue what it is, but is to embarrassed to ask.

I like to think it's made of real retinas, gouged out of lamb's eyeballs in slaughterhouses.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's a typically 'hip' Apple marketing term for what is, in reality, nothing more than a high-definition display screen.

The 'retina' screens have a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch -- which is quite a lot -- and that means that at the typical (relatively close) screen viewing distances associated with things like smartphones and tablets, the human eye is unable to perceive individual pixels. The result is that the displayed image appears to be as sharp and 'real' as if you were looking at a real object, rather than a displayed image.

All next generation tablets and smart phones will have the same resolution displays because that's where display technology is heading.

hugh

[Scramble]

Apparently it's not that much faster than the iPad 2 because so much of the extra power goes into handling the display.

[ConcertinaChap]

I like to think it's made of real retinas, gouged out of lamb's eyeballs in slaughterhouses.

The screen that looks right back at you? SFAIK it's a marketing term that doesn't mean anything, that is to say Apple want it to mean unusually high resolution, but there's nothing in the name to suggest it should.

CC

[johnny h]

I like to think it's made of real retinas, gouged out of lamb's eyeballs in slaughterhouses.

The screen that looks right back at you? SFAIK it's a marketing term that doesn't mean anything, that is to say Apple want it to mean unusually high resolution, but there's nothing in the name to suggest it should.

CC

The idea behind the 'retina' display, as Hugh has pointed out, is that it is designed the same resolution as the retina in your eye. The retina cannot make out any greater detail. Its quite an achievement.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The idea behind the 'retina' display, as Hugh has pointed out, is that it is designed the same resolution as the retina in your eye. The retina cannot make out any greater detail.

That's not quite what I said, and isn't actually accurate! The 'retina display' uses pixels that are so small and closely packed that the average human eye can't perceive them as separate dots of light when the screen is held at a typical viewing distance. If you get (much) closer to the screen it is still possible to distinguish individual pixels.

The resolution is not the same as the human eye... the resolution of the human eye is unable to perceive individual pixels when it is used at the intended distance! It's a subtle but important distinction.

It'a all about the 'circles of confusion':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

The same concept is what defines the optimal size of TV screen for a given viewing distance and TV format. For example, the line structure of a 42 inch standard definition screen viewed from about 12 feet is imperceptible, and replacing it with a 42 inch HD screen at the same distane would produce no visible improvement because the eye is simply unable to perceive any greater detail!

hugh

[ramthelinefeed]

I'd just like to make Hugh spit out his lunch by nodding and going "Ah, yes, that's like CDs, isn't it? The sound is split up into 44,100 samples, which are so small that your ear can't hear the joins and so it sounds smooth like vinyl".

[ramthelinefeed]

In any case, a retina display doesn't sound particularly relevant to the main thing I'd want to use an eyepad for: namely, being a touch-screen controller for programming soft-synths and knobs hardware devices.
For that, I just want a BIGGER tablet size (and more touch-sensitivity resolution). Or smaller fingers. (i.e. I'm assuming the touch resolution doesn't mater the retina display resolution? And even if it did, that would be kinda pointless, as your eye would be unable to see the difference in the position of your finger. Or something).

[Bob Bickerton]

Horray! My iPad 2 has a retina display!

When I take my glasses off I can't see the pixels either!

Bob

[Chaconne]

What I really need is a small underpowered computer, preferbaly one without a keyboard or easy way to connect any of the interfaces I have. Hopefully it wont be up to running any of the DAW's I like or burning data onto a DVD. Perhaps though, it could be so slim and good looking that I would overlook its flaws and waste most of my day on it, cooing over its pert 8 track sequencer and pretty display - instead of doing real work.

Is there such a machine?