Slashdot Mirror


TCP/IP Speakers

Fallen Kell writes "From the anouncement, "Polk Audio LCi-IP Ultra High Performance In-Wall/ In-Ceiling Loudspeakers are the world's first active Internet Protocol-ready Loudspeakers. They were created for IP networked systems such as the ground-breaking NetStreams DigiLinx system but also provide vast convenience and performance benefits when used in analog systems. Integrated digital amplifiers eliminate remote amplifiers connected via hundreds of feet of lossy, performance-robbing speaker wires." I had the great pleasure of having a demo on September 16th, 2005 of these speakers. The ability of connect to a wired network for sending the audio stream is simply amazing and wonderful innovation in the audio world."

60 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Audiophile pish by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 5, Funny

    These speakers sound better when you use gold CAT5 cable.

    1. Re:Audiophile pish by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget the little arrows on 'em to tell the bits which way to go.

      I'll also be offering my own propriatary technology which filters the datastream to make sure the 1s are all inline with the direction of travel. 1s going through crosswise is the leading cause of signal degradation.

      Rigourous highly subjective tests (remember, in Audio World objectivity is a Bad Thing) in my own lab allow me to say that I can say the improvement in all sorts of silly word parameters is astounding. Oh, and "Quantum Flux!"

      You can't leave out Quantum Flux Technology if you wish to be taken at all seriously. This High Tech Deep Juju(tm) after all.

      I'm working on a series of Internet Ready acoustic treatments for your listening room too, stay tuned to this channel. Oh sure, you thought Digital Ready should cover it. Silly boy. How would I be able to afford a villa in the Cayman Islands if that were the case?

      KFG

    2. Re:Audiophile pish by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      The other thing to consider is that you'll need a relatively large tower case and a beefy PS in your system in order to accommodate the vacuum tube-based NICs. Those things are big and hot, and most use two or three PCI slots.

    3. Re:Audiophile pish by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck your Quantum Flux Technology, I've got Quatum Optical loudspeakers with a 2 TB dynamic range and frequency response up to 6,8 GHz.

    4. Re:Audiophile pish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can achieve the Dynaco sound effectively and cheaply by stuffing wool socks in your ears. Try Mesa Barons next time, you piker.

    5. Re:Audiophile pish by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always wondered what a ping sounds like.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    6. Re:Audiophile pish by scotch · · Score: 2, Funny

      onomatopoeia much? Or maybe that's the joke, and I'm the dumbass.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    7. Re:Audiophile pish by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On some cables, the arrows do (allegedly) serve a purpose. If a pre-amp and a subwoofer are both grounded, a distinctive, quite audible 60 Hz hum can be heard. Supposedly, the arrow laden cable is only grounded at one end (the pre-out), breaking the ground loop

    8. Re:Audiophile pish by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Funny

      IIRC Gibbs Phenonemon is the latest evil to be recognized by vinylphiles.

      The vinylphiles may have point there. I wouldn't any Gibbs on my equipment either. Be it Andy, Barry, Maurice, or Robin, I don't wan't it going through my speakers. 100% Pure Evil.

  2. Caveats by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I couldn't load TFA from my PDA, so take with that knowledge:

    Remote digital speakers are a great solution for lowfi and mid i systems, but true audiophiles will not accept them.

    Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing, additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution, increase the noise floor and change the sound.

    Also, IP isn't my favored priority stream transport. I'd recommend a separate network for sound and I'd be weary of any delays incorporated in the IP transport. Think ping times! Also, encoding with the ADC does not include encapsulation into an IP packet, which can lead to worse lip-sync problems. Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame). Of course, if its digital all-the-way, things can look brighter.

    But a start is a start. Here's to hoping it continues to improve. Polk has a decent hifi range and a great R&D team. If anyone can find a better solution, its them.

    1. Re:Caveats by jcr · · Score: 5, Funny

      true audiophiles will not accept them.

      Do you mean true audiophiles, or the clowns who buy power cables for a grand?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Caveats by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My brother owns a recording studio, and mastering suites vary greatly in quality. Nowadays, mastering isn't about source transparency but about sounding good across every playback system. Mastering suites are optimized to give an accurate rendition but with walkman and car stereo and home audio output considered.

      I have had a few "audiophile" systems in my life, but the lack of quality source material mastered for neutrality made it a wasted venture.

    3. Re:Caveats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It allready exists people. Nothing new.
      It's called PeakAudio (or Cobranet)

      Upto 96KHZ audio streaming over ethernet. Integrated handling of delays caused by the network so every speaker device is able to produce the output at the same time, thus preventing echo-ing problems.

      It's mainly used in very big spaces, like stadiums or trade-show halls.

    4. Re:Caveats by Reverberant · · Score: 3, Informative
      Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing, additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution, increase the noise floor and change the sound.

      That may be the perception, but in many cases (but not all), it's wrong. Integrated amps allow the manufacturer to to cutomize the amp for the specific driver which can greatly improve the performance of the overall speaker. for example:

      • the amp in the Sunfire sub (which is rated for 2kW, but doesn't actually deliver that kind of power to the speaker because of the back EMF properties of the speaker magnet - any other amp would be eaten alive), and
      • the BeoLab 5 integrated amp (I've written about the BeoLab 5 before).
      • Heck, even if you hate Bose speakers, try listening to externally-amplified Acoustimass-series speakers, and compare them to the internally-amp'd models - the self-amplified models sound much better.
    5. Re:Caveats by starman97 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netstreams is not just sending the music data down the wire like a Telnet session,
      they're doing a lot of time management and synchronization as well.
      http://www.netstreams.com/Documents/StreamNet%20Te chnology.pdf
      Note that this is room-room delay, not stereo left-right jitter,
      1ms there would be intolerable. Anything more than 50uS is probably discernable
      by a trained listener with an audio test program. The average listener
      might be able to hear 500uS phase shift L-R, but I think it'd only
      show up in headphone listening.
      After all, the speed of sound is 1100ft/S in air, that means a 1ms delay is
      equivalent to 1 ft difference in speaker placement. 100uS is about 1-3/8"
      As long as it isnt jittering around by +/-50uS on a frame-frame basis I doubt
      even an audiophile could tell in a double-blind test.

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
    6. Re:Caveats by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame).

      To put it another way. 20ms is about the same as moving a speaker about 20 feet. That should be pretty clear to anybody how significant that is.

    7. Re:Caveats by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fairly important to acknowledge that there are actual audiophiles out there who do know what they're talking about.

      The fact that there are charlatans, too, shouldn't come as a surprise. I've hated 'stereo store salesmen' since back in my youth when those smug f*cks always had an attitude to cop when I came in the store needing audio connectors.

      To write off the whole 'audiophile' community is to buy into the shit that certain sales-types want us to believe. In fact there IS such a thing as High Fidelity, and it isn't just sales numbers and/or a table printed in the manual that comes with junk components from Japan.

      --
      resigned
    8. Re:Caveats by JesseL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But isn't the amp used with an electric guitar essentially part of the instument and fundamentally different from an amplifier used for playing back pre-recorded audio?

      The guitarist is choosing the sound he wants to produce and so may prefer a certain kind of distortion.

      The person listening to a recording will want to minimize the distortion introduced by his own equipment and hear the music with the best fidelity to the original he can acheive?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    9. Re:Caveats by legirons · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Do you mean true audiophiles, or the clowns who buy power cables for a grand?"

      When you copy MP3 files across a network, they often sound better if you replace the capacitors in your NIC with audio-quality ones.

    10. Re:Caveats by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is a quantifiable phenonenom. When solid state devices are overdriven , the tops and bottoms of the waveforms are sharply clipped off. The result resembles square waves. When tube devices are overdriven, the tops and bottoms of the waveforms take on a rounded "squashed" appearance. Both of these effects can easily be seen on o-scopes and heard by not particularly discerning ears. The distortion produced by overdriven tube equipments sounds more pleasant and accounts for the "warmth".

      If we are talking about correctly designed playback equipment being operated properly, there is no audio quality reason to prefer one over the other. Clipping only occurs when an amplifier cannot amplify a signal further. This is not the regime you want your home stereo equipment to be operating in. Tube playback equipment that is not particularly linear (the amplification curve of indifferently designed tube equipment is gently "S" shaped) can sound "warm" even when not overdriven. I'd rather leave how the audio should sound to the artist and trust my equipment to accurately reproduce the artist's intention. Other than basic adjustments like volume or compensating for speakers that don't have a very good low or high end, I don't want my stereo coloring the sound for me.

      If we are talking about playing music rather than mere playback, then tube amps have considerably more merit to them. A guitar player may intentionally choose to overdrive his amp or preamp as a way of altering timbre. Tube guitar amps are even set up to allow control over when and how this overdrive occurs. Typically, this will done in a preamp rather than the final amps as any device in the overdrive state is running very hot and using more power. For that matter, even solid state guitar amps can be intentionally overdriven although the idea is to intentionally introduce harshness rather than warmth.

    11. Re:Caveats by Mateito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Audiophile appreciates how music sounds on a high-watt system that's driven purely in the linear response region, has inperceptable distortion, crosstalk and noise, has a frequency reponse from 15Hz-22kHz that need not be flat, but must be pleasing to his ear.

      The Audiophile understands that a great system starts with the speakers and works back to the source.

      The Audiophile understands that spending time moving his speakers and furniture around the room will give you the best bang-for-buck improvement in sound.

      The Audiophile understands that the difference between a CD player worth $200 and one worth $2000 is not as important as the difference between a set of speakers worth $200 and that worth $2000 - doubly so if you are keeping it digital until the tuner.

      The Audiophile knows that the person who spend $1000 on each speaker cable is a wanker, while he calculates the per meter-resistance of his quality OFC cables and ensures that the paths to the drivers are as close as possible.

      The Audiophile understands that a sub-woofer should not felt not heard. If its not SUBsonic, its just a woofer.

      The Audiophile looks at the BOSE Lifestyle system with the contempt it deserves.

      The Audiophile doesn't claim that the response of vinyl records is superior, but can appreciate the imperfections of the recording media as an important part of the whole listening experience.

      The Audiophile doesn't store his CDs in the freezer, nor drawn on them with green texta.

    12. Re:Caveats by iowannaski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll agree that you are a pathetic piece of shit who can't even justify hos own existance.

      The blatant small-moon-sized hole in your argument is that you assume that $20,000 speakers and $1000ccables are necesssary for "fatigue free" listening and other such mumbo jumbo.

      I cannot impress this point strongly enough: You sir, are scum, and you should kill yourself immedietly to make the world a better place.

      --
      i forget
    13. Re:Caveats by jcr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I cannot impress this point strongly enough: You sir, are scum, and you should kill yourself immedietly to make the world a better place.

      Oh, come on! The guy offers a service to people who give him their money willingly. You can't be a golden-ear wanker without people to take your money and stroke your ego. It may not be a job that you or I would be willing to do, but that doesn't mean that nobody should do it.

      Now, if you want to argue that his customers should be strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the good of the species, I'll raise no objection.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Caveats by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      When did I say that they have a lot of junk components? And WTF is your problem? "Why single out that one" - I dunno, maybe because it would take forever to list every single "junk" component in existance? Maybe becuase the guy was specifically talking about Sony, which is can also be referred to as a "Japanese junk component maker" because they make junk components and are probably somewhat proud of their location in Japan? In fact, I'll bet they'd be slightly offended if the were *not* associated with Japan. How about you list a specific popular piece of junk component manufacturer in Germany, one from Taiwan, and one from China. Kinda hard to think of one off the top of your head? I wonder if that's because there aren't any that are popular...

      Seriously, fella, you're entirely too touchy to leave the house - what are you doing on the Internet? Are you one of those assholes whose entire reason for being is to look for ways take offense in everything and then moan about it?

  3. Speaker Hacking by wenck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just wait until these things become common, and their owners connect them to a wifi network ...

    1. Re:Speaker Hacking by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm. Those bloody students downstairs playing their loud music at all hours... on YOUR stereo.

    2. Re:Speaker Hacking by seymansey · · Score: 2, Funny

      It won't be long until we have the first speaker virus, which starts shouting "GOATSE LOVERS!" rather loudly in an infinite loop.

  4. Apple Airport Express by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although not quite the same thing, I use an Apple Airport Express to stream music from my computer to my stereo system. It works pretty well and the sound quality is great. I'm not a hi-fi freak or anything, so I'm sure these speakers would be a lot better quality. However, for me the $120 for the Airport Express (which can also be used as a router, wireless access point, and USB print server) is a pretty good deal.

    1. Re:Apple Airport Express by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Assuming you have a decent amp, the airport is high quality if you use the optical connectors. The DAC in the airport won't be great, but according to reviews it's not garbage either, considering its cost. Stick to optical connectors and let the amplifier do the work if you can afford it.

      One really annoying thing with itunes is its inability to stream more than one song. There's no reason why it can't control multiple airports, each receiving different music. E.g. my wife likes her music in the kitchen, I like mine in the office. Having our audio library on a linux server, controlled by itunes should let us set up out our playlists from a single machine. Neither CPU or networking bandwidths are an issue, just Apple's single user centric view of the universe.

    2. Re:Apple Airport Express by blah509 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you could a squeezebox (http://www.slimdevices.com/index.html) and keep the HiFi g

  5. DRM by fiver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An interesting development and one that brings us closer to the time when even your speakers can check if you have a license for content....

  6. IP will give these no advantage at all. by fishnuts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They'll be heavier than non-powered speakers because they'll need to contain an integrated power supply, an amplifier, and a microcontroller to do the interfacing. It's completely useless to bring up the "lossy speaker cable" argument, because if you were going to spend the extra money and waste an extra power cable for powered speakers, you might as well just use standard analog speakers with XLR cables (which have been VERY well established as nearly noiseless and lossless for point to point audio distribution). You can reliably have a couple double-shielded XLR cables ran from your pre-amp to your self-powered speakers for less than having speakers that speak IP.

    having multiple IP speakers on a network in the same room may also introduce phase offsets, since there's ALWAYS an inherent delay between receiving the network packets, decoding them, and sending the data off to DACs before the signal gets to the amplifier. Even a 2ms difference difference in delay/phase between two speakers in the same room is noticeable, and WILL screw up accurate stereo imaging. 2ms is not uncommon as a delay on an ethernet network.

    Of course, mixing analog and IP speakers in the same room is right out.

    Want the best audio quality, distance, noise-resistance for your speakers? fiber optic digital audio paths. end of story.

    1. Re:IP will give these no advantage at all. by carlislematthew · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're right that XLR and existing technologies would be better for *highly* accurate stereo imaging. However, this is an in-ceiling speaker designed for rich geeks and their in-home audio systems. Stereo imaging does not work in these environments and they are often wired in mono. Imagine listening to The Beatles and their insane stereo imaging in your kitchen! Drums near the stove, and the guitar over by the fridge - doesn't work.

      Mono is also how 99.9% of retail/hospitality locations are wired, even the high end ones where they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the installations.

      Also, forget about audiophiles and whether they would like these speakers. Audiophiles will never install in-ceiling speakers, and if they do it's purely for "background music" purposes around the house.

      I believe that this product is for the rich geek that wants to be able to utilize his already-CAT5-wired home and be able to show off to their other rich geek friends.

    2. Re:IP will give these no advantage at all. by pboulang · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clearly a maximum of 16.8 watts isn't enough to power speakers that have a 200 watt power supply. Why would you make that suggestion, especially with that arrogant attitude?

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    3. Re:IP will give these no advantage at all. by Technician · · Score: 2, Insightful

      fiber optic digital audio paths. end of story

      So, just what difference does fiber have over digital on coax or UTP or shielded twisted pair? Digital is digital with all else being equal, fiber doesn't gain much for short runs except some common mode noise reduction. An opto isolator can do the same without the handeling, cost and interface problems of fiber.

      It is much cheaper to run the fiber signal over copper on short runs.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  7. Latency? by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Umm.... shouldn't audio be down at the Ethernet level?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Latency? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Ethernet-level would have better latency than an IP stack, sure, but ties to back a platform-dependent transmission medium---you may as well use a speaker wire. And you have to write your own underlying network layer. If each speaker is running the same stack, it's going to have pretty much the same latency anyway---the worst problems arise combining digital and analog speakers.

      The advantage of TCP/UDP/Music-Transport-Protocol is that the medium suddenly becomes less relevant. Take wireless, for example. Imagine being able to cart your Big Speakers outside for a patio party without running a single audio wire. Or just to install speakers on the other side of your house (or in your shed) without having to grovel through the attic or crawlspace.

      Imagine how useful this could be for concerts: the sound board now has one wire running to it---the power line. Likewise with your front, middle and back stacks, and your monitors.

      Another plus is that we have a nice bidirectional protocol, as well as a chance for side-channel data: speakers can report their health back to the control panel, or to other speakers in the same stack. And since each speaker is doing its own DSP anyway, getting the equalization right for a given speaker is a matter of sending it a message.

      You know what? Forget the speaker---sell compact, portable, one-speaker wireless-enabled amplifiers and let people convert their existing speakers into packet-switched audio devices.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
  8. WiFi by HappyClown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shame they didn't go one step further and make them wireless. It would be quite nice to move speakers between rooms on occasion without having to fight with the speaker cable (or coax in this case).

    1. Re:WiFi by JediTrainer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shame they didn't go one step further and make them wireless.

      I heard of this great new technology, something about Frequency Modulation or whatever. Apparently some genius figured out how to transmit sound *wirelessly* (no shit!) for miles, even without line of sight!

      I'm sure we'll read about that in Slashdot sooner or later. If you don't catch the first article, you'll be sure to see the dupe.

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
  9. End point Digital by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The dream of the RIAA/MPAA.. So they can restrict what you can hear.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Nothing special by commanderfoxtrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I built a networked DAC a few years ago at university. Not too hard- the complex bit is making the timing and sync accurate, with the limitations of tiny chip controllers and rather unaccurate ethernet chip documentation!

    Due to TCP/IP delays e.g. switching, you need some sort of buffering, which ends up meaning expensive memory on small chips. Once you have buffering e.g. 0.2 seconds, you should be fine. I ended up using a couple of little Burr-Brown PCM54 DACs, but the system was designed to feed digital into a decent professional DAC.

    Disneyland Japan has had audio over ethernet for years as well; the setup there is huge, with hundreds of speakers over a large area.

    --
    http://blog.grcm.net/
  11. Re:what the??? by HappyClown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's no difference in terms of physical convinience, but potentially a big difference in terms of quality since the less distance an analogue signal needs to travel the better. Plus, high quality analogue speaker cable costs a *lot* more than cat5.

  12. what about h4x0rz? by catdevnull · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....when you're 0wn3d: all your bass are belong to us!

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  13. Re:"amazing and wonderful" Slashvertisement by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As subject.

    If you want to mod this down, as the parent, feel free. I'll just post it again. But while I'm at it, spot the typo: "From the anouncement". So a slashvertisement, and an obvious spelling mistake. Just wait for the dupe and we'll have the archetypical Slashdot article.

  14. Re:Caveats-accessories. by ettlz · · Score: 4, Funny
    They also had integrated filters as well. A fact that for the sake of a cheap joke, gets left off.

    I better tell the experimentalists in the lab below using plain old kettle leads for their instruments that they're doing it all wrong, because some dude on Slashdot reckons there are people out there who can hear mains noise in the playback of their Jethro Tull LPs.

    You bought those cables, didn't you?

  15. Re:what the??? by rcw-home · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think the difference is that many homes and businesses come pre-installed with cat5 cable to every room (or at least have already wired it up), so in those cases you WOULDN'T have to run cable.

    In those situations I would rather put an analog line-level balanced signal directly over the cat5, using whatever baluns and amplifiers I needed to accomplish that. It'd likely be cheaper, I wouldn't have to worry about latency or jitter, and as long as your amp's balanced inputs had common-mode rejection (pretty much all of them do) the twists in the cat5 would prevent picking up interference over long runs.

  16. Will it trickle down to the low end? by ahg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have three computers in my office, three different OS's etc. If I could have one pair of speakers that I can plug into my switch and have all systems share would be really nice. (Assuming they opened the spec so someone would write linux drives for them)

    Right now, the only solution I've seen, has been to buy a mixer, but that would be more cables to string around. so I use three sets of $20 speakers...

    --

    --Aaron Greenberg

  17. Should have a scary mod tag. by jeffbruce · · Score: 3, Funny

    For comments like this there should be a scary modifier.

  18. Next innovation by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wireless audio.

    No, wait, that's not new.

  19. Re:what the??? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think he's referring to 'audiophile grade' speaker cable, which as we know is of specified purity, and the metallurgical components of which are tracable all the way back to the name and pedigree of the burro who hauled the copper ore out of the mine in Chile.

    But now I'm being silly.

    --
    resigned
  20. TCP/IP speakers... by cciRRus · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... "sounds" like VoIP if you ask me. ;-)

    --
    w00t
  21. You will need this first... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny
    iptables -A OUTPUT -i eth0 --artist brittney.spears -j DENY
    1. Re:You will need this first... by caluml · · Score: 3, Funny

      iptables v1.2.11: Can't use -i with OUTPUT

  22. This sounds like a familiar concept... by XdevXnull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    *cough* Asterisk *cough*

    --
    "I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
  23. Re:Bullhonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "You show me someone who claims to be able to hear a 1/50th of a second synchronization gap, and I'll show you someone who is making stuff up to impress people with his 1337 4ud10phy13 5k177z."

    Then you are an idiot.

    As a musician, I can tell the difference in an audio interfact that is 40ms latent vs 20ms. Its *VERY* easy to tell...and I'm not even that great of player.

    I know others that play and 20ms is way too high...I have to routinely tweak a friends machine to get it down to around 13ms so as to sound at a time that is relative to the time he hit the keys (around this time, you get about the same reaction as you would playing piano -- from the time you touch the key til the time the hammers hit the strings).

    20ms CAN be discomforting to anyone playing music. Playing video games? I'm not so sure its worth anything because I've never played a game with a decent aural stage that its usable...then again I don't play much in the way of games these days.

    All in all, this example isn't even anything that would be consider an audiophile application (musicians use notoriously crappy monitors and otherwise because if you can get your stuff to sound good on that media, it will sound GREAT on the good stuff).

    clif

  24. In other words . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm. Those bloody students downstairs playing their loud music at all hours... on YOUR stereo.

    All your bass are belong to us

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

  25. Re:Bullhonkey by dada21 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can easily detect a 20ms delay.

    http://www.calrec.com/product/lipstick.htm

    With the onset of high quality television transmission systems, even the small difference of 20-40ms of video/audio delay can cause programme impairment for the viewing audience.

    So can most people. Some are more sensitive than others. I can also detect video refresh rate differences and frame rate differences quite easily.

    2ms latency over a network IS minimal, but add digital encoding, ADC/DAC delays, and other delays inherent in this type of delivery and you'll see they can add up quick.

    Heck, same link above:

    However, multi-link MPEG transmission can also result in noticeable delay and loss of lip-sync.

    1 frame (33ms) is HUGE especially when watching people talk. I've been to movies where I had to change seats from the delay, and I'm not OCD.

  26. Re:Bullhonkey by clifyt · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, I work with professionals that can tell the difference.

    A fool would make blanket statements with no proof, nor experience to back it up.

  27. On the internet... by hachete · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...no one can hear you scream. Hang on.

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  28. The perfect speakers by egarland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution

    Who said anything about additional conversions. You can pull music directly off of CD in digital format and send it that way to speakers. One DAC, in the speaker, directly attached to the amp which is tuned exactly to the speakers and directly attached with no noise or tranmission loss. This setup by its very nature is the ultimate in audio quality. Sure analog heads who think that vinal sounds better than CD won't like it but they're all insane anyway. The loss and noise between amp and speakers is why people waste so much money on monster cables. This eliminates that completely.

    I've long talked about the ethernet speaker with my friends as something I thought would eventually be huge. Now what we need is an interoperable ethernet speaker protocol, and a software sound card driver that will allow me to use them as my computer speakers directly.

    Funny asside.. how long do you think it will be before monster starts selling Monster Ethernet cables and people start swearing they can hear the difference.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination