See, you seem (to me anyway) to be reading into it too much. What
about powered monitor shoot outs? 2 sets, all same signal chain up to
cable tip, same room etc.. but wait, one has xover electronics made in
Korea, the other in China but both are european manufactured,......
WTF!!!!

It's a listening test. The system tests Apple is running is purely a
performance comparison, not a listening test. Two completely different
animals.

That said... there is one similarity, in that the goal in either case is to
see how well each product delivers the same content. You are going to listen
to the same content when comparing the monitors... and you should compare
the same plugins when measuring the performance of DAWs.

Also, cant make a valid comparison because each used different
brand solder.....WTF!!!!

The solder is a required part of the package with each monitor. Your
warrantee doesn't support you re-soldering in order to even the field. Audio
sequencers, on the other hand, invite the use of 3rd party plugins, making
it -extremely- easy to even the field.

I really don't care about G5/P4/AMD.... All are very strong nowadays
easily surpass the cpu's of 5 yrs ago...and them some.

Sure they are... but there are still plenty of people running into the wall
even with current systems. Understanding what each delivers specifically is
important to some.

I'll say it again... the G5 may turn out to be the fastest system available
for under $5000, but none of us have any idea where it stands until someone
other than Apple tests it.

My thoughts on the ad were that is was written for the Apple/Mac/G4
crowd and not really meant for pc users

?

The fact that Apple leans on performance comparisons with Intel CPUs makes
it very clear that this is aimed at PC users... otherwise, why make the
comparison? Why not show how much faster it is than G4? (this is something
they didn't do even once, interestingly).

(or non-crossplatform
software) or to be interpeted as a Intel vs G5 "Benchmark"....Like I
said before, they didn't use "PLUGINS" they used 2 DAW's, one -
CubasePC; one - MAc Logic; Mixed comperable Native FX from each
program and ......well showed the results.

No, Not a perfect test in the least.....But....also easily seen to be
invalid as a true "benchmarking" test. Seems to be directed to the
CubasePC users who are looking to crossgrade thier systems to
Logic......Apple does own Logic now right?

Yes... but if the goal was to show off Logic, it should have been compared
to Nuendo/CubaseSX on Mac.

Actually. I'd like to see a Benchmark comparison using:
1) G5/Nuendo w/native fx
2) PC/Nuendo w/native fx
3) G5/Nuendo w/waves fx
4) PC/Nuendo w/waves fx

I'd like to see that as well. It would help to give some perspective and
actually make comparing native effects somewhat meaningful. Without a
baseline, it's hard to put any weight on a comparison.

Take one to it's limit then try it with the other....I allways figured
this type of testing to be done after product is released, by some
nuetral party and it isnt released for that yet is it?

Of course not. I always trust 3rd party benchmarking before I trust what the
manufacturer claims... but I still think Apple would have had a lot more
people listening to them seriously if they had done things a bit
differently.

-S