Fanboys, fight!
PUBLISHED ONJanuary 21, 2015 9:30 AMByTeam HWM
Join any online forum and you'll most likely find incredibly polarising viewpoints thrown around. The word fanboy (or fangirl/fanperson if you want to be politically correct) is then used to describe the extreme enthusiasts that are often unable or unwilling to see the flaws of the product/brand/technology they support.
For this article, the writers at HWM choose their sides and duke it out for topics close to heart. Can we find a middle ground, or is the world really just black or white?
WHY THE PC IS SUPERIOR
Power and customisability, the PC offers these and more.
by Kenny Yeo
If you are serious about gaming then there is only one platform for you. I'm talking, of course, about the PC. Sure, console gaming has its advantages, such as ease of use, relative affordability and all that, but the PC is superior, my friend. Let me tell you why.
Firstly, the PC is vastly more powerful than the console. This is especially true as the current crop of "next-generation" consoles such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are really disappointing from a technical point of view. Even today, both consoles from Microsoft and Sony cannot reliably render games at 1080p Full HD resolution. For example, Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs are two demanding games and the Xbox One can only manage 720p for Battlefield 4 and 792p for Watch Dogs, whereas the PlayStation 4 can only go up to 900p for both titles. This is 2014 for goodness sake, and is 4K not the next big thing? How then can we still be fussing over machines that cannot handle Full HD visuals?
PC gamers have been enjoying Full HD gaming for at least the past seven years and just about any system with a modern mainstream graphics card can comfortably handle games at Full HD resolution so long as you keep the graphics settings at a moderate level. And, graphics cards are only getting better and more affordable; the fastest graphics cards today can handle resolutions of up to QHD (2,560 x 1,440) and WQXGA (2,560 x 1,600) comfortably even with the graphics settings turned up to 11.
This brings me nicely to my next point - PC is all about flexibility. While consoles let you play games without worrying about system requirements, you have pretty much zero options when it comes to graphics settings and resolution. Some might enjoy this kind of simplicity, but like I said, if you are serious about gaming, PC offers more adjustability and gives users the ability to tweak the settings to their liking. If you have a powerful system, turn up the resolution and graphics settings and enjoy sharper, crisper images and better visuals.
And if you have multiple displays, better yet, you can get an even wider viewing perspective that can not only improve your gameplay, but can also provide you with a more immersive gaming experience. Admittedly, having a powerful system and an elaborate setup will increase costs, but then the PC is more than just a gaming machine. It can be used for other tasks such as web browsing, watching videos, emails, work and more, which can all benefit from your beefy system.
CONSOLES ARE THE FUTURE
Why do you think the PC is in decline?
by Salehuddin Husin
Consoles are awesome. That's not hyperbole, that's the truth. If you want hassle-free, fuss-free, plug and play gaming, they're what you're looking for. I've been a console gamer for more than 20 years, having played from the NES onwards and while I certainly enjoy gaming on the PC, I still find myself going back to consoles.
The PC Master Race will say that the PC will outdo consoles in all aspects, particularly in visuals. I'm not going to say visuals aren't important (they are), but I'd rather sacrifice visuals for better gameplay any day of the week and that's exactly what consoles offer.
Where else are you going to find titles like Halo or Marvel vs Capcom 3? For years, consoles have the edge over PC in terms of exclusives. Look at how Halo (Halo and Halo 2 appeared on the PC only years later) helped establish the Xbox brand or how Uncharted singlehandedly revived the stagnating 3rd person action adventure genre.
Don't even get me started on fighting games. All you need to know is EVO uses consoles for its tournaments. Why does that matter? If the pros only play on the consoles, why would you want to play on an inferior platform? Sure, recent fighting games like Ultimate Street Fighter IV and Blazblue have their PC versions, but a quick search online will show you that they've been plagued with net code or porting issues. That's the thing with consoles. They're simplistic. They do one main thing and they do it well. They don't require you to mess with video options or delve into .ini files to tweak settings. What you see is always what you get. Developers don't have to worry about making their games run, but rather making them good.
As PC gamers continuously have to fork out hundreds, even thousands for upgrades every other year, consoles have hovered around the same price point for decades. With consoles, that lone price is all you have to worry about. You pay that and you can be playing as soon as you get home.
The most important thing in favour of consoles is how they constantly innovate. From playing with samba maracas for Samba de Amigo to swinging a racquet with the Wii Remote, consoles have always been about adopting new ways to play. They might not always catch on (like Seaman) but they offer unique experiences.
The modern console isn't just a gaming machine either. Play Blu-ray discs, connect to the internet, run apps, stream music and movies, the console is now the centre of any connected living room; a complete entertainment system.
That's why, no matter how much I love gaming on a PC, the console will be my first choice for my gaming and entertainment.
HONESTLY, WHY SETTLE FOR LOW RES AUDIO?
Please do your ears a favour.
by Marcus Wong
16,777,216 and 65,536. That's the bit-difference between High-Resolution Audio (24-bits) and standard audio (16-bits) and is essentially all the reason anyone should need to see why HRA is better.
We are constantly chasing better quality video, going from SD to HD and 4K, with 8K on the way. So, why is it that we constantly punish our ears with inferior audio quality?
When audio is compressed, data is thrown away based on two theories: frequency masking and temporal masking. Frequency masking happens when two sounds are very close in pitch, and the compression algorithm assumes you won't be able to distinguish between the two, so it discards the less obvious one.
With temporal masking, pitch, volume and time come into play. The idea being that when a loud sound is heard, the ear and brain focuses on that sound, and it takes time for the ear to recover and interpret the next sound. This may take no longer microseconds and so be considered as expandable during compression. In an instrumental piece with groups of instruments, many audible harmonics may be discarded simply because compression algorithms focus on just the "root" tone.
All this techno-wizadry is intended to mask the fact that the audio properties in your lossy compressed MP3 is gone forever. This is why lossless formats like FLAC and High- Resolution Audio is the future.
Sure, the files may be a lot bigger and the songs may cost a lot more compared to regular MP3 compressed files, but if you're buying music to store to begin with, why wouldn't you want to have them in the best quality possible? Further, moving to high quality means sloppily produced tracks and poorly recorded albums should become more evident, which - in theory - mean that record studios should be forced to up their game and not simply slice tracks together to push us more crappy albums.
Storage space is also cheap now, and broadband connections are fast enough to ensure you're not left waiting for hours for your music. Affordable and portable HRA players are also making their way into the market so enjoying HRA isn't just confined to high-end home audio equipment. From a technical perspective, there's never been a better time to move to high res audio!
CLOSE YOUR EYES AND TELL ME YOU HEAR A DIFFERENCE
Why high resolution audio is overrated.
by Hafeez Sim
During the late '90s, the spread of the MP3 audio format online introduced people to digital music. Due to the slow download speeds and small hard drive capacities during the time, many made do with 128kbps bit rate files, which were considered of reasonably good quality in exchange for a smaller file size.
Now, I couldn't really tell the difference between MP3s compressed at 128kbps and 320kbps back then since all I only ever owned were a budget pair of Sony earphones which cost no more than $30.
That was before I was introduced to in-ear monitors by my cousin. While it was also considered an entry-level in-ear monitor, the Westone UM1 changed the way I listened to digital music. Ironically the UM1 didn't manage to make my 128kbps files sound any better. In fact, they sounded downright nasty - the monitors exposed the compression flaws in my music and they sounded worse than they did with my Sony earphones.
Re-encoding my music collection to a higher 192kbps bit rate was literally music to my ears. After that, I moved on to a pair of dual-driver in-ear monitors and embraced 320kbps files. As the years went by, 320kbps MP3s continued to suffice.
Audiophiles will have you believe that lossy compression formats like MP3 are the greatest crime to music though.
Now, I did give lossless FLAC files and High-Resolution Audio players a try. But, unlike the night and day difference between 128kbps and 320kbps files, I couldn't really hear the difference between the FLAC version and the 320kbps version of the song! Roping in my friends and colleagues to go through the same blind test, most couldn't hear the difference either.
While the file quality is as important as the equipment you use, I've come to realise that after a certain point, you're looking at diminishing returns. If you find yourself trying to find the difference between two sources, then it's pretty obvious that the difference isn't that significant to begin with. And if a pair of affordable in-ears sound almost the same as a pair of high-end studio monitors, I'll gladly go with the cheaper option.
No one has the right to say that you're wrong for chasing that last bit of fidelity. But in my humble opinion, what matters most is what you hear when you close your eyes, not the perceived value of your sources or equipment.
WHY THE IPHONE IS MY FAVORITE CAMERA
Photography is about spontaneous creativity after all.
by Alvin Soon
Cameras have never been better, and photographers have never been more spoilt for choice. Why then, when I can choose from such a wide variety of gear, is my iPhone my favourite camera?
Maybe you've heard it said before, "The best camera is the one that's with you." (Usually attributed to photographer Chase Jarvis.) That sums it up for me.
When I have to cover a professional event, I must rely on my DSLR workhorses to do the job. When I travel, there's no doubt that my mirrorless cameras, paired with the right lenses, capture gorgeous memories for me.
Yet, when I'm out and about, and I see something that I absolutely want to shoot - more often than not, I have neither a DSLR nor a mirror-less camera with me. I do have my iPhone.
Without my iPhone, there would have been so many magic moments I would have missed. My wife spontaneously playing on a swing while my old dog looked on. A cat holding its leg overhead as if it was doing yoga. An extraordinary sunset, seen on an otherwise ordinary day.
Now, there's no doubt the iPhone is a limited camera. When compared with a 'proper' camera, there are many things it can't do, and many ways it doesn't measure up.
That's part of its beauty.
Henri Cartier-Bresson, one of the masters of street photography, shot mostly with a 50 mm lens. The fact that he shot some of the most enduring photographs of all time by embracing constraint is something to think about.
Limitations aren't always liabilities, and you can find creativity within constraints. In fact, working within constraints forces you to be even more creative with what you have.
And there's something freeing about shooting with 'just' a phone. Maybe it's just me, but it frees me up to just sketch and doodle, to try nonsensical angles and silly compositions, to play, experiment and see what works. Its limitations, simplicity and convenience free my creativity to just explore.
Personally, the gear doesn't excite me as much as the act of photography. If shooting with limited cameras, like the iPhone's, is what gets people through the door of photography, then that makes me happy. Ultimately, I believe that the democratisation of creativity can only be a good thing.
FOR POSTERITY'S SAKE, GET A PROPER CAMERA
It's better to err on the side of image quality.
by Ng Chong Seng
Fact: Cameras in smartphones are getting better all the time. Just look at the latest offerings from Apple, LG, Samsung, and Sony, with their whiz-bang features like OIS, slow-mo, laser focus, and all. Augmented by tons of apps and network connectivity that enhance the editing and sharing experiences, the nail is inching ever closer to the compact camera's coffin.
But here's another fact: A dedicated camera is still the better image-capturing tool. Because of that, you won't catch me whipping out my iPhone or Nexus during my son's graduation ceremony, my Mom's birthday dinner, or my trip to Disneyland. For such important occasions, the $1,000 smartphone in my pocket still doesn't earn my trust.
The reason? It's all about sensors and lenses.
Dedicated cameras traditionally had larger sensors than cameras in smartphones; and for the most part, they still do today. Simply put, a bigger sensor means better low-light performance, with less noise at higher ISO settings, not to mention better dynamic range. I remember that candle light dinner photo I that once shot using my phone: It looks okay on a 5-inch screen, but absolutely horrible on a monitor and in print. Till today, I still regret that I'm unable to preserve that treasured moment the way I saw it.
Of course, cameras in smartphones are getting bigger sensors these days, with 1/2.3 to 1/3-inch sizes the norm in flagship Android and iPhone models. But dedicated cameras have marched on too. Sony's Cyber-shot RX100 series and Canon's PowerShot G7 X are absolute peaches in terms of image quality thanks to their large 1-inch sensor. For posterity's sake, this is the minimum to settle for.
The inability to optically zoom is another that ranks up there in my list of smartphone camera peeves. If it's a landscape shot and it's a sunny day, then fine. But if it's my son on stage performing and I'm 10 meters away, no way am I going to use my smartphone and digitally zoom onto him. There are worse crimes than using smartphone cameras for important moments. Digital zoom is one of them. And don't get me started on things like shutter lag and shot-to-shot times. This is why I still own a (mirrorless) camera and invest in lenses, because I feel that a bit of hassle in exchange for a peace of mind is well worth it.
Will there ever be a day that I ditch my camera and use a smartphone for all photographic occasions? You can ask me again when electroactive lens that brings variable aperture control finally appears in smartphones.
But that day is not today.
THE CASE FOR PHABLETS
Why have multiple devices when this one that does it all?
by James Lu
There's only one reason not to own a phablet: your pants are too tight and you don't like holding stuff in your hands. Smartphones and tablets were originally designed with a legacy vision of how people use mobile devices - phones are for making phone calls, and tablets are for consuming content. Phablets, on the other hand, are perfectly aligned with how people actually use their mobile device - you can both view content without having to strain your eyes, and you can make the occasional phone call too. Why have two separate devices when you can do everything you want with just one?
Mobile phones today are no longer just pocket telephones, they're pocket computers. We spend less time making phone calls, and increasingly more time doing stuff we used to do sitting at home on our computers, be it shopping, social networking, browsing, gaming, messaging or streaming (it's no coincidence that the rise of the smartphone is directly correlated with the decline of the traditional PC.)
The typical behaviour of a smartphone owner today involves a lot more looking and poking at a screen, and a lot less holding the device up against an ear. As such, it makes sense that if you're spending more time interacting with that screen, you want that interaction point to be as good as it can be. That means it should be easy to read on without having to zoom in, it should be able to display videos and pictures without having to strain your eyes to view details, and it should better enable interactive content like apps and games through features like split-screen viewing or a larger range of touchscreen gestures or on-screen controls. The solution to all of these requirements is to just make the display bigger.
Consider also that app design increasingly favors gesture controls over buttons, from games like Angry Birds, to your favourite photo editing app that lets you swipe, pinch and rotate to edit your holiday snaps. The larger your display, the more precise your gesture control can be, and as a useful by product, when your display is larger, you also end up obscuring less content when your fingers are on the screen.
Of course, there's always a trade-off. Larger phones typically require both hands for tasks like typing, and there's the aforementioned problem of fitting a phablet into your skinny jeans, but the overall increase in usefulness for a larger device far outweighs any initial awkwardness as you learn how to hold it.
THE PHABLET DECEPTION
Size is a one trick pony after all.
by Zachary Chan
Fans of phablets would have you believe that these huge, cumbersome devices are the bee's knees; the evolutionary meeting point of the ideal form factor between two previously separate devices: the smartphone and tablet.
I couldn't disagree more.
Yes, the smartphone today has assimilated multiple roles, expanding from its roots as a communications device to creativity, productivity and entertainment. I do not argue that smartphones have become perhaps the singular indispensable tool for everyday modern living. However, this merely reinforces how general smartphone usage models have evolved over the years. The need for increased screen sizes is just common sense what with all the rich content we consume today, but there is a hard limit.
To me, we reached the smartphone sweet spot between 4.7-inches and 5-inches. These screen sizes offer ample display area for multimedia content and the perfect balance for single-handed usage. Anything larger and you'll start compromising comfort and usability for what is really a minor bump in display size. At 5.5-inches, a phablet becomes physically unwieldy for many and single-handed use is hampered. What's ironic is that the brands who push this form factor acknowledge this issue, as many phablets today come with software tweaks to shrink the display so you can comfortably navigate with one hand.
Another potential benefit a phablet-fan will tell you is that they last much longer because they accommodate a larger battery, but that's true for any electronic device, phablets aren't special here. As long as you can get an average day's worth of battery out of your primary device, you're good.
Here's the rub. As a smartphone, the phablet doesn't really offer any real improvement over its smaller cousins in any functional area, and the screen size advantage is not worth the constant finger aerobics you're going to have to employ to handle a larger device.
It's even worse as a tablet replacement. Let me explain. I enjoy my rich content on a standard 10-inch device. Magazines and websites feel naturally sized and content can be delivered without the need to rely on the pinch-and-zoom crutch. Movies and games also look better and I can actually say that I am very comfortable using a tablet for work. With its much larger battery, a tablet can do all these things and still keep going for a few days on a single charge. My smartphone then becomes my go to camera, my connection to the world around me and my hub for daily essentials such as transport and banking. This clear separation of device usage frees it from unnecessary power-draining and resource-hogging multimedia apps so my smartphone easily lasts through my day. It is not a legacy vision, this is just practicality talking.
Ultimately, you want balance and a comfortable fit. If you have larger hands and can use a 5.5- to 6-inch device in one hand normally, by all means go ahead. What I do not subscribe to is the notion that the "phablet" is the answer for a single device model.
Visit Hardware Zone for more stories.