Wow! Amazing... I didn't know the copying was that bad. Both the iPhone AND the newer Samsung product look a LOT like the older Samsung product and seem like a very logical evolution from it. The iPhone is almost an exact copy of the older Samsung with only a chrome rim and some colour added to the icons.
While it is true that the actual data throughput of 802.11b is less than 11mbps it can be faster than 6mbps. There are certainly factors that have a negative impact on throughput but under controlled circumstances I've measured actual data throughput up to 7.2mbps on 802.11b. If you actually have a solid 11mbps connection (no interference, not too far from AP) this is really achievable. Of course if there are signal quality issues this number will drop. 802.11b could be but does not have to be the bottleneck in this case. If it's just a few computers at relatively close distances to the AP it could be just fine.
My point was that both CD to tape and cd to lossy digital lose a considerable amount of audio quality so there's no real difference there.
There's already a considerable loss even without considering DRM. Therefore incurring a loss in exchange for added convenience still IS very widely accepted. Anyone downloading 128kbps or 192kbps lossy audio is getting a lower quality copy just like copying to tape. Different artefacts than tape but lower quality and easily distinguishable from the original nonetheless.
I personally find that silly because technically it isn't necessary anymore to accept that loss.
People do still feel the same. Going from CD to a lossy format does have a significant loss of quality. The side effects might be different, (once you learn to recognise them) they're quite apparent, especially at low bitrates often offered for download.
I did dislike the loss of quality but the convenience of tapes at the time seemed worth it. Nowadays with cheap portable storage available it's actually quite amazing to me how much loss of quality the general public seems to easily accept when it's technically not at all necessary any more.
Users will then be able to play the downloaded.mpq file in full-fidelity sound quality for a pre-defined number of times
What do they consider to be 'full-fidelity' sound quality? If this is some lossless compression scheme, great. It might even be worth putting up with (some limited) DRM restrictions. If it's lossy compression comparable to MP3 at bitrates of 192kbps or lower it just doesn't isn't worth paying anything for regardless if it's DRMed or not.
Even with $4 speakers (or the POS speakers in my laptop) it is *easy* to hear that 128kbps MP3 is not even close to CD quality. At 192 it can sometimes become a little more difficult depending on the source material (and on some material it still plain sucks) but 128 just doesn't even come close. IME WMA sounds just as bad. In a different way but just as bad. Ogg Vorbis also doesn't sound exactly like the original but to my ears the side effects are far less objectionable and at Q6 or better sounds quite okay for portable use.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! Amazing... I didn't know the copying was that bad.
Both the iPhone AND the newer Samsung product look a LOT like the older Samsung product and seem like a very logical evolution from it.
The iPhone is almost an exact copy of the older Samsung with only a chrome rim and some colour added to the icons.
While it is true that the actual data throughput of 802.11b is less than 11mbps it can be faster than 6mbps.
There are certainly factors that have a negative impact on throughput but under controlled circumstances I've measured actual data throughput up to 7.2mbps on 802.11b. If you actually have a solid 11mbps connection (no interference, not too far from AP) this is really achievable. Of course if there are signal quality issues this number will drop.
802.11b could be but does not have to be the bottleneck in this case.
If it's just a few computers at relatively close distances to the AP it could be just fine.
While really good recording equipment is still quite expensive it is true that with resonably prices kit nowadays good results are certainly possible.
The biggest asset of a really good recording studio however is not the expensive equipment.
It is one or more recording rooms with great acoustics.
A recording made in a garage will always sound like it's in a garage even with the best microphones, preamps and A/D conversion possible.
(re-)Building a room for great acoustics is something that does not fit into your $5000 budget.
TTB.
Ehm... no.... that should be "First College to Deploy DRAFT 802.11n Network"
. 11_Timelines.htm
802.11n hasn't been ratified yet, there's no such thing as an 802.11n network at the moment.
Currently expected in september 2008
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802
It will be a while before someone rolls out the first 802.11n network.
TTB
Ehrmm.. I did catch that. I have read the thread.
My point was that both CD to tape and cd to lossy digital lose a considerable amount of audio quality so there's no real difference there.
There's already a considerable loss even without considering DRM.
Therefore incurring a loss in exchange for added convenience still IS very widely accepted.
Anyone downloading 128kbps or 192kbps lossy audio is getting a lower quality copy just like copying to tape.
Different artefacts than tape but lower quality and easily distinguishable from the original nonetheless.
I personally find that silly because technically it isn't necessary anymore to accept that loss.
People do still feel the same.
Going from CD to a lossy format does have a significant loss of quality.
The side effects might be different, (once you learn to recognise them) they're quite apparent, especially at low bitrates often offered for download.
I did dislike the loss of quality but the convenience of tapes at the time seemed worth it.
Nowadays with cheap portable storage available it's actually quite amazing to me how much loss of quality the general public seems to easily accept when it's technically not at all necessary any more.
A few alternative suggestions:
TCP (Torrent Cache Protocol)
SMB (Storage Method for Bittorrent)
ATM (Advanced Torrent Method)
BOOTP (Bittorrent Over Other Temporarystorage Protocol)
BGP (Bittorrent Gateway Protocol)
HTTP (Helper Torrent Transfer Protocol)
NTP (Networkfriendly Torrent Protocol)
TDMA (Torrent Data Management Advanced)
TFTP (Torrent File Transfer Protocol)
I'm sure someone will have a few even better suggestions
What do they consider to be 'full-fidelity' sound quality?
If this is some lossless compression scheme, great.
It might even be worth putting up with (some limited) DRM restrictions.
If it's lossy compression comparable to MP3 at bitrates of 192kbps or lower it just doesn't isn't worth paying anything for regardless if it's DRMed or not.
With or without the leading 0's? ;-)
You've GOT to be either kidding or deaf.
Even on the shittiest headphones MP3 artifacts are usually very obvious at 128k.
Even with $4 speakers (or the POS speakers in my laptop) it is *easy* to hear that 128kbps MP3 is not even close to CD quality. At 192 it can sometimes become a little more difficult depending on the source material (and on some material it still plain sucks) but 128 just doesn't even come close. IME WMA sounds just as bad. In a different way but just as bad. Ogg Vorbis also doesn't sound exactly like the original but to my ears the side effects are far less objectionable and at Q6 or better sounds quite okay for portable use.
what's in a name...
NT... No Telnet!