Slashdot Mirror

unless you're talking about AptX HD or LDAC...

Or AAC streamed directly to supporting devices, which is what AirPods and some Beats headsets use.

Glad to help you learn something today!

But then, DSD, high res WAV and FLAC, and other high-res formats are difficult if not impossible on iOS

You can use apps like VLC to play FLAC quite easily - or you can use Apple Lossless, ALAC.

Were you not aware iOS supported applications that might use other codecs? Or that Apple has had a losses codec for some time? How odd.

The difference between Android and IOS being that on iOS, I could choose to use either FLAC or ALAC - on Android I could only choose FLAC. Why people support platforms with less choice is beyond me.

So correction, I got to help you learn TWO things today!

The only people who need 8K for moving pictures are people with beyond 20/20 sight. If you look at this chart the THX recommended viewing angle is 40 degrees, the most they allow for the front row of the cinema is 53 degrees. If you got a 100" screen, you'd have to sit 7.3' away for that, while to see 8K you'd have to be close than 6'. That said, 20/20 is just "normal" vision, about 30% have 20/15 vision and 1% has 20/10 vision. That would give you an effective viewing distance of 5.48 and 3.55 feet, meaning they see some but not all the detail of 8K. So ~30% would have some benefit sitting very close - but not unnaturally close - to a very big screen. If you go back to the recommended viewing angle which would be more typical middle of the cinema that's 10' for a 100" screen. Now even the 20/15 can't see that at 7.5' effective, but the 1% still get some more detail at 5' effective. So for the very few.

That said it has more appeal for still photos, if motion is not an issue you can get very close pixel peeping. Pretty much any modern camera takes >8MP photos, with a 32MP screen you'd finally start to see the full detail of most 20-25MP cameras. Of course there are megapixel monsters that go beyond that too, but you'd be scaling them down a whole lot less. In fact that's probably the only time you'd really notice 8K, above I talked about the theoretical limits but they are if you're staring at a Snellen chart. They threw in a lot of other upgrades to 4K like Rec.2020, HDR, 10 bit colors etc. and if you kept those but scaled it down to 1080p not many would notice the difference in resolution alone. Just 8K quadrupling size for a minimal improvement for a tiny fraction of the population will fly like a brick.

In the long gone '60s, Sony's researchers found out how to simulate 3D as we know it nowadays. A comprehensive study on how it worked and any side effects was ordered. The results were disturbingly negative and social responsibility prevailed over profit & greed. The technology was buried and disappeared. 40 years later someone rediscovered the tech or simply came across the old files. It was the same old dangerous shit. But times, they are a'changing, and the old responsibility was long gone. Everyone jumped on the 3D bandwagon, public health be damned. But it failed in the marketplace as the old Sony researchers had predicted: it was bad for you and the effect wasn't worth the risk.

I guess if true 3D laser holography doesn't evolve to an accesible level, in 20-30 years we'll see this shit rise again like an immortal coackroach. A few links for your enlightment:

http://www.audioholics.com/edi...
http://www.strabismus.org/all_...
http://www.techrepublic.com/bl...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08...
http://www.livescience.com/496...

A while back I read an article where they got a bunch of magazine audiophiles to test out some new high-end speaker cables. A little slight-of-hand was used to replace the cables with unfolded wire coat hangers, while appearing to connect the expensive ones. Every reviewer then pronounced the superior sound that was oh-so-obvious.

Claimed by Bob Dean and his brother Dennis:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/speakers-when-is-good-enough-enough.2512/page-2#post-15412

Perhaps you didn't check the actual link before posting your comment, or perhaps you meant to post as Anon because you wanted to troll.

The link is in fact broken (for now - though they will fix it eventually). Here is what the adults think it might be: http://www.audioholics.com/aud...

You do like this, OK?

<URL:http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa>

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa

> Bose targets the more mature ignorant quality-seeking crowd,

FTFY.

In what universe does Bose and quality even go together?!?!? They are a complete over-priced under-quality joke by many audiophiles. They are nowhere in the top ten at Hi-Fi http://www.head-fi.org/f/113/h...

Senn cans are consistently top rated. I.e. http://www.head-fi.org/product...

Maybe if Bose didn't sound like shit and actually listed* their technical specs such THR -- oh wait Bose relies on ignorance and marketing just like Beats.

* Audioholics http://www.audioholics.com/edi...

Bose Corporation takes its psychoacoustics outlook right down to its controversial methods of published specifications, in that it does not publish specs by standard measured electrical and objective acoustic performance.

The onboard sound card has ZERO effect on the quality of the audio. The bits are traveling directly, unmolested from the application generating them to the amplifiers in the speakers.

That's what I thought for a long time and then I discovered that I was wrong (so you are - no offence).

Digital sound can be altered on the way between application and the DAC interpretation, even with TosLink (optical).

Have a look about the clock jitter problem, or phase noise :

Some refs here (with more links inside), here, and here.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

"Conclusion: ... Going to a 3D movie each month probably won’t hurt anyone’s vision..."

If you get hung up on "Children under seven are at risk of strabismus – period," then you may be missing the repeated use of the words "prolonged exposure" in the article and linked studies.

All things in moderation. That's my motto. Well, one of them anyway.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/kids-prefer-poor-quality-mp3

(and remember, kids are able to hear frequencies that you can't!)

What, because large companies aren't fickle about paid products too?

PS did I say monster cables? I meant Pear Cables. I would have written that correctly, but I forgot to drape my pear cables around my keyboard.

No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.

You can't tell the difference between a $3500 Blu-Ray player and a $500 Blu-Ray player either.

I go with www.bluejeanscable.com which has prices in the same ballpark as monoprice and cablesforless, but mostly because of the epic smackdown they gave to Monster when Monster sent them a cease and desist: http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back

My house has crappy upload speeds which are just fine for everyday browsing, but not seeding. Additionally with a larger number of connections my router tends to slow down. Finally, I'd prefer not to get caught up in MAFIAA dragnet lawsuits. Even if everything is legal, the burden of disproof against mercenary "experts" is time out of my day and pocketbook.

This all being said, as soon as I can provide a reasonable upload speed without fear of lawsuit I'll be glad to just leave my machine seeding for the benefit of humanity.

I used to work for Radio Shack. Our store cost for the $120 monster cables was somewhere right around $32 dollars. Given that Monoprice sells these same cables starting for about 2 bucks a pop, I would say both the store and Monster are making huge profits. Monster's income is, of course, Supplemented by suing everyone and anyone they can think of even if it doesn't make sense.

Am I the only one who sees that word as "blurry" unless it is capitalized "BluRay"?

You're not the only one, once movie studios start using the Image Constraint Token on Blu-ray Discs next year. A player has to downsample outputs without HDCP (e.g. component and early DVI) to SDTV resolution if the disc has an Image Constraint Token. When your TV tries to upsample it back to fill the 1080p panel, your Blu-ray will become a bit more Blu-rry.

LG started this by threatening Optronics. I am presuming in a somewhat vague way.

While perhaps this could be modded redundant, this story(which appeared on /. a few years back) with attached letter by a business owner who used to be a patent attorney is just priceless. It shows that when you scrap just under the surface of these initial IP letters that would send the average person into a tailspin, this guy hits back. I presume just as Optronics did.

What happens to your hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of games software when EA accidentally lose your account details of even decide to end Steam? Dont say that this can never happen. Microsoft have already done it. http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/drm-plays-for-sure

Read up on it - the vast vast majority of all this expensive audiophile hardware is snakeoil. More than one study has shown even audiophiles can't tell the difference between good hardware and crap.

It wouldn't surprise me if Lexicon's stuff has always been marked up 500% from what it actually cost to make.

There are a ton. In particular, JVC's DLA-RS2 projector got rebadged by a ton of companies (Audioholics also exposed the Meridian MF10 as a rebadged JVC), all of whom insisted that they made "dramatic" improvements to the picture quality. The problem is - reference is reference, and black is black. The system can only get so black, and a $350 calibration can bring the JVC DLA-RS2 to near-perfection. Happens all over the industry. Lexicon actually has a history of doing this, but this time they got caught in a more blatant example - and pulled THX down with them in the process.

Did you use thousand dollar oxygen-free copper dielectrically balanced speaker wire, or did you use a bunch of coat hangers?

Personally, I think that MP3 is warmer and more human than these newfangled "lossless" formats, anyway.

Sigh. This again...

DenonLink is not ethernet. It's a proprietary protocol that Denon is probably not that eager to discuss without an exchange of monies and Non Disclosure Agreements. That said, it will work over shielded Cat-5. Denon will sell a replacement cable for 13 bucks.

The corollary to "Digital's digital" is "either it works or it doesn't." Plug in the wrong cable, and it just might not work,

Description of the limits of human vision in relation to resolution: http://audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision/understanding-1080p-resolution-in-displays.html

Actually HDTV sales are one of the few items that has held up well in the recession.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/hdtv-panels-prove-recession-proof-in-us

You're actually correct in that the human eye cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at a certain distance.

I read an article many moons ago when the format war was still in high gear on Audioholics (link) which was titled "1080p and the Acuity of Human Vision". It's an interesting article because it cuts through all the marketing and gets down to the science of HD and if it ACTUALLY matters.

A good summary line from the article would be:

"Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!"

Most "quality" differences people see between the formats (unless they're sitting in the first row of their home movie theater) come from richer colors and cranked up contrast and brightness on sales displays.

Wow, nobody has posted the wondrous story of Blue Jeans Cable?

Monster Cable sent this small cable co a threatening letter with a grab-bag of patents that they claim he violated. Little did they know the owner was a former lawyer himself. His reply to Monster is absolutely priceless.

Not exactly a DMCA counter-notice, but pretty funny nonetheless:

Blue Jeans Cable's response to Monster Cable (google pdf > html)

If that doesn't work then here's a reprinting:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back

However with Trademarks and Copyrights if you don't defend yourself against ALL the violations (even if you 'like' them), don't you forfeit the right to do so?

Well, if you go after obvious non-infringement, or otherwise go over-aggressive about it, you can be found to be abusive and lose the right to the trademark. Im surprised Monster (the overpriced audio wire company) still has their trademark after some of the tish they have pulled.... wtf does a boutique vintage clothing store have to do with audio cabling?

Somebody actually did a double blind study of Monster Cable versus coat hanger wire.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15412

We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. Volume levels were set at 75 Db at 1000K Hz. A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row! Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test, he took apart four coat hangers, reconnectd them and twisted them into a pair of speaker cables. Connections were soldered. He stashed them in a closet within the testing room so we were not privy to what he was up to. This made for a pair of 2 meter cables, the exact length of the other wires. The test was conducted. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent.

Not trying to justify this, but this not for ethernet, but a proprietary digital audio transmission from Denon sources to Denon receviers.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/press-releases/denon-digital-link-receives-approval-for-sacd-transmission/

tm

Playing classical music with long silences over a coat hanger, however, may provide audibly different results than real cabling.

Highly unlikely. A piece of wire (or short length of solid metal, which is just a very thick and rigid wire and better known by EEs as a "bus bar") is the most linear component there is. It doesn't introduce non-linear distortion the way an overdriven or underbiased amplifier does.

Poor quality cables introduce frequency-dependent or "group" delays, which interfere with stereo imaging and in extreme cases form an audible band-pass filter. Electronic and distorted pop music has high frequency content and transients that an orchestra simply can't match, so those types of music show up cable deficiencies much more readily. These deficiencies are most often caused by cable capacitance and inductance (which have a far greater influence than the skin effect), but they're still linear, so a bad cable might make the sound muffled but it isn't going to make Andres Segovia sound like Metallica. It's not that kind of distortion.

Silences (and dynamic range in general) are irrelevant; silence doesn't distort regardless of what it's played through because it is, by definition, no signal. Amplifiers add noise, true, but cables don't amplify; the noise and distortion component from a cable is purely thermal and shot noise* (which can induce significant non-linearities in signals where each electron counts, but for the purposes of a power amplifier that can be safely disregarded).

And FWIW, I think Monster cables are a complete rip-off. 240V, 10A stranded mains flex has far lower capacitance and inductance, but slightly higher resistance (which is swamped by the crossover anyway), and costs a hell of a lot less.

*I expect someone to mention microdiodes in conductors; to any such jackass, I'd point out that if microdiodes exist in cables (and they've never actually been measured, despite decades of research), they would also exist in the low level stages where the non-linearities would be proportionally greater and amplified along with the signal. The idea that a signal chain from microphone to speaker can have a totally clean gain of up to 140dB, yet audible distortion can be added by an unmesurable property of a component with no gain at the last stage is pure quackery, and that's being kind.

well if you use a large incedecent murcury bulb then yea.. it isn't going to happen.. but if you use some of the new laser projector tech . then it is more than possiable..

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/laser-projectors-coming-to-cell-phones-and-pdas

See http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/diy-speaker-cable-faceoff

Great site.. separates bullshit from fact.

Basically if you're cabable of working with it, use CAT5, otherwise there are a number of cheap solutions.

I learned from there that gold has a higher resistance than copper, so the only reason for gold plated connectors is that it sounds expensive.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/speaker-break-in-fact-or-fiction

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13377&page=12

I own two of Danny's designs and he's pretty well versed and well known in the speaker design industry.

Also, BR titles are available on HD-DVD in other countries and since most are region free it's all gravy - http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/blu-rays-dirty-little-secret

"Sony also indicated that additional changes may be on the way, not all of them good. Users may want to gobble up PS3 units now, for fear that Sony actually starts to make some electronics cutbacks to curb their current $1.7 billion (yes, with a 'B') loss currently on the books for PS3. Sony stated that it would not pull back on the Cell processor or BD (Blu-ray Disc) drive or networking ability - but nearly everything else is fair game for either enhancements (plan on premium costs) or removal/downsizing (think memory/cache and possibly secondary chipsets.)"

Source: http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/sony -adds-larger-drive-to-ps3.html

The Audioholics forum had a thread late last month about DVDs that wouldn't play properly. There are other problem titles mentioned as well: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.ph p?t=30819

Can you point to a properly conducted blind test that supports your premise, that viewers cannot distinguish between these?

I was just summarizing the article. You might want to direct your questions to the author of the article.

I don't have an HDTV yet, but I still plan on going for a 50" 1080p HDTV. I won't be happy unless I know my equipment is capable of displaying the full resolution of future source material. That is why I have a Wii, and not a 360. I knew the 360 would make me want to go out and drop cash on a HDTV just because I want to fully utilize the hardware.

Alot of what I have read in these threads are based on first and second generation Plasma and LCD technology maybe a refresher course in the technology as it stands in a more current state.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/d isplaytechnologiesguide.php

> finally, a voice of reason.

For more reasonable, sensible, measurable audiophile stuff:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciple s/index.php
and
http://www.ilikejam.dsl.pipex.com/audiophile.htm

They're sort of the mythbusters of audiophile.
B.

Now just tack on one of these matchbox-sized projectors and a fast PDA, and you're set.

Go look online, the scores are way off for the HQV tests on many of the dvd players they tested. For instance, AudioHolics has the Denon 3910 scoring 75, not 58. It also does not appear to line up with other test results like the Home Theater Secrets massive DVD Benchmarks which has become one of the "standards" from home theater audio/video.

But in all honestly, lets be a little fair in the prices. Yeah that $300 video card with pure video or AVIVO does well in the tests, but you can't just use that $300 video card alone. You need the rest of the $1500 computer along with it. I have been using a HTPC for almost 2 years now. They are extremely hard to beat in terms of video quality. Especially when you factor in FFDShow (on Windows side). Yes, I have pure video as well on that box, but I don't use it because FFDShow completely "crushes" pure video, more so then what the Harware.Info review is showing of pure video and AVIVO... But that computer cost me $2200 to build (yes, build not buy, since no one offered anything like it 2 years ago, HTPC's were still a DIY only and to a point still are if you want it done right).

I've been twiddling my thumbs waiting for these, from this article to come out in colour. I thought that was supposed to be RSN or ADN.

Dunno, I always thought the Aquos line sucked ass -- muddy colors and dim output. I bought a 42" Panasonic plasma, mounted it on the wall and have enjoyed the hell out of it (coupled with a nice receiver and appropriate speakers). I also just bought a 32" Polaroid LCD and there's no comparison -- the contrast ratios and color levels are nowhere near the same. Of course, the LCD cost about half what the plasma did (I wouldn't have bought it otherwise), but it's easily half the set.

<rant>What's the big deal about plasma "burn-in"? You turn on the set, watch whatever, then turn it off. What are you people doing with your sets that would burn them in? Is this an issue with video games? I know my plasma had some kind of new feature that was supposed to "practically eliminate" (for whatever that's worth) burn-in. I can understand how you might have an issue in a commercial environment if you just display a logo or play a looped recording for sixteen or eighteen hours a day, but what's the big deal on a home set? </rant>

You make an excellent point. However, everyone can read my post. You've clearly labled yours as an edit. No one reading your post will believe that those words, in that context, are my intended message.

Furthermore, you've made me out to look stupid in a comical way. It's a farce or spoof. Those very much are legal and there's nothing I can do about it. Ever see "Hardware Wars" or "Troops"? These are consitutionally protected free speech.

Finaly, though you actually copyed my text, the people who make these edits often use technology that requires no copying whatsoever. They're capable of doing on-the-fly-edits. How on earth can this be a violation of copyright law if there is no copying?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Yes, it destroys the vision of the artist, but, ya know what? If I own the copy, it's my right to destroy it in whatever way I see fit. Personally, I paint funny glasses and mustaches on pictures of our president every chance I get. Lets hope no one lobbies to make that illegal because it destroys the vision and intended message of his campaign manager.

TW