You'll find charts on the Ety's from their website. They also have some comments about accuracy... I interpreted it as a claim that you want to reproduce the typical response of a high-end audio system, rather than strictly neutral, because all the material that you'll listen to has been tuned to be played thru the former.
That may be your typical marketing lies to cover up the high-end rolloff, but it certainly has a ring of truth to it and it'd seem very possible to put out a lot more energy at the high freq's if they wanted to. Most of the issues with these micro plugs seems to be on the bass end, which looks and sounds very respectable.
...the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement...
Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.
This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
> Genetic engineering/splicing seems to rile some folks, but I think it offers some interesting insight into the potential for ecosystems by design.
Hmmm... yes, even designers intelligent enough to recognize the similarities between tobacco and tomato can create a combination. Interestingly, the graft has no genetic future: the seeds of this tomacco will grow plants that show the characteristics of the tomato that the graft came from (and the other parent plant), exactly per the expectations that have Mendel developed a while back, quite independently of tobacco.
So we see that the non-ID crowd has a "theory" of genetics that is useful outside the realm of the facts that the theory was developed with. That's science, and a big part of why we love it: it works to broaden our circles of understanding. ("Evolution" isn't directly a part of this story, any more than ID is.)
OTOH, the ID school only has only "this is so weird that only God could have created it" to fall back on. And yet, a probably very non-God-like being, this Simpsons watcher, pulled it off with only the type of tricks that closely resemble what could (conceivably) have happened due to a harsh windstorm.
So this cross doesn't seem to do much to advance the ID cause: ID is not only unnecessary to explain the particular fact, it is demonstrably wrong about the level of intelligent design, as well as the significance of the event.
Not to go too far into ad hominem reasoning, but I've always wondered about people who so enthusiastically push "theories" such as ID. "ID is the answer! What was the question?" Kind of a bootstrap theory: you would only consider ID as an 'answer' if you assumed it was necessary. ID is too messy, too self-referencing, too limiting to have sprung up in the real world without ID. =^>
Like so many things, there's a good reason, that probably has been pushed to the absurd. Makes you question the value of logic, but here goes.
If a speaker has bumps and dips in its resistance-vs-frequency chart (say, it presents a 20 ohm load at 50 Hz, vs 6 ohms at 1000 Hz), then speaker wire with even modest resistance would change the level of energy presented to the speaker at different frequencies. The designer probably designed the speaker on the assumption that there was very low resistance between the amp and the speaker. High resistance wires would change the sound.
The effect would matter the most when you were trying to carry sound across a room. Long wires have more resistance, ceteris paribus, so need extra attention to not messing with the sound.
I don't know how much $10 lamp wire differs from $200 speaker wire in resistance, nor how much variation in resistance a good speaker has, nor finally, how much anybody can actually hear the small randomness in loudness at different tones that would result. (But most speakers do have a mild "resonant frequency" where they resist energy being pumped into them.
A good example are the Etymotic earplugs that other posters have snickered at. They're sold in two versions, which are said to differ exactly ONLY in having a resistor between the source (e.g., iPod) and the part that makes sound. This significantly changes the frequency response of the two models. Adding the resistor cuts down all sounds, but especially the bass. I'm about to shell out the $300 again -- I accidentally left mine on an airplane -- because they very cleanly and effectively block airplane noise, in addition to making my iPod sound luxuriously wonderful, closer to live performances.
Other features of high-end speaker cable, such as the capacitance between the two wires, could conceivably suck up a bit of the high end. I'd be amazed if a listener could distinguish low- from hi-capacitance in a blind test.
Other reasons for the monster wires would be classy looks, ease of attachment, and suckerdom.
PS: "resistance" is a simplified way to tackle the more complex "impedance" of a device, but is more accurately the issue if I have guessed right.
Maybe the DarkSiders have it better. But although I can pair my BT headset with OSX, I don't see it in my list of Sound Input or Output Devices. Seems that being limited to using it with my cellphone is an OSX feature, not a headset feature, since the OSX Bluetooth panel recognizes its features.
I'd guess that OSHA (and therefore, McD's) pays a bit more heed to escaped microwaves than you do. In the home, you generally don't know about, nor get very exposed to, leakage from the nuke oven. In the workplace, you have 8 hours of potential exposure per day.
You might want to consider trading in or upgrading the door seals on your microwave if it leaks enough to disrupt your WiFi. At least, make sure you keep your distance from it during operation.
I have the quaint belief that when I purchase an object, I get, by 'common law' notions, rights to use it in ways generally accepted as "fair." My beef with these DMCA abominations is that the law is being applied to people/situations where the seller is springing new interpretations on us retroactively.
But why not allow contracts between sellers and consumers that specify limited use? It seems implicit that the DVDs I get thru Netflix are for me and/or my non-commercial friends to watch however I want, but only one at a time and only until the disk goes back into the mailbox. I would expect to pay much more for the right to make "archival" copies, and don't want that right if it costs anything at all.
How about a compromise that requires labelling of devices that the seller deems to be subject of DMCA. Devices NOT so stickered would not be subject.
So, your garage door opener might come with a bright orange sticker saying, "This device is covered by DMCA. Under this law, only a GrubbyCo-authorized firm may repair this device or sell you replacement parts or accessories."
And the CD might say, "This material is covered by DMCA. Under this law, you may only play it on a single device approved by GrubbyCo."
Somebody who gave it some more thought could maybe make a universal description that'd reflect the company's unilateral redefinition of "fair use rights," while allowing consumers to choose what they want. Perhaps I'd pay a premium to have a less-restricted "Aida" so I could transfer it to my iPod (does the music industry really believe that I will buy/lug around multiple media or quality versions of the same material???), or a version of TurboBills that I can install on multiple machines. More likely, I hope, consumers would avoid laserprinters that can't use 3rd-party toner cartridges, etc., enough that the market would drive the offensive uses of DMCA into irrelevance.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll find charts on the Ety's from their website. They also have some comments about accuracy... I interpreted it as a claim that you want to reproduce the typical response of a high-end audio system, rather than strictly neutral, because all the material that you'll listen to has been tuned to be played thru the former.
That may be your typical marketing lies to cover up the high-end rolloff, but it certainly has a ring of truth to it and it'd seem very possible to put out a lot more energy at the high freq's if they wanted to. Most of the issues with these micro plugs seems to be on the bass end, which looks and sounds very respectable.
...the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement...
Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.
This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
> Genetic engineering/splicing seems to rile some folks, but I think it offers some interesting insight into the potential for ecosystems by design.
Hmmm... yes, even designers intelligent enough to recognize the similarities between tobacco and tomato can create a combination. Interestingly, the graft has no genetic future: the seeds of this tomacco will grow plants that show the characteristics of the tomato that the graft came from (and the other parent plant), exactly per the expectations that have Mendel developed a while back, quite independently of tobacco.
So we see that the non-ID crowd has a "theory" of genetics that is useful outside the realm of the facts that the theory was developed with. That's science, and a big part of why we love it: it works to broaden our circles of understanding. ("Evolution" isn't directly a part of this story, any more than ID is.)
OTOH, the ID school only has only "this is so weird that only God could have created it" to fall back on. And yet, a probably very non-God-like being, this Simpsons watcher, pulled it off with only the type of tricks that closely resemble what could (conceivably) have happened due to a harsh windstorm.
So this cross doesn't seem to do much to advance the ID cause: ID is not only unnecessary to explain the particular fact, it is demonstrably wrong about the level of intelligent design, as well as the significance of the event.
Not to go too far into ad hominem reasoning, but I've always wondered about people who so enthusiastically push "theories" such as ID. "ID is the answer! What was the question?" Kind of a bootstrap theory: you would only consider ID as an 'answer' if you assumed it was necessary. ID is too messy, too self-referencing, too limiting to have sprung up in the real world without ID. =^>
Like so many things, there's a good reason, that probably has been pushed to the absurd. Makes you question the value of logic, but here goes.
If a speaker has bumps and dips in its resistance-vs-frequency chart (say, it presents a 20 ohm load at 50 Hz, vs 6 ohms at 1000 Hz), then speaker wire with even modest resistance would change the level of energy presented to the speaker at different frequencies. The designer probably designed the speaker on the assumption that there was very low resistance between the amp and the speaker. High resistance wires would change the sound.
The effect would matter the most when you were trying to carry sound across a room. Long wires have more resistance, ceteris paribus, so need extra attention to not messing with the sound.
I don't know how much $10 lamp wire differs from $200 speaker wire in resistance, nor how much variation in resistance a good speaker has, nor finally, how much anybody can actually hear the small randomness in loudness at different tones that would result. (But most speakers do have a mild "resonant frequency" where they resist energy being pumped into them.
A good example are the Etymotic earplugs that other posters have snickered at. They're sold in two versions, which are said to differ exactly ONLY in having a resistor between the source (e.g., iPod) and the part that makes sound. This significantly changes the frequency response of the two models. Adding the resistor cuts down all sounds, but especially the bass. I'm about to shell out the $300 again -- I accidentally left mine on an airplane -- because they very cleanly and effectively block airplane noise, in addition to making my iPod sound luxuriously wonderful, closer to live performances.
Other features of high-end speaker cable, such as the capacitance between the two wires, could conceivably suck up a bit of the high end. I'd be amazed if a listener could distinguish low- from hi-capacitance in a blind test.
Other reasons for the monster wires would be classy looks, ease of attachment, and suckerdom.
PS: "resistance" is a simplified way to tackle the more complex "impedance" of a device, but is more accurately the issue if I have guessed right.
Maybe the DarkSiders have it better. But although I can pair my BT headset with OSX, I don't see it in my list of Sound Input or Output Devices. Seems that being limited to using it with my cellphone is an OSX feature, not a headset feature, since the OSX Bluetooth panel recognizes its features.
I'd guess that OSHA (and therefore, McD's) pays a bit more heed to escaped microwaves than you do. In the home, you generally don't know about, nor get very exposed to, leakage from the nuke oven. In the workplace, you have 8 hours of potential exposure per day.
You might want to consider trading in or upgrading the door seals on your microwave if it leaks enough to disrupt your WiFi. At least, make sure you keep your distance from it during operation.
I have the quaint belief that when I purchase an object, I get, by 'common law' notions, rights to use it in ways generally accepted as "fair." My beef with these DMCA abominations is that the law is being applied to people/situations where the seller is springing new interpretations on us retroactively.
But why not allow contracts between sellers and consumers that specify limited use? It seems implicit that the DVDs I get thru Netflix are for me and/or my non-commercial friends to watch however I want, but only one at a time and only until the disk goes back into the mailbox. I would expect to pay much more for the right to make "archival" copies, and don't want that right if it costs anything at all.
How about a compromise that requires labelling of devices that the seller deems to be subject of DMCA. Devices NOT so stickered would not be subject.
So, your garage door opener might come with a bright orange sticker saying, "This device is covered by DMCA. Under this law, only a GrubbyCo-authorized firm may repair this device or sell you replacement parts or accessories."
And the CD might say, "This material is covered by DMCA. Under this law, you may only play it on a single device approved by GrubbyCo."
Somebody who gave it some more thought could maybe make a universal description that'd reflect the company's unilateral redefinition of "fair use rights," while allowing consumers to choose what they want. Perhaps I'd pay a premium to have a less-restricted "Aida" so I could transfer it to my iPod (does the music industry really believe that I will buy/lug around multiple media or quality versions of the same material???), or a version of TurboBills that I can install on multiple machines. More likely, I hope, consumers would avoid laserprinters that can't use 3rd-party toner cartridges, etc., enough that the market would drive the offensive uses of DMCA into irrelevance.