There ARE digital technologies better than CD, much better, and measurably so. Thus, if your goal is highest fidelity sound, then that is probalby what you should be getting. Goes double since most recordings these days are produced digitally, so you are getting "digital sound" like it or not.
Measurably? It depends on what you're measuring. Measure and compare the brainwaves of subjects indicating activity and relaxation states while listening to digital vs. analog vs. the real live event. As far as I'm concerned that's the only relevant measurement, because after all, listening to recorded music is about recreating the pleasure and experience of listening to the real thing.
Richard Steinburg, BMW's manager of electric vehicle operations, assures everyone that the manufacturer is 'learning quite a bit as we go.' Drivers are paying $850/month for the privilege of helping BMW learn how to build EVs, while also helping BMW meet alternative fuel mandates so that other models can continue to be sold in select markets."
Paying an exorbitant amount so BMW can learn how to do what they should have done in the first place to get it right? What a novel concept. Give me a fscking break. It's no wonder BMW has lost market share to the competition, and their arrogance in this case proves it's richly deserved.
Re: Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl
I sell ultra high performance two channel home audio systems, including turntables. I also sell the highest performance digital, but at the end of the day vinyl is the better format -- at least that's what my clients say. Compared to the best digital sources available, vinyl still outperforms digital: it simply sounds more real. Yes, cleaning records can be a chore. Yes, you get some surface clicks and pops. But when it comes down to what sounds more like the real thing to most people without prejudices, vinyl wins. The contest is over in seconds. If you think records are just a retro thing, think again. They might be a niche market, but that market is going strong and growing...market statistics prove it.
Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC is more akin to yesterday's 8-track tapes or prerecorded cassettes.
The key here is that thermodynamically the temperature of the film can vary as quickly as audio frequencies. Simply put, heating air expands and cooling air contracts. Actually this is the principle that ionic speakers, flame speakers, etc. work on. It's why an acetylene torch makes such a loud pop when it is lit and extinguished. Carbon nanotubes conduct heat fast enough to heat up and cool down quickly enough to follow audio frequencies. The air in contact with the film expands and contracts as it is heated by current through the film. The carbon can accommodate relatively high temperatures so that it won't deteriorate when heated. Heat waves in the desert cause distortion of distant objects due refraction variations due to the air varying in its mass density as a result of temperature fluctuations. Another interesting characteristic is that it emits sound from both sides of the film, where the phase is the same (a bipole). This is unlike a moving membrane that creates compression on one side and rarefaction on the other (a dipole).
Maybe these people trying to raise money to start a company to develop the concept, especially in the carbon nanotube industry, since there are other materials that exhibit the same properties. Some calculations would be necessary, but to obtain usable sound levels the temperature variations have to be quite high. Of course, there are limits on this, so it's not clear whether it is a practical concept. On the other hand, there are quite a few bizarre approaches to making sound. For example, Kynar plastic film has a piezoelectric effect that can be used to produce sound simply by applying a voltage across the film. That sounds great, but the effect is much too weak to be practical. It would be surprising if the thermoacoustic device will produce a flat frequency response at high levels in practical devices.
I wouldn't bet on it. But it should be better than ordinary MP3s, in theory. OTOH do you really expect people won't just keep using the format that takes up the least space?
Slashdot Mirror
"Fuck PJ."
Umm, I don't think she wants you, but it's probably okay to keep her in your maturbatory Rolodex if you want.
Trouble spelling, or did you type that with one hand?
Measurably? It depends on what you're measuring. Measure and compare the brainwaves of subjects indicating activity and relaxation states while listening to digital vs. analog vs. the real live event. As far as I'm concerned that's the only relevant measurement, because after all, listening to recorded music is about recreating the pleasure and experience of listening to the real thing.
Paying an exorbitant amount so BMW can learn how to do what they should have done in the first place to get it right? What a novel concept. Give me a fscking break. It's no wonder BMW has lost market share to the competition, and their arrogance in this case proves it's richly deserved.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks. Microsoft must have a lot of bricks, because Windows has been broken forever.
But it's only in the goatse edition.
"All your data are belong to us"
against circumcision this is it.
Microsoft's executive offices just placed an order for replacement office furniture.
Re: Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC will be tomorrow's vinyl I sell ultra high performance two channel home audio systems, including turntables. I also sell the highest performance digital, but at the end of the day vinyl is the better format -- at least that's what my clients say. Compared to the best digital sources available, vinyl still outperforms digital: it simply sounds more real. Yes, cleaning records can be a chore. Yes, you get some surface clicks and pops. But when it comes down to what sounds more like the real thing to most people without prejudices, vinyl wins. The contest is over in seconds. If you think records are just a retro thing, think again. They might be a niche market, but that market is going strong and growing...market statistics prove it. Today's low-bitrate MP3/AAC is more akin to yesterday's 8-track tapes or prerecorded cassettes.
his brother Larry and his other brother Darl?
Hold the phone, they're pulling the plug.
Ballmer, throwing chair: "I'll Binging bury Google!"
Isn't Drew Carey from Ohio, too? Case closed!
the mark of the beast? If I were the inventor I'd want to wash my hands of it.
Maybe these people trying to raise money to start a company to develop the concept, especially in the carbon nanotube industry, since there are other materials that exhibit the same properties. Some calculations would be necessary, but to obtain usable sound levels the temperature variations have to be quite high. Of course, there are limits on this, so it's not clear whether it is a practical concept. On the other hand, there are quite a few bizarre approaches to making sound. For example, Kynar plastic film has a piezoelectric effect that can be used to produce sound simply by applying a voltage across the film. That sounds great, but the effect is much too weak to be practical. It would be surprising if the thermoacoustic device will produce a flat frequency response at high levels in practical devices.
Pull my finger. You're no Larry Flynt.
I wouldn't bet on it. But it should be better than ordinary MP3s, in theory. OTOH do you really expect people won't just keep using the format that takes up the least space?