No, you're wrong. A perfectly efficient electrical heater would turn all electricity into heat. Ironically, *all* machines are perfectly efficient heaters over a long enough time scale - go thermodynamics! You're mistaking efficiency (percent of input converted to output) for efficacy, as another poster put it. A perfectly *effective* heater would do it instantly.
Further, once your computer reaches steady-state, it is in fact distributing the entirety of its heat to the room around it. It doesn't matter that the heat might take an hour to work its way out from the processor - after an hour, the computer will constantly be radiating its full heat content. For a 'real world' example of similar behavior, look at the sun. The energy being radiated from the sun right now was actually generated several million years ago in the fusion core, and has been working its way out ever since. However, (assuming that the sun's output is unchanging on the time scale we're looking at) the energy output of the sun is equivalent to the energy generated; otherwise, the sun would continue heating.
Basically, heat has to go somewhere. Once your computers' temperature has stabilized, the radiated heat must equal the generated heat; it doesn't matter that the heat being radiated takes time to radiate, only that it does.
The line voltage isn't usually standardized to a particular voltage, rather to a range; for instance, in the US anything between 107 and 127V is considered "acceptable".
I've found that everyone arguing abortion is extremely selective when they cite data. Its one of those arguments where no one is really listening anyway, so I don't know why I bother having it any more.
That said, I stated exactly what the data on that page (representing a collection of the results of various different surveys, not a single survey, which may well explain the poor tracking - if the samples weren't normalized to each other, significant differences could be found) says: around 50% of women identify as pro-choice, and 80% of women support at least some form of legal abortion. This does, in fact, mean that a majority of women support at least some legal abortion. Whether a majority of women support abortion on demand from your corner drug store, I don't know, but I never implied that they did - a majority of women support at least some form of abortion, and roughly half identify as pro-choice. I stand by what I stated.
Cuba also provides education for all of its citizens and has a ridiculously good literacy rate. Minus the political oppression, they have a lot going for them.
I've been there; it's poor, but not exactly third-world. The problem there isn't a shortage of doctors - there are plenty of well-trained doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc.
The problem is that the salary for a doctor is roughly $32 a month. The problem is the US embargo. And yes, the problem is Castro. But don't expect the Cubans to become another Bahamas or Jamaica when Castro dies and the embargo finally ends - they have far too much pride for that.
My point was that a majority of women DO, in fact, support some form of legal abortion, which means that its not a totally invalid assumption to assume that a random woman is pro-choice in at least some manner, and at least 50-50 to identify as such.
The fact that it holds true for men as well does not invalidate my point.
(previous post was accidental, prior to editing, please respond to this one)
I said nothing about gender gap, only provided relevant statistics regarding the fact that a majority of women do, in fact, support at least some form of abortion.
A majority of men too, but that wasn't part of the question.
Because while many women don't identify as pro-choice (pro-choice identification is roughly 50% of women), somewhere between 60 and 80% of them believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. (link)
I played Tribes 2 competitively for a while, and was (mostly) impressed by the quality of people there as well. I think my tribe's average age was around 30, we had more than a few older guys playing. Haven't played MW4, but its nice to know that there are other environments like that.
Oh. Bought Tribes Vengeance recently, and it took about 20 minutes for people on-server to come out with words like "fag" and "gay". UT with jetpacks, indeed.
The later models of the 802 series of speakers are 'actively' monitored, the above poster can cite this term using whatever words he wants, but the system levels the sound distribution throughout the array to ensure that fidelity is preserved and distortion is almost impossible, even when producing high levels of output.
They use active EQ, not active monitoring. Monitoring requires that there's some method of feedback to close the loop, in order to affect the input based on the output. I encourage you to learn the difference between actively monitored and actively equalized systems - active EQ is nice, but can't even come close to achieving what active monitoring can in terms of elimination of room moding.
What the above poster fails to realize or mention when disputing the output ratings and design of the 802 speakers is that they can be chained, so in theory you could have several 802 stacked on each channel of your sound system, virtually giving you an infinite level of wattage.
Any speaker (well, I should note: any professional speaker) can be run in parallel. This doesn't make a set of 4 802s a kilowatt speaker - it gives you a kilowatt system. I don't have kilowatt class speakers in my PA - I use multiple speakers. If you meant the usage of multiple speakers, well, I apologize for jumping on it, but you should have been clearer. Your original statement:
The BOSE speakers in my house are a 'actively' monitored variation of the newer 802 series, and can each handle output in the 1000s of Watts. They are in my theater room, and could literally break glass in my house.
Certainly makes it sound like you're claiming kilowatts per speaker, not per set of speakers.
Additionally the above poster tries to be misleading by stating that they are a ported design. They have enclosure porting, but do not have chamber porting, which is what the term porting is often referred to by people in the sound industry.
Enclosure porting is equivalent to chamber porting for single-driver configurations. Although most speakers are multi-driver, since the porting is designed to be effective in the bass range, it can effectively be considered to be a single driver (woofer only) system. Thus, for most speakers the use of the term "porting" is only necessary, as there's no chambering used in most speakers. Further, porting is porting - the point is to use the rear wave to reinforce the front wave. Enclosure vs. chamber is a detail, not some fundamental difference as you imply, and can only do so much to increase output. Without detailed drawings of the 802s, and never having dissected one, I have to assume this, but if there's no connection from chamber to enclosure, then the ports on the 802s would be useless. As such, I assume there is acoustic connection, and the problem is equivalent.
The Array technology is one of things that is somewhat unique about the Bose 802 and 901 in home speakers. This is what made the early BOSE technology unique and also allows the speakers to produce 'clearer' sound throughout the audible frequency range because it can distribute sound frequencies to all the speakers instead of one cone trying to reproduce all frequencies in a time multiplexed fashion.
The 802s really aren't designed as "home" speakers - Bose advertises them as professional product, and they're really designed to be used in stage and sound uses. The array structure only emphasizes this - arrays are primarily used to achieve improved dispersion characteristics. Kinsler in fact does cover arrays, which you'd know if you'd read it, as a discrete case of the generalized line source. See, this is why math is good - it allows you to actually understand that vertical and horizontal arrays are just attempts to imitate the (difficult to produce) line source of sound, which has a far improved dispersion over the (cone-modeled) point source.
Your second idea, about "time-multiplexing" is a bunch of crap. Fou
The tools I created in VS probably won us about a million dollars worth of business. The MSDN subscription therefore was well worth it, even if I never use 99% of it.
Apple's free stuff is mostly pretty decent. MS's free stuff is hit or miss. Other people's free stuff is consistently worthless. You can't associate free with value, was my point.
Why not Xcode? Because our test and development tools have to run on Windows, because that's what my giant corporation runs and I don't have the authority to get them to change just because I might prefer another development environment. Also, I don't mind Visual Studio. I was just pointing out that Apple does give away something MS charges you for, meaning that there isn't any way they could make ADC include an equivalent to Visual Studio, since the equivalent is already freely available.
Lots of Apple's free stuff is junk too. The point was that free != value; Apple's ADC subscription, for me *personally*, provides roughly equal value to MSDN since I only get a subscription when I need new hardware. Other people's circumstances may mean that MSDN would be more valuable (for instance, anyone working in a heavily MS-centric corporate environment) or that ADC would be significantly more valuable (E.g. Apple-only developers). Comparing value received is useless because value is dependent on need, not on some absolute - ADC is better than MSDN for some people, worse for others, and the whole discussion is meaningless to most.
Yes, but summer in Antarctica is still freaking cold. Winter in Chicago is warmer than summer in Antarctica. An average summer temp of 0C at the coast and around -30 on the plateau. Where is Dome C? On the plateau.
MSDN has little value to me because most of what I do has nothing to do with it. We bought a copy about 3 or 4 years ago (whenever VB6 was current) in order to have a set of tools we could use to develop PC-side interfaces to talk to our embedded systems during test and development. That's maybe 1% of my job, tops. We haven't stayed current, so my manager would have very little to say about my expenditure - we've gotten our money's worth out of it. 99% of my coding is done in one of two languages: C or Matlab, which should tell you a fair amount about what I actually do. I am not a software engineer, so your assumption about the things I do is wrong. I have no need for a large portion of MSDN - the only things I actually need are the VS tools and I don't need to upgrade those any time soon - Office and Windows are corporate-licensed, so no benefit there.
My point in bringing in Linux was that getting lots of stuff for free doesn't mean the stuff is worth having - MSDN exemplifies that trend quite well.
My last project will be going into something like 10-15 million automobiles in the next 10 years. Price in that industry matters more than you would believe, but we still pay for 'real' compilers rather than fucking with the GNU toolchain because its far more cost-effective to bitch out Wind River or Metrowerks than it is to try to get some GCC developer to fix their buggy compiler code for a random embedded microcontroller.
ADC ain't perfect, but think of it this way - if you buy one membership a year for every two developers you have, you can have a two-year hardware upgrade cycle at discount, and you have enough copies of Tiger to make it possible to work (remember, I'm assuming they'll still be supporting old code, so not every single developer will need to be on Tiger at every single moment). ADC could be better, for sure, but I don't really think MSDN is a tremendous improvement over it - remember, a lot of what MS is charging you for (e.g. IDE, compiler), Apple is providing to you for free (through the good gcc folks in the compiler case, but XCode is all Apple).
FOR THE EXISTING THEORY, 99.9% +/- 0.01% IS NOT BETTER THAN 99% +/- 10%!
The existing theory is more likely to be true under the less precise measurement. Of course we want precise measurements, but from the perspective of trying to confirm our existing theory we would like it to be within the margin of error and near the central limit.
That was my point. Further, the poster who said it "could equally likely by 92% or 102%" was completely wrong, and people are just fucking dumb about statistics and need enlightenment.
Not if you want to buy Apple, it isn't a moot point.
And devs do, in fact, have to upgrade at some point. Most of them combine it with their ADC purchase.
Most of what MS pimps is worthless, so why is that a benefit? I can get Linux free, for example, but it sucks, so it can't be considered a benefit that its free. Similarly, 99% of the stuff you get in MSDN (I have a subscription at work, so I can say this pretty authoritatively) is junk.
You obviously don't understand margin of error. The large error suggests imprecise measurement, the central limit suggests that the end value will in fact be close to the predicted. 99% +/- 10% is more promising with regards to the theory than 99% +/- 0.01% would be.
Statistics lesson.
Margin of error is not a bound within which any result is equally likely. Depending on the distribution, it can be anywhere from equal likelihood (uniform distribution, which is extremely rare in natural processes) to single point (in which case the MOE is obviously zero, and the result is definitive.) For example, most things with a binary outcome (yes or no, 1 or 0, etc) follow what's known as the binomial distribution. If the probability of either result is equal, the binomial pattern is equivalent to the normal (Gaussian) distribution, which looks like a bell, and is produced by many processes, especially processes involved in noise and measurement error.
Now, depending on the expected distribution this changes, but for a normal distribution the likelihood is probably 95% that the actual value is within that +/-10% (assuming they're using the typical definition of 2 sigma for margin of error) - but it's around 65% likely that the result is within +/- 5%, and the most likely single result is in fact 99% - not 99% likely, but the maximum likelihood points to 99%.
I'm not familiar enough with the other protocol (the non-MIDI one, can't remember the acronym for it) to say whether you'd need internal patch access or not to get an effective solution.
If the modeling program supported MIDI, there are many, many MIDI controllers that are nothing but sliders or knobs (I have an Oxygen8, which is a 2 octave keyboard + 1 slider and 8 knobs, but there are slider-only and knob-only control boards available). The key would be in getting the MIDI translated to useful operations in the program - most audio programs support this, but I somehow doubt that modeling programs do.
Unfortunately, my copy of Kinsler and Frey is at work, so I don't have equations close at hand for this.
Porting (aka bandpass enclosures) can't make small speakers reproduce significant amounts of bass. It doesn't work like that - porting simply changes the response. In fact, the real problem with porting is the fact that it adds a tuned resonance to the chamber - sure, the chamber is resonant so at that one frequency (and depending on resonance Q, which is not exactly driver Q, at frequencies surrounding resonance for some distance, but the more boost you tune for, the narrower that band) that you get a decent amount of bass at that frequency, but the entire bass range suffers. It's a tradeoff.
Also, porting requires a sealed enclosure (with a port out of the sealed area, of course) and a specific air volume, and preferably a wide port, to work properly. Not a whole lot of laptops out there with any of those characteristics.
Porting cannot change the fact that you can only move so much air with a small driver. It makes use of the backwave off of the driver, meaning that at best you can achieve a doubling of air mass movement (3dB) across all frequencies - higher efficiency increases obey the principle of conservation of dirt, as my professor called it - increases in efficiency in one location are compensated by decreases in efficiency in other locations. Proper porting design can place the increases in frequencies of interest and the decreases in unused frequency, but nonetheless there are limits on what you can gain through porting.
Which 802s do you have? None of the ones that actually, you know, EXIST, fit your description. You're completely wrong, which is unsurprising. I've worked with 802s. They're okay. They're ported, of course, which I generally don't like the sound of. However, their driver efficiency in the bass range (55-300 Hz) is quite a bit lower (~91dB) than their main range efficiency (~99dB), which means they require roughly 6 times the input power to produce the same acoustic output when comparing bass frequencies to midrange. They're also not 20-20 - the rated 3db corner on the acoustics is 55 Hz, which is not subwoofer class, and the upper 3dB is 16kHz. Even better, they're not even close to kilowatt speakers, they're rated for 240 watts each (per speaker, not per driver). And that's not even getting into the fact that they're ported designs for PA use, which means they're intended to operate in wave mode and ignore the pressure mode considerations that you have to consider if you use them in small (e.g. home theater) spaces. Even better, the 802s are really designed to provide good dispersion characteristics - the quasi-array design is used for that exact reason, not for any extension/power handling reasons. And let's not forget that Bose recommends using a seperate bass module with the 802s as well (the MB4, in this case).
"Active monitor collaborative system"? Are you listening to yourself? With speakers, if it sounds like bullshit it 95% of the time is, and with Bose about 99.999% of the time. The Panaray controller you're referring to is by no means an active feedback system, as it lacks a method of feedback to 'close the loop'. All it is is an active EQ, with some delay functions built in for system alignment. Which is a great thing to have, but it isn't magical - essentially, they're using DSP to partially compensate for their speaker's flaws. Which again, is fine, but it isn't magic.
Their high end systems are not particularly well regarded in any portion of the music or theater industry I've worked with. Big touring bands don't use Bose setups. Most venues don't. Theaters definitely don't. The real pro vendors? EAW, Tannoy, EV, Altec-Lansing's pro line (well, their older stuff - I haven't seen their newer stuff much), Turbosound, Yamaha. Bose is regarded as a second-class citizen, and is usually ignored in favor of better and better bang for buck solutions.
Basically, go read Kinsler and Frey's "Fundamentals of Acoustics", then come back when you have a clue. Stop reading Bose marketing material. Please.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're wrong. A perfectly efficient electrical heater would turn all electricity into heat. Ironically, *all* machines are perfectly efficient heaters over a long enough time scale - go thermodynamics! You're mistaking efficiency (percent of input converted to output) for efficacy, as another poster put it. A perfectly *effective* heater would do it instantly.
Further, once your computer reaches steady-state, it is in fact distributing the entirety of its heat to the room around it. It doesn't matter that the heat might take an hour to work its way out from the processor - after an hour, the computer will constantly be radiating its full heat content. For a 'real world' example of similar behavior, look at the sun. The energy being radiated from the sun right now was actually generated several million years ago in the fusion core, and has been working its way out ever since. However, (assuming that the sun's output is unchanging on the time scale we're looking at) the energy output of the sun is equivalent to the energy generated; otherwise, the sun would continue heating.
Basically, heat has to go somewhere. Once your computers' temperature has stabilized, the radiated heat must equal the generated heat; it doesn't matter that the heat being radiated takes time to radiate, only that it does.
The line voltage isn't usually standardized to a particular voltage, rather to a range; for instance, in the US anything between 107 and 127V is considered "acceptable".
I've found that everyone arguing abortion is extremely selective when they cite data. Its one of those arguments where no one is really listening anyway, so I don't know why I bother having it any more.
That said, I stated exactly what the data on that page (representing a collection of the results of various different surveys, not a single survey, which may well explain the poor tracking - if the samples weren't normalized to each other, significant differences could be found) says: around 50% of women identify as pro-choice, and 80% of women support at least some form of legal abortion. This does, in fact, mean that a majority of women support at least some legal abortion. Whether a majority of women support abortion on demand from your corner drug store, I don't know, but I never implied that they did - a majority of women support at least some form of abortion, and roughly half identify as pro-choice. I stand by what I stated.
Blame pregnant women.
Cuba also provides education for all of its citizens and has a ridiculously good literacy rate. Minus the political oppression, they have a lot going for them.
I've been there; it's poor, but not exactly third-world. The problem there isn't a shortage of doctors - there are plenty of well-trained doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc.
The problem is that the salary for a doctor is roughly $32 a month. The problem is the US embargo. And yes, the problem is Castro. But don't expect the Cubans to become another Bahamas or Jamaica when Castro dies and the embargo finally ends - they have far too much pride for that.
And your point is...?
My point was that a majority of women DO, in fact, support some form of legal abortion, which means that its not a totally invalid assumption to assume that a random woman is pro-choice in at least some manner, and at least 50-50 to identify as such.
The fact that it holds true for men as well does not invalidate my point.
(previous post was accidental, prior to editing, please respond to this one)
I said nothing about gender gap, only provided relevant statistics regarding the fact that a majority of women do, in fact, support at least some form of abortion.
A majority of men too, but that wasn't part of the question.
Because while many women don't identify as pro-choice (pro-choice identification is roughly 50% of women), somewhere between 60 and 80% of them believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. (link)
I played Tribes 2 competitively for a while, and was (mostly) impressed by the quality of people there as well. I think my tribe's average age was around 30, we had more than a few older guys playing. Haven't played MW4, but its nice to know that there are other environments like that.
Oh. Bought Tribes Vengeance recently, and it took about 20 minutes for people on-server to come out with words like "fag" and "gay". UT with jetpacks, indeed.
The later models of the 802 series of speakers are 'actively' monitored, the above poster can cite this term using whatever words he wants, but the system levels the sound distribution throughout the array to ensure that fidelity is preserved and distortion is almost impossible, even when producing high levels of output.
They use active EQ, not active monitoring. Monitoring requires that there's some method of feedback to close the loop, in order to affect the input based on the output. I encourage you to learn the difference between actively monitored and actively equalized systems - active EQ is nice, but can't even come close to achieving what active monitoring can in terms of elimination of room moding.
What the above poster fails to realize or mention when disputing the output ratings and design of the 802 speakers is that they can be chained, so in theory you could have several 802 stacked on each channel of your sound system, virtually giving you an infinite level of wattage.
Any speaker (well, I should note: any professional speaker) can be run in parallel. This doesn't make a set of 4 802s a kilowatt speaker - it gives you a kilowatt system. I don't have kilowatt class speakers in my PA - I use multiple speakers. If you meant the usage of multiple speakers, well, I apologize for jumping on it, but you should have been clearer. Your original statement:
The BOSE speakers in my house are a 'actively' monitored variation of the newer 802 series, and can each handle output in the 1000s of Watts. They are in my theater room, and could literally break glass in my house.
Certainly makes it sound like you're claiming kilowatts per speaker, not per set of speakers.
Additionally the above poster tries to be misleading by stating that they are a ported design. They have enclosure porting, but do not have chamber porting, which is what the term porting is often referred to by people in the sound industry.
Enclosure porting is equivalent to chamber porting for single-driver configurations. Although most speakers are multi-driver, since the porting is designed to be effective in the bass range, it can effectively be considered to be a single driver (woofer only) system. Thus, for most speakers the use of the term "porting" is only necessary, as there's no chambering used in most speakers. Further, porting is porting - the point is to use the rear wave to reinforce the front wave. Enclosure vs. chamber is a detail, not some fundamental difference as you imply, and can only do so much to increase output. Without detailed drawings of the 802s, and never having dissected one, I have to assume this, but if there's no connection from chamber to enclosure, then the ports on the 802s would be useless. As such, I assume there is acoustic connection, and the problem is equivalent.
The Array technology is one of things that is somewhat unique about the Bose 802 and 901 in home speakers. This is what made the early BOSE technology unique and also allows the speakers to produce 'clearer' sound throughout the audible frequency range because it can distribute sound frequencies to all the speakers instead of one cone trying to reproduce all frequencies in a time multiplexed fashion.
The 802s really aren't designed as "home" speakers - Bose advertises them as professional product, and they're really designed to be used in stage and sound uses. The array structure only emphasizes this - arrays are primarily used to achieve improved dispersion characteristics. Kinsler in fact does cover arrays, which you'd know if you'd read it, as a discrete case of the generalized line source. See, this is why math is good - it allows you to actually understand that vertical and horizontal arrays are just attempts to imitate the (difficult to produce) line source of sound, which has a far improved dispersion over the (cone-modeled) point source.
Your second idea, about "time-multiplexing" is a bunch of crap. Fou
The tools I created in VS probably won us about a million dollars worth of business. The MSDN subscription therefore was well worth it, even if I never use 99% of it.
Apple's free stuff is mostly pretty decent. MS's free stuff is hit or miss. Other people's free stuff is consistently worthless. You can't associate free with value, was my point.
Why not Xcode? Because our test and development tools have to run on Windows, because that's what my giant corporation runs and I don't have the authority to get them to change just because I might prefer another development environment. Also, I don't mind Visual Studio. I was just pointing out that Apple does give away something MS charges you for, meaning that there isn't any way they could make ADC include an equivalent to Visual Studio, since the equivalent is already freely available.
Lots of Apple's free stuff is junk too. The point was that free != value; Apple's ADC subscription, for me *personally*, provides roughly equal value to MSDN since I only get a subscription when I need new hardware. Other people's circumstances may mean that MSDN would be more valuable (for instance, anyone working in a heavily MS-centric corporate environment) or that ADC would be significantly more valuable (E.g. Apple-only developers). Comparing value received is useless because value is dependent on need, not on some absolute - ADC is better than MSDN for some people, worse for others, and the whole discussion is meaningless to most.
QED nothing.
Yes, but summer in Antarctica is still freaking cold. Winter in Chicago is warmer than summer in Antarctica. An average summer temp of 0C at the coast and around -30 on the plateau. Where is Dome C? On the plateau.
Just out of curiosity, did you see the Motorola inertial sensor demo? If you did, what did you think?
MSDN has little value to me because most of what I do has nothing to do with it. We bought a copy about 3 or 4 years ago (whenever VB6 was current) in order to have a set of tools we could use to develop PC-side interfaces to talk to our embedded systems during test and development. That's maybe 1% of my job, tops. We haven't stayed current, so my manager would have very little to say about my expenditure - we've gotten our money's worth out of it. 99% of my coding is done in one of two languages: C or Matlab, which should tell you a fair amount about what I actually do. I am not a software engineer, so your assumption about the things I do is wrong. I have no need for a large portion of MSDN - the only things I actually need are the VS tools and I don't need to upgrade those any time soon - Office and Windows are corporate-licensed, so no benefit there.
My point in bringing in Linux was that getting lots of stuff for free doesn't mean the stuff is worth having - MSDN exemplifies that trend quite well.
My last project will be going into something like 10-15 million automobiles in the next 10 years. Price in that industry matters more than you would believe, but we still pay for 'real' compilers rather than fucking with the GNU toolchain because its far more cost-effective to bitch out Wind River or Metrowerks than it is to try to get some GCC developer to fix their buggy compiler code for a random embedded microcontroller.
ADC ain't perfect, but think of it this way - if you buy one membership a year for every two developers you have, you can have a two-year hardware upgrade cycle at discount, and you have enough copies of Tiger to make it possible to work (remember, I'm assuming they'll still be supporting old code, so not every single developer will need to be on Tiger at every single moment). ADC could be better, for sure, but I don't really think MSDN is a tremendous improvement over it - remember, a lot of what MS is charging you for (e.g. IDE, compiler), Apple is providing to you for free (through the good gcc folks in the compiler case, but XCode is all Apple).
FOR THE EXISTING THEORY, 99.9% +/- 0.01% IS NOT BETTER THAN 99% +/- 10%!
The existing theory is more likely to be true under the less precise measurement. Of course we want precise measurements, but from the perspective of trying to confirm our existing theory we would like it to be within the margin of error and near the central limit.
That was my point. Further, the poster who said it "could equally likely by 92% or 102%" was completely wrong, and people are just fucking dumb about statistics and need enlightenment.
NHTSA would tell you speeding is not a major cause of accidents.
And they'd know, being as IT'S THEIR JOB TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO KEEP THE ROADS SAFE.
I like math enough to lecture about it in real life, why wouldn't I bitchslap a /.er when they're wrong?
Bla bla bla, I'm smarter than you... not difficult.
Not if you want to buy Apple, it isn't a moot point.
And devs do, in fact, have to upgrade at some point. Most of them combine it with their ADC purchase.
Most of what MS pimps is worthless, so why is that a benefit? I can get Linux free, for example, but it sucks, so it can't be considered a benefit that its free. Similarly, 99% of the stuff you get in MSDN (I have a subscription at work, so I can say this pretty authoritatively) is junk.
20% discount on hardware. Buy a high end Mac, and that's going to be around the cost of entry right there.
You obviously don't understand margin of error. The large error suggests imprecise measurement, the central limit suggests that the end value will in fact be close to the predicted. 99% +/- 10% is more promising with regards to the theory than 99% +/- 0.01% would be.
Statistics lesson.
Margin of error is not a bound within which any result is equally likely. Depending on the distribution, it can be anywhere from equal likelihood (uniform distribution, which is extremely rare in natural processes) to single point (in which case the MOE is obviously zero, and the result is definitive.) For example, most things with a binary outcome (yes or no, 1 or 0, etc) follow what's known as the binomial distribution. If the probability of either result is equal, the binomial pattern is equivalent to the normal (Gaussian) distribution, which looks like a bell, and is produced by many processes, especially processes involved in noise and measurement error.
Now, depending on the expected distribution this changes, but for a normal distribution the likelihood is probably 95% that the actual value is within that +/-10% (assuming they're using the typical definition of 2 sigma for margin of error) - but it's around 65% likely that the result is within +/- 5%, and the most likely single result is in fact 99% - not 99% likely, but the maximum likelihood points to 99%.
I'm not familiar enough with the other protocol (the non-MIDI one, can't remember the acronym for it) to say whether you'd need internal patch access or not to get an effective solution.
If the modeling program supported MIDI, there are many, many MIDI controllers that are nothing but sliders or knobs (I have an Oxygen8, which is a 2 octave keyboard + 1 slider and 8 knobs, but there are slider-only and knob-only control boards available). The key would be in getting the MIDI translated to useful operations in the program - most audio programs support this, but I somehow doubt that modeling programs do.
It's a lot more like saying "You can have feature XXX, just BUY Visual C and make it happen".
Although, in Max/MSP it should be very simple to do, it doesn't change the fact that Max/MSP is not free software.
There are also wireless dynamic mics, which are one piece. Not whirlable.
Unfortunately, my copy of Kinsler and Frey is at work, so I don't have equations close at hand for this.
Porting (aka bandpass enclosures) can't make small speakers reproduce significant amounts of bass. It doesn't work like that - porting simply changes the response. In fact, the real problem with porting is the fact that it adds a tuned resonance to the chamber - sure, the chamber is resonant so at that one frequency (and depending on resonance Q, which is not exactly driver Q, at frequencies surrounding resonance for some distance, but the more boost you tune for, the narrower that band) that you get a decent amount of bass at that frequency, but the entire bass range suffers. It's a tradeoff.
Also, porting requires a sealed enclosure (with a port out of the sealed area, of course) and a specific air volume, and preferably a wide port, to work properly. Not a whole lot of laptops out there with any of those characteristics.
Porting cannot change the fact that you can only move so much air with a small driver. It makes use of the backwave off of the driver, meaning that at best you can achieve a doubling of air mass movement (3dB) across all frequencies - higher efficiency increases obey the principle of conservation of dirt, as my professor called it - increases in efficiency in one location are compensated by decreases in efficiency in other locations. Proper porting design can place the increases in frequencies of interest and the decreases in unused frequency, but nonetheless there are limits on what you can gain through porting.
Which 802s do you have? None of the ones that actually, you know, EXIST, fit your description. You're completely wrong, which is unsurprising. I've worked with 802s. They're okay. They're ported, of course, which I generally don't like the sound of. However, their driver efficiency in the bass range (55-300 Hz) is quite a bit lower (~91dB) than their main range efficiency (~99dB), which means they require roughly 6 times the input power to produce the same acoustic output when comparing bass frequencies to midrange. They're also not 20-20 - the rated 3db corner on the acoustics is 55 Hz, which is not subwoofer class, and the upper 3dB is 16kHz. Even better, they're not even close to kilowatt speakers, they're rated for 240 watts each (per speaker, not per driver). And that's not even getting into the fact that they're ported designs for PA use, which means they're intended to operate in wave mode and ignore the pressure mode considerations that you have to consider if you use them in small (e.g. home theater) spaces. Even better, the 802s are really designed to provide good dispersion characteristics - the quasi-array design is used for that exact reason, not for any extension/power handling reasons. And let's not forget that Bose recommends using a seperate bass module with the 802s as well (the MB4, in this case).
"Active monitor collaborative system"? Are you listening to yourself? With speakers, if it sounds like bullshit it 95% of the time is, and with Bose about 99.999% of the time. The Panaray controller you're referring to is by no means an active feedback system, as it lacks a method of feedback to 'close the loop'. All it is is an active EQ, with some delay functions built in for system alignment. Which is a great thing to have, but it isn't magical - essentially, they're using DSP to partially compensate for their speaker's flaws. Which again, is fine, but it isn't magic.
Their high end systems are not particularly well regarded in any portion of the music or theater industry I've worked with. Big touring bands don't use Bose setups. Most venues don't. Theaters definitely don't. The real pro vendors? EAW, Tannoy, EV, Altec-Lansing's pro line (well, their older stuff - I haven't seen their newer stuff much), Turbosound, Yamaha. Bose is regarded as a second-class citizen, and is usually ignored in favor of better and better bang for buck solutions.
Basically, go read Kinsler and Frey's "Fundamentals of Acoustics", then come back when you have a clue. Stop reading Bose marketing material. Please.