The only time you'll likely hear a difference in cabling is in a highly tuned setup. Of course, that's the only time you'd likely find such cables anyway.
I have heard the difference with ultra-high-end cables. You only need one experience to prove they can make a difference.
Ironically, the subtleties are often where the improvements are. (Bass is often better too.) So, it's not obvious at first, it just sounds better.
The best way to judge is often with extended listening and the amount of fatigue from listening (that's how I often judge). Others have better ears than I, but I can still hear (at least some of) the difference(s) --- more natural upper end, open spacious sound (ambience), more punch in midbass, more attack on dynamics, more silence (!), lots of stuff can improve.
So, yes, if you don't believe cables can make a difference, that's fine. However, only one counterexample is necessary to disprove a theory. I offer my own experience(s) as such a counterexample. Frankly, I'm not sure acute hearing is necessary to hear the difference/improvement in musicality, though acute hearing is necessary to be able to pinpoint the differences (I suspect).
>Dude, get a clue. You have no idea what you're talking >about.
Go back and reread the thread. Feel free to cite specifics. While I may know what I'm talking about, I certainly do not know what you're talking about.
I'll add a few more suggestions. Pay particular attention to the google instructions. You don't need to trust me; feel free to trust others who have documented their experiences and engineering discoveries.
Two. Feel free to trust your ears. If you have lead ears, consider it a two-edged blessing. On the one hand, you can enjoy 'music' just about wherever you find it. On the other hand, you don't have very acute hearing (and won't be playing violin). No biggie, right?
Two clues if you choose to accept them.
But wait, there's more. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't insult others to spite the discussion. The sound to noise ratio on this discussion is already woefully low. (I'm sure you'll run with that.;-)
We're talking sonics here, not just bits. The timing of bits matters for music. If you had googled and checked the first music relevant site listed, you would have found jitter.de. Even though you disbelieve, at least you could see that others have found jitter matters in sonics (once again, not so much in just bit transfer).
All your hyperbolic comments (other than the ad hominem attacks) boil down to: jitter doesn't matter.
Guess what? What if it does matter in sonic engineering? What if people can hear the difference?
I'll give you credit for doubting. It wasn't obvious to me (not surprising) nor to the audio industry. I believe Theta Digital and Linn were some of the first to reengineer their audio equipment to address the issue. As a result, they create(d) some of the best sounding equipment anywhere.
Ironically, I believe the iPod may benefit from it's diminutive size. The signal paths are short, so I suspect there's less room for phase distortion of the music running through the electronics. Again, you may believe all the bits transfer (and they may), but that's not the issue.
The issue is the reproduction of the sound and its perception to acute ears. Out of phase distortion can be very fatiguing for long-term listening and can degrade reproduction from foot-tapping music to ear-bleeding noise --- from a music enthusiast's point of view.
There's very little room in that discussion for bit engineering. If it doesn't sound good, who cares what bits went where?
I used to think so too. However, it's not the cable causing problems, it's the interfaces to the cables. Think of the cable as message bearer, and the ends as interpreters. If you have a good cable, the interpreters have an easy (effortless) go; otherwise, the interpreters (electronics) get stressed. That stress can come in the form of overheating, out of phase sound, misinterpretation, poor timing, echoes, drops, etc..
It may not make sense on the surface, but not everything does.
If you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there. If you can't hear it, it doesn't mean it's inaudible (to those with better hearing, taste, sensibility, whatever).
-=-
On a less sensational note, objective measurements of stereo equipment sounds like a great idea, until you put it into practice with severe disappointment. Quantifications of music provide some insight, but overall are gross oversimplifications of what sounds good... and what doesn't (even though it may measure well in all the obvious and usual ways).
Caveat emptor.
You could do quantitative measurements for movie reviews, but that's not going to yield very informative results. For musical equipment, I'd rather have a trusted pair of ears do the listening and let me know what they hear (like a movie reviewer).
It's natural not to like all movie reviewers (difference in taste) nor all music equipment reviewers (difference(s) in hearing acuity and taste). Find the one(s) you like, and use their advice as a guide (still use your own judgment/ear/hearing to draw your own final conclusions).
Human hearing is highly variable. Linear measurements don't tell nearly the whole story. A good reviewer is currently the best system for reviewing equipment, and Stereophile is professional enough to supplement the review with measurements.
Linn is a small Scottish company with extraordinary engineering and products. Linn does what Bose and B&O attempt to do but without all the glitz and with incredible performance out of compact electronics. Their speakers are good too, so they offer complete systems. See:
linn.co.uk
For their 'low end' all in one home theatre CD, DVD, Tuner, 5.1 channel preamp/amplifier, multi-room capable receiver, see Linn's Classik Movie System (CMS) and CMS Di[gital] at:
classik.com
You'll also find their entry level Classik Music (two channel amp, tuner, preamp, multi-room capable) System. The newer, more complete Classik Movie includes CD/DVD/Tuner with 5 channel amplifier and component video out. The brand new CMS Di includes all the features of the Classik Movie but adds an even better CD/DVD processor and source input for both video (component video in) and audio (toslink optical 5.1 channel). The advanced CD/DVD sound processing is trickle down technology from Linn's brand new, state of the art Unidisk CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD disc player.
All three Classiks have the same tiny form factor, except the new 5.1 channel Movie units have more controls and therefore a different face (same diminutive size though).
Despite their diminutive size, these units are better than most separates. Needless to say, Linn is very popular in Japan where tiny, powerful, state of the art electronics are a sign of excellence.
The pricing is under $2k ($1500?) for the Classik Music (CD, Tuner, et al.), $3k for the Classik Movie all-in-one (DVD, et al.), and $5k for the no-compromise movie Di (Unidisk processing trickle down, and component video and toslink inputs). The Di is not exactly cheap but packs amazing capabilities and superior quality into unbelievably compact package.
The units even include multi-room capabilities using multiple Classik units (Linn's "Connect" system), or connecting to Linn's versatile "Knekt" system to connect a variety of Linn components throughout the home/office into one system. Both Connect and Knekt offer keypad controls (e.g., wall-mount units to control the Linn Classik or other (Linn and non-Linn (by IR) components)).
Linn technology is unique in its blend of high technology and no-compromise emphasis on audio quality. For example, Linn uses surface mount technology and switch-mode power supplies which are rare in audiophile products (due to complications Linn has innovated beyond). In contrast, Bose has a reputation for taking cheap components and equalizing the hell out of them to get the semblance of accurate sound (but delivering an essentially synthesized sound on any music). B&O offers a genuine value in style, design, and compactness, but with some significant (but not necessarily critical) sonic compromises. Linn does not take the sonic shortcuts.
Instead, Linn innovates in a variety of ways (the first audiophile quality CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD transport, innovative FM tuner technology, active speaker amplification, multi-room capabilities, etc.) and trickles the technologies throughout their product line. Few if any other companies even have the capability to pack everything into a single compact box with top flight musical and video quality as in the Classik product line. For Linn, the Classik just takes advantage of a host of their more advanced power supply, amplifier, tuner, multi-room, CD/DVD, and video technology all in one unit.
IOW, what Bose and B&O market in appearance, Linn delivers in performance. Anecdotally, Linn delivers the soul of music, musicians often choose Linn over other audiophile systems, and Linn deliver foot tapping sonic excellence. Linn's byline is "pitch accurate" sound. Let your ears be the judge.
I just hope Apple has their motherboards ready for 2.5GHz. The original spec of 1.8GHz with 6+GB bus was a little heady compared to Apple's current technology (no thanks to Motorola). I'm hoping they know how to build motherboards with the best of them to take advantage of IBM's new 970 chip. Pushing the envelope from 1.8GHz to 2.5GHz just makes the whole motherboard engineering issue more challenging. Let's hope Apple hardware design it up to the task (and then some).
Now, the wolves are guarding the hen house. In the early 90's, when Bruce Lehmann hosted the USPTO's sham hearings on whether to institutionalize s/w patents, his panel was comprised entirely of lawyers.
IOW, lawyers chose to instititionalize s/w patents in spite of strong protests from individuals throughout the software industry.
From that point on, it has been accepted that lawyers have the right to reap profits and taxes off of so-called innovation in software. It's a huge inefficiency, impossible to enforce, and impossible for anyone to prove virtually any software is unencumbered by patent conflicts. It's ridiculous.
The USPTO loves it though. They just increased their staff to handle their backlog which will forever increase since software patents are prolific and easily twisted into patent submissions.
Better yet, lawyers are having a heyday. The more lawsuits, the better. They get wealthy while the software industry grinds to a halt. It's obscene and a severe conflict of interest that they should have instituted s/w patents over all reason from the s/w industry itself.
I'm not even sure it's legal. I wonder what authority the USPTO head, Bruce Lehmann, really had. Was he appointed, and by whom? He certainly wasn't a member of Congress where laws should be created.
It's been clear in the software industry since the get-go that software patents are a sham, but they've been imposed on the industry by and to the benefit of the legal industry. Why isn't there a push to "Just say 'No!' to software patents" and rid the software industry of the hairball legalities of them? What would be the best way to eliminate software patents once and for all? Are they even constitutional, and what legal basis do they have (I doubt Bruce Lehmann as USPTO head really has the authority to pass new laws or interpret laws)? Any insights to eliminating software patents would be appreciated.
For further information, please follow up above. TY.
BMW hubris, disservice extends to Z4 manual top
on
When Appliances Revolt
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
BMW is on a roll, but unfortunately they also seem to be on a design hubris trip, judging by the 745i movies and my friend's ongoing BMW Z4 experience.
I have a friend fighting with BMW to return his manual top Z4 for the power top version due to similar design oversights. Would you believe the Z4 manual top can leak and splash water into the interior when driven in the rain? BMW's "official" response: it's ok since that's the way the manual top was designed. (However, the power top design exhibits no such design flaw.) Even the BMW techs agree that the top is misdesigned, but BMW refuses to take responsibility for their design flaw and refuses to upgrade the car at the $900 power top cost to the equivalent power top version. Instead, BMW wants to make another $2700 on the new car due to their design mistake!
BMW's new design hubris and customer neglect has led it to deny its design miscues (745i rear end) and critical design flaws (Z4 manual top, and 745i iDrive and electronics), and some of BMW's most loyal customers are the victims.
Instead of providing an upgrade path at cost ($900), BMW wants my friend to trade in his new Z4 as a used car (even though he reported the problem two days after taking delivery of the car). This difference of resolution is crucially expensive since BMW wants another $2700 from my friend to address their manual top critical design flaw. BMW wants to make money off my friend twice for their design failure, and their "offer" is really just an offer for him to pay the BMW premium twice for a $900 resolution to address the leaky Z4 top. The story goes on quite a bit further, but that's the crux.
There are two basic problems I see with this situation other than the following obvious issues: shipping an improperly designed and inadequately tested manual top, nonsensical denials (even in the face of their own service techs and loyal customer(s)), and unconscionably poor customer service by BMW. The two subtle issues I see are:
1. BMW charges a premium for quality design and attention to detail. A leaky roof is an undeniably major oversight and design flaw, and telling a customer it's supposed to leak and splash into the cabin just doesn't cut it. My miata roadster never leaked into the cabin in ten years of ownership. Why should a BMW roadster at twice the price?
BMW has been hugely successful recently, but its success seems to be going to its head. The buggy, ugly 745i is the epitome of Bangle design and BMW hubris. The lowly (relative to 745i) soft top indicates that even engineering (not just aesthetics) are subject to BMW design hubris.
2. The Z4 is expensive even for a BMW at $32+k starting (compare: Nissan 350Z coupe at $25k starting with app. 100 more horsepower!). The manual top chops $900 off the Z4 price. However, through all my friend's troubles, BMW could not find another Z4 with a manual top in the region. IOW, BMW appears not to be shipping manual top Z4's.
Considering the huge discrepancy between the success of the Z4 as a design whole, and the utter engineering/consumer failure of the manual top design, I have a suspicion. BMW knows the manual top is a design failure and purposely has not voluntarily shipped any to dealers (unless spec'ed by customer). They ship power tops by default and suggest dealers only order power tops (hence no other manual tops to inspect in region). BMW apparently only intends to sell power top Z4s (and for good reason) since they already *know* the manual top is deficient. BMW intends (and certainly should) only sell Z4 power tops.
But why offer the soft top if it's a. deficiently designed, b. largely untested, c. improperly supported in the field, and d. subject to severe customer dissatisfaction? I suspect the Z4 manual top exists solely to lop $900 off the starting price for the Z4. I also suspect that BMW marketing told engineering at the last minute to create a manual top version --- not because they wanted a well designed manual top --- but because BMW marketing wanted a way to lop off another $900 off the starting price of their already expensive roadster in view of its less expensive competition (e.g., Nissan 350Z).
Voila, the Z4 manual top reject design exists solely for marketing reasons --- never mind the inadequate engineering design, testing, and execution --- and the potentially open-ended damage to BMW's design and engineering reputation. Engineering probably complained bitterly at marketing's unsavory request, but marketing apparently prevailed much to my friend's customer dissatisfaction.
I guess at this point, it's largely immaterial why BMW shipped such a defective manual top (or such buggy 745i software). Mistakes can occasionally happen. What matters is how BMW responds to customer dissatisfaction at these defects and design failures.
Unortunately, with BMW America's new hubris, they explain away the leaky, splashy manual top design as (literally) 'that's how it was designed' implying it therefore works. Perhaps BMW Germany (or the BMW America executive team?) need to step in and stop the customer dissatisfaction hemorrhaging.
Neither my friend nor I disagree the manual top was designed by BMW (surprise, surprise), we just wonder what the BMW engineeers, executives, and 'customer service' staff were smoking when they chose to ship the design. Yes, that's the way it was designed, and that's exactly why BMW should take responsibility for the design flaw(s). BMW needs to acknowledge the flaw(s) and fix or replace them to customer satisfaction. (Duh.)
So, BMW's latest hubris is not limited to Microsoft Windows CE based 745i's, nor Bangle'd 745i sedan rear ends. It also extends to their own manual soft top design on their brand new Z4. BMW, BMW America, and BMW dealerships need to reassess their priorities: is internal engineering/marketing the ultimate authority at any expense (including customer satisfaction), or is it possible tech's and customers with first hand experience could know better?
IOW, is hubris king, or is customer satisfaction still a priority at BMW Germany, BMW USA, or BMW dealerships? As a BMW owner and loyalist, I hope BMW plugs its hubris leak right quick, and bails its customers out of its leaky, flawed design mistakes.
P.s., just to level the Z4 comments slightly, I shall say that other than the fatal leaky manual top, the Z4 is a beautifully designed and delightful car to drive and enjoy. Even I delight at and in it, and I am hardly a Bangle fan. The Z4 "flame" design is a delight; the Z4 attention to detail is excellent excepting the one flaw. My friend has several used BMW's already, and the Z4 (with a working power top) is exactly what he wants and is his first ever new BMW (and new car!). It's just a shame that BMW is denying him the car of his dreams to avoid addressing its manual top design mistake.
I hope BMW wakes up without sacrificing its most loyal customers (including my friend) and doing too much unnecessary self-inflicted damage. BMW should honor their good design reputation by addressing their flawed design(s) immediately, without reservation, and to the full satisfaction of their customers. Here's to BMW pulling out of its design hubris and fulfilling its premium customer service obligations.
At the risk of being a little off-topic, I'd like to mention the coolest piece of audio gear (and audio company) that I've found. The Linn Classik is a 5.1 channel home theatre in a box (speakers separate): AM/FM, CD, DVD, DTS, preamp, 5 channels of amps, subwoofer out. I.e., the works in a tiny box.
http://www.classik.com
It has amazing audio credentials and has just been revved starting today (CES) to have component output for the DVD. The Linn Classik has to be seen and heard to be believed.
Oh, and did I mention these network together to share music between rooms? Each of these units has a built in Linn knekt receiver/transmitter to share music with other Classiks (or even Linn's fully blown Knekt multiroom audio system). They can even be hooked up to the Linn (app. $10,000) linux based Kivor digital music jukebox (pop cd's in one at a time to load it up with music). The kivor is the ultimate (audio quality (that's why it costs $10,000), etc.) audio jukebox.
Linn is amazing. No other high-end audio company could even attempt to build the Classik in such a small fully functional unit. Check it out. It's $3k but worth every penny, and totally non-intrusive (size-wise) with better quality than most separates!
Amazing.
P.s., much of their other equipment is amazing as well including their expensive (a la Kivor) reference equipment.
Software Patents (thanks to Bruce Lehman and lawyer cronies, formerly of USPTO)
Tail-wagging-dog Politics (i.e., Congress-people succumbing to copyright stakeholders special interest taxes on CD media, etc.)
Status Quo Mentality from top (e.g., RIAA, "safe" bet managers deploying MS) and bottom (e.g., job security minded grunts recommending MS).
-=-
A little more business integrity, legal industry integrity, congressional knowledge and integrity, and IT staff knowledge and integrity!
Of course, many (not necessarily US) efforts are countering some of these issues including Linux, other open source projects, and even the Mac OS X which seems poised to set a higher standard in home/small business/enterprise client computing.
Miyamoto is truly innovative and a great game designer, but his innovations are not all encompassing. He focuses on the one player gaming experience. Nintendo is notably neglecting the online experience reportedly due to Miyamoto's direction.
I believe online has more than proven itself. Nintendo's stubornness to deny its gamers online experience will be seen as akin to their mistake in denying developers the CD medium (which they've finally caught up with in the GameCube with the proprietary mini-disc).
Miyamoto continues to break new ground and innovate but he does not address multiplayer issues. The online experience is open for a new generation of game designers. The PC game designers are likely to migrate to the consoles for a more controlled, reliable gaming platform, and the online gaming experience will eventually become the principal area for gaming and innovation.
Miyamoto trailblazed one player gaming. It'll be fun to see who trailblazes the next generation of games.
Actually, MS did put Go directly out of business. The original poster is (slightly) incorrect though. MS did not just announce one vaporware product, I believe they announced as many as three different, codeveloping (!) vaporware products well in advance of any scheduled debut (i.e., MS reacted and crushed the nascent market with nothing except marketing). None of the three product announcements ever materialized. How's that for FUD?
Go already had shipping product but corporate interest and, more importantly, sales waned rapidly *after* the MS announcements. Go died just as it was releasing its strongest platform yet.
This was MS at its peak "best" during its heyday. With the new "laissez faire" ruling, MS is probably now going to have a revival.
Go had some very interesting technology (OS, multilingual handwriting recognition, hardware) which was eventually lost in a corporate buyout by AT&T (where it then was sold to some Asian (Korean?) firm where it stagnated and died as far as I know).
Go is probably one of the most prominent examples of MS FUD destroying innovation (though there are plenty others).
Hmm, you make some good points. I guess my judgement is clouded since I have only a PowerBook, and I imagine syncing with my Palm Tungsten T and some BlueTooth phone (e.g., T68i or P800) for mobile wireless. Also, it seems like such a no-brainer, I was sure (perhaps cynically) bluetooth before Radeon 9000 and definitely before SuperDrive. Yet, those both arrived and bluetooth was no show! Even 1GHz made it. All the hard stuff made it, but no bluetooth. Seems odd.
It seems really strange to me that the two portables are updated, and yet bluetooth is most valuable on the portables. Does this mean that Steve won't bluetooth enable the whole product line come January, a year after making a big deal out of bluetooth? If he does update machines, will he now leave out the portables (which could use it most)? That seems really backwards to me.
I was really hoping that today's announcement would be Xserve Raid, with "full" PB and iBook upgrades in January. Now, I'm still waiting to upgrade my PB (and hoping for faster memory, higher resolution, bluetooth, and faster (new?) CPU). Fatter GPU memory would be nice too.:-)
But now I wonder whether bluetooth will have to wait for another 6-9 month rev cycle. Ouch. I do not think they'll update the PB's again in January as that would be only about a month after the latest PB with SuperDrive starts shipping (if they keep their announced 3-4 week shipping schedule). The "optimal" outcome would be for the SuperDrive machines to ship late (i.e., January post-MacWorld) and for them to (surprise, surprise) include bluetooth.
My thinking is that the prime candidate for bluetooth has to be the "Ultimate" PB. So given these (otherwise surprisingly good) upgrades to the PB, does that mean we won't see BT on any Apple for another 6-9 months? Or will Apple simply ship it on non-portables first (weird)?
Par for the course. More Apple suspense. At least this is good suspense (good machines now, better machines later).
Wow, Apple achieved the difficult goal of adding the portable superdrive. Cool!
But Apple has been touting the virtues of BlueTooth for nearly a year (January MacWorld) and no machine yet has it built in? They didn't even add it to their new PB? What gives? Steve, hello; are you listening to your own hype? How about walking some of that talk?
Radeon 9000 --- finally. I guess I'm still waiting for their BT portables. Get rid of the dongle. At least they finally are including the 802.11b adapters with two of the three configurations (a first!). That should be built-in standard as well (for all portables).
Apple has done a pioneering and hassle-free job of integrating wireless and BT. With their hub strategy, you'd think they'd tout all that awesome work by shipping standard to take advantage of 802.11b and BT.
Fingers crossed for next edition PB (including BT and 802.11b (802.11g?)).
DreamBeans has analyzed the results and published their findings. They found a variety of biased reporting and outright lies in the original report. Their analysis is available at:
http://dreambean.com/petstore.html
In particular, the J2EE application has not been optimized and some obvious optimizations (e.g., not using deprecated, inefficient API calls!) have been ignored. The J2EE application has been designed to do much more work storing data than the streamlined.NET version. Finally, they note that the.NET app is far from a model of application design (as MS claims).
Read their report for the juicy details (not very long).
As one of the people unsatisfied with CD quality sound, I am heartened that the industry is (finally!) stepping up to the bar and trying to produce genuinely musical sound. Even if you think you have lead ears (i.e., noone can tell the difference between CD players, CD is good enough, etc.), I think many would be surprised to hear the difference when presented to them. The article mentions how even musicians think they're hearing complete sound, until they hear what's possible. Sound perception in humans is far from perfect and sound memory and recognition less so, but our hearing is still more acute than CD's allow.
Given all that, the two competing formats are interesting especially from an engineering perspective (as I understand it). I'm definitely not expert on the formats, but here's my (half-baked) take on the current situation.
DVD-A seems like an obvious winner for more multimedia capability and the appearance of backwards compatibility (its DVD after all, right?). Cool. However, DVD-A requires lots of electronics to process the signal including sophisticated D-to-A converters (a la the CD medium where they've been trying to perfect this D-to-A process for many years). This is the 16-bit... 18-bit... 20-bit progression you've probably heard of re: CD players. It's doable, but its kind of brute force from a pure engineering perspective, and from an audio perspective, it's less than ideal because the format guarantees a reasonably long signal path through all these converters and electronics.
Enter Sony's SACD. SACD takes a radically simpler approach which puts the quality of the sound as the primary driver in the format. As I understand it, SACD format is based on an ongoing stream of bits (no words to chunk and convert). There's still work to be done, but the signal path is much shorter since the electronics are much simpler (vanilla compared to DVD sound processing). Some (many?) studios use SACD in the studio record and process music before down-converting it to CD format. So, SACD is about the music.
Given those two issues, SACD could lead to phenomenally better sound even in cheaper units SACD players (than roughly equivalent DVD-A players) if (once?) volume sales and production arrive. Simpler, cheaper, and higher quality than CD (or DVD-A for the most part). So, I'm kind of taken with the SACD approach for the new audio standard. Perhaps DVD's themselves can upgrade (higher capacities for higher resolution movies) without worrying about DVD-A so much. Good sound for movies is nice, but at least get better than 640x480 resolution for the movies!
So, here's one vote for a next generation audio format. And there are my (random, not entirely informed) two cents on the competing formats.
>>Combine the following: >>Unpopular language: phython >>Unpopular API: Cocoa >>Result: a going-nowhere application
Then add some selfish unprofessionalism: >Actually, you can use that as an advantage. Often >times employers will ask you to write a "prototype" and >then when it's done, they fire you and hire some >monkeys to do upgrades. >If you do prototyping in python and Cocoa, you can be >sure that won't happen.
And you get the most godawful excuse to use two of the best new technologies on the planet. Yikes, what a stinker rationale that is. I hate the whole job security attitude. It has loused more promising projects than I care to think about, and has killed many a promising engineers career with apathy and defensive posturing. Once you start thinking in terms of job security, kiss your career and your projects successes goodbye.
What ever happened to using technologies which work well or have the advantage of rapid prototyping? Python and Cocoa both have reputations for being high leverage and powerful without forgoing speed when needed. Isn't that good enough to warrant their use?
Please! Keep job security arguments away from language choice and design decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
no text
The only time you'll likely hear a difference in cabling is in a highly tuned setup. Of course, that's the only time you'd likely find such cables anyway.
I have heard the difference with ultra-high-end cables. You only need one experience to prove they can make a difference.
Ironically, the subtleties are often where the improvements are. (Bass is often better too.) So, it's not obvious at first, it just sounds better.
The best way to judge is often with extended listening and the amount of fatigue from listening (that's how I often judge). Others have better ears than I, but I can still hear (at least some of) the difference(s) --- more natural upper end, open spacious sound (ambience), more punch in midbass, more attack on dynamics, more silence (!), lots of stuff can improve.
So, yes, if you don't believe cables can make a difference, that's fine. However, only one counterexample is necessary to disprove a theory. I offer my own experience(s) as such a counterexample. Frankly, I'm not sure acute hearing is necessary to hear the difference/improvement in musicality, though acute hearing is necessary to be able to pinpoint the differences (I suspect).
Cheers!
>Dude, get a clue. You have no idea what you're talking
;-)
>about.
Go back and reread the thread. Feel free to cite specifics. While I may know what I'm talking about, I certainly do not know what you're talking about.
I'll add a few more suggestions. Pay particular attention to the google instructions. You don't need to trust me; feel free to trust others who have documented their experiences and engineering discoveries.
Two. Feel free to trust your ears. If you have lead ears, consider it a two-edged blessing. On the one hand, you can enjoy 'music' just about wherever you find it. On the other hand, you don't have very acute hearing (and won't be playing violin). No biggie, right?
Two clues if you choose to accept them.
But wait, there's more. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't insult others to spite the discussion. The sound to noise ratio on this discussion is already woefully low. (I'm sure you'll run with that.
Cheers!
Dude, get a grip.
We're talking sonics here, not just bits. The timing of bits matters for music. If you had googled and checked the first music relevant site listed, you would have found jitter.de. Even though you disbelieve, at least you could see that others have found jitter matters in sonics (once again, not so much in just bit transfer).
All your hyperbolic comments (other than the ad hominem attacks) boil down to: jitter doesn't matter.
Guess what? What if it does matter in sonic engineering? What if people can hear the difference?
I'll give you credit for doubting. It wasn't obvious to me (not surprising) nor to the audio industry. I believe Theta Digital and Linn were some of the first to reengineer their audio equipment to address the issue. As a result, they create(d) some of the best sounding equipment anywhere.
Ironically, I believe the iPod may benefit from it's diminutive size. The signal paths are short, so I suspect there's less room for phase distortion of the music running through the electronics. Again, you may believe all the bits transfer (and they may), but that's not the issue.
The issue is the reproduction of the sound and its perception to acute ears. Out of phase distortion can be very fatiguing for long-term listening and can degrade reproduction from foot-tapping music to ear-bleeding noise --- from a music enthusiast's point of view.
There's very little room in that discussion for bit engineering. If it doesn't sound good, who cares what bits went where?
Cheers!
"What?" is a good question. The answer is jitter. Google for jitter to find out more about the topic of this thread.
I used to think so too. However, it's not the cable causing problems, it's the interfaces to the cables. Think of the cable as message bearer, and the ends as interpreters. If you have a good cable, the interpreters have an easy (effortless) go; otherwise, the interpreters (electronics) get stressed. That stress can come in the form of overheating, out of phase sound, misinterpretation, poor timing, echoes, drops, etc..
It may not make sense on the surface, but not everything does.
If you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.
If you can't hear it, it doesn't mean it's inaudible (to those with better hearing, taste, sensibility, whatever).
-=-
On a less sensational note, objective measurements of stereo equipment sounds like a great idea, until you put it into practice with severe disappointment. Quantifications of music provide some insight, but overall are gross oversimplifications of what sounds good... and what doesn't (even though it may measure well in all the obvious and usual ways).
Caveat emptor.
You could do quantitative measurements for movie reviews, but that's not going to yield very informative results. For musical equipment, I'd rather have a trusted pair of ears do the listening and let me know what they hear (like a movie reviewer).
It's natural not to like all movie reviewers (difference in taste) nor all music equipment reviewers (difference(s) in hearing acuity and taste). Find the one(s) you like, and use their advice as a guide (still use your own judgment/ear/hearing to draw your own final conclusions).
Human hearing is highly variable. Linear measurements don't tell nearly the whole story. A good reviewer is currently the best system for reviewing equipment, and Stereophile is professional enough to supplement the review with measurements.
Listen tunefully!
Re: Re:The little company that could: Linn!
linn.co.uk
classik.com
Well put! You have captured the essence of Bose and B&O, and why Bose blows. At least B&O offers some design and component quality.
Linn is a small Scottish company with extraordinary engineering and products. Linn does what Bose and B&O attempt to do but without all the glitz and with incredible performance out of compact electronics. Their speakers are good too, so they offer complete systems. See:
linn.co.uk
For their 'low end' all in one home theatre CD, DVD, Tuner, 5.1 channel preamp/amplifier, multi-room capable receiver, see Linn's Classik Movie System (CMS) and CMS Di[gital] at:
classik.com
You'll also find their entry level Classik Music (two channel amp, tuner, preamp, multi-room capable) System. The newer, more complete Classik Movie includes CD/DVD/Tuner with 5 channel amplifier and component video out. The brand new CMS Di includes all the features of the Classik Movie but adds an even better CD/DVD processor and source input for both video (component video in) and audio (toslink optical 5.1 channel). The advanced CD/DVD sound processing is trickle down technology from Linn's brand new, state of the art Unidisk CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD disc player.
All three Classiks have the same tiny form factor, except the new 5.1 channel Movie units have more controls and therefore a different face (same diminutive size though).
Despite their diminutive size, these units are better than most separates. Needless to say, Linn is very popular in Japan where tiny, powerful, state of the art electronics are a sign of excellence.
The pricing is under $2k ($1500?) for the Classik Music (CD, Tuner, et al.), $3k for the Classik Movie all-in-one (DVD, et al.), and $5k for the no-compromise movie Di (Unidisk processing trickle down, and component video and toslink inputs). The Di is not exactly cheap but packs amazing capabilities and superior quality into unbelievably compact package.
The units even include multi-room capabilities using multiple Classik units (Linn's "Connect" system), or connecting to Linn's versatile "Knekt" system to connect a variety of Linn components throughout the home/office into one system. Both Connect and Knekt offer keypad controls (e.g., wall-mount units to control the Linn Classik or other (Linn and non-Linn (by IR) components)).
Linn technology is unique in its blend of high technology and no-compromise emphasis on audio quality. For example, Linn uses surface mount technology and switch-mode power supplies which are rare in audiophile products (due to complications Linn has innovated beyond). In contrast, Bose has a reputation for taking cheap components and equalizing the hell out of them to get the semblance of accurate sound (but delivering an essentially synthesized sound on any music). B&O offers a genuine value in style, design, and compactness, but with some significant (but not necessarily critical) sonic compromises. Linn does not take the sonic shortcuts.
Instead, Linn innovates in a variety of ways (the first audiophile quality CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD transport, innovative FM tuner technology, active speaker amplification, multi-room capabilities, etc.) and trickles the technologies throughout their product line. Few if any other companies even have the capability to pack everything into a single compact box with top flight musical and video quality as in the Classik product line. For Linn, the Classik just takes advantage of a host of their more advanced power supply, amplifier, tuner, multi-room, CD/DVD, and video technology all in one unit.
IOW, what Bose and B&O market in appearance, Linn delivers in performance. Anecdotally, Linn delivers the soul of music, musicians often choose Linn over other audiophile systems, and Linn deliver foot tapping sonic excellence. Linn's byline is "pitch accurate" sound. Let your ears be the judge.
I just hope Apple has their motherboards ready for 2.5GHz. The original spec of 1.8GHz with 6+GB bus was a little heady compared to Apple's current technology (no thanks to Motorola). I'm hoping they know how to build motherboards with the best of them to take advantage of IBM's new 970 chip. Pushing the envelope from 1.8GHz to 2.5GHz just makes the whole motherboard engineering issue more challenging. Let's hope Apple hardware design it up to the task (and then some).
Now, the wolves are guarding the hen house. In the early 90's, when Bruce Lehmann hosted the USPTO's sham hearings on whether to institutionalize s/w patents, his panel was comprised entirely of lawyers.
IOW, lawyers chose to instititionalize s/w patents in spite of strong protests from individuals throughout the software industry.
From that point on, it has been accepted that lawyers have the right to reap profits and taxes off of so-called innovation in software. It's a huge inefficiency, impossible to enforce, and impossible for anyone to prove virtually any software is unencumbered by patent conflicts. It's ridiculous.
The USPTO loves it though. They just increased their staff to handle their backlog which will forever increase since software patents are prolific and easily twisted into patent submissions.
Better yet, lawyers are having a heyday. The more lawsuits, the better. They get wealthy while the software industry grinds to a halt. It's obscene and a severe conflict of interest that they should have instituted s/w patents over all reason from the s/w industry itself.
I'm not even sure it's legal. I wonder what authority the USPTO head, Bruce Lehmann, really had. Was he appointed, and by whom? He certainly wasn't a member of Congress where laws should be created.
S/w patents should be abolished.
TY. That looks interesting but not very active (unfortunately).
I do still wonder why the EFF and the GNU efforts do not take the software patent issue (more?) seriously.
It's been clear in the software industry since the get-go that software patents are a sham, but they've been imposed on the industry by and to the benefit of the legal industry. Why isn't there a push to "Just say 'No!' to software patents" and rid the software industry of the hairball legalities of them? What would be the best way to eliminate software patents once and for all? Are they even constitutional, and what legal basis do they have (I doubt Bruce Lehmann as USPTO head really has the authority to pass new laws or interpret laws)? Any insights to eliminating software patents would be appreciated.
Two followup threads off a BMW fan bboard. Original thread:
p ?postid=1644871&page=1
p ?postid=1647896&page=1
http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e85/forum.ph
and for the first-hand report follow-up thread:
http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e85/forum.ph
For further information, please follow up above. TY.
BMW is on a roll, but unfortunately they also seem to be on a design hubris trip, judging by the 745i movies and my friend's ongoing BMW Z4 experience.
I have a friend fighting with BMW to return his manual top Z4 for the power top version due to similar design oversights. Would you believe the Z4 manual top can leak and splash water into the interior when driven in the rain? BMW's "official" response: it's ok since that's the way the manual top was designed. (However, the power top design exhibits no such design flaw.) Even the BMW techs agree that the top is misdesigned, but BMW refuses to take responsibility for their design flaw and refuses to upgrade the car at the $900 power top cost to the equivalent power top version. Instead, BMW wants to make another $2700 on the new car due to their design mistake!
BMW's new design hubris and customer neglect has led it to deny its design miscues (745i rear end) and critical design flaws (Z4 manual top, and 745i iDrive and electronics), and some of BMW's most loyal customers are the victims.
Instead of providing an upgrade path at cost ($900), BMW wants my friend to trade in his new Z4 as a used car (even though he reported the problem two days after taking delivery of the car). This difference of resolution is crucially expensive since BMW wants another $2700 from my friend to address their manual top critical design flaw. BMW wants to make money off my friend twice for their design failure, and their "offer" is really just an offer for him to pay the BMW premium twice for a $900 resolution to address the leaky Z4 top. The story goes on quite a bit further, but that's the crux.
There are two basic problems I see with this situation other than the following obvious issues: shipping an improperly designed and inadequately tested manual top, nonsensical denials (even in the face of their own service techs and loyal customer(s)), and unconscionably poor customer service by BMW. The two subtle issues I see are:
1. BMW charges a premium for quality design and attention to detail. A leaky roof is an undeniably major oversight and design flaw, and telling a customer it's supposed to leak and splash into the cabin just doesn't cut it. My miata roadster never leaked into the cabin in ten years of ownership. Why should a BMW roadster at twice the price?
BMW has been hugely successful recently, but its success seems to be going to its head. The buggy, ugly 745i is the epitome of Bangle design and BMW hubris. The lowly (relative to 745i) soft top indicates that even engineering (not just aesthetics) are subject to BMW design hubris.
2. The Z4 is expensive even for a BMW at $32+k starting (compare: Nissan 350Z coupe at $25k starting with app. 100 more horsepower!). The manual top chops $900 off the Z4 price. However, through all my friend's troubles, BMW could not find another Z4 with a manual top in the region. IOW, BMW appears not to be shipping manual top Z4's.
Considering the huge discrepancy between the success of the Z4 as a design whole, and the utter engineering/consumer failure of the manual top design, I have a suspicion. BMW knows the manual top is a design failure and purposely has not voluntarily shipped any to dealers (unless spec'ed by customer). They ship power tops by default and suggest dealers only order power tops (hence no other manual tops to inspect in region). BMW apparently only intends to sell power top Z4s (and for good reason) since they already *know* the manual top is deficient. BMW intends (and certainly should) only sell Z4 power tops.
But why offer the soft top if it's a. deficiently designed, b. largely untested, c. improperly supported in the field, and d. subject to severe customer dissatisfaction? I suspect the Z4 manual top exists solely to lop $900 off the starting price for the Z4. I also suspect that BMW marketing told engineering at the last minute to create a manual top version --- not because they wanted a well designed manual top --- but because BMW marketing wanted a way to lop off another $900 off the starting price of their already expensive roadster in view of its less expensive competition (e.g., Nissan 350Z).
Voila, the Z4 manual top reject design exists solely for marketing reasons --- never mind the inadequate engineering design, testing, and execution --- and the potentially open-ended damage to BMW's design and engineering reputation. Engineering probably complained bitterly at marketing's unsavory request, but marketing apparently prevailed much to my friend's customer dissatisfaction.
I guess at this point, it's largely immaterial why BMW shipped such a defective manual top (or such buggy 745i software). Mistakes can occasionally happen. What matters is how BMW responds to customer dissatisfaction at these defects and design failures.
Unortunately, with BMW America's new hubris, they explain away the leaky, splashy manual top design as (literally) 'that's how it was designed' implying it therefore works. Perhaps BMW Germany (or the BMW America executive team?) need to step in and stop the customer dissatisfaction hemorrhaging.
Neither my friend nor I disagree the manual top was designed by BMW (surprise, surprise), we just wonder what the BMW engineeers, executives, and 'customer service' staff were smoking when they chose to ship the design. Yes, that's the way it was designed, and that's exactly why BMW should take responsibility for the design flaw(s). BMW needs to acknowledge the flaw(s) and fix or replace them to customer satisfaction. (Duh.)
So, BMW's latest hubris is not limited to Microsoft Windows CE based 745i's, nor Bangle'd 745i sedan rear ends. It also extends to their own manual soft top design on their brand new Z4. BMW, BMW America, and BMW dealerships need to reassess their priorities: is internal engineering/marketing the ultimate authority at any expense (including customer satisfaction), or is it possible tech's and customers with first hand experience could know better?
IOW, is hubris king, or is customer satisfaction still a priority at BMW Germany, BMW USA, or BMW dealerships? As a BMW owner and loyalist, I hope BMW plugs its hubris leak right quick, and bails its customers out of its leaky, flawed design mistakes.
P.s., just to level the Z4 comments slightly, I shall say that other than the fatal leaky manual top, the Z4 is a beautifully designed and delightful car to drive and enjoy. Even I delight at and in it, and I am hardly a Bangle fan. The Z4 "flame" design is a delight; the Z4 attention to detail is excellent excepting the one flaw. My friend has several used BMW's already, and the Z4 (with a working power top) is exactly what he wants and is his first ever new BMW (and new car!). It's just a shame that BMW is denying him the car of his dreams to avoid addressing its manual top design mistake.
I hope BMW wakes up without sacrificing its most loyal customers (including my friend) and doing too much unnecessary self-inflicted damage. BMW should honor their good design reputation by addressing their flawed design(s) immediately, without reservation, and to the full satisfaction of their customers. Here's to BMW pulling out of its design hubris and fulfilling its premium customer service obligations.
At the risk of being a little off-topic, I'd like to mention the coolest piece of audio gear (and audio company) that I've found. The Linn Classik is a 5.1 channel home theatre in a box (speakers separate): AM/FM, CD, DVD, DTS, preamp, 5 channels of amps, subwoofer out. I.e., the works in a tiny box.
http://www.classik.com
It has amazing audio credentials and has just been revved starting today (CES) to have component output for the DVD. The Linn Classik has to be seen and heard to be believed.
Oh, and did I mention these network together to share music between rooms? Each of these units has a built in Linn knekt receiver/transmitter to share music with other Classiks (or even Linn's fully blown Knekt multiroom audio system). They can even be hooked up to the Linn (app. $10,000) linux based Kivor digital music jukebox (pop cd's in one at a time to load it up with music). The kivor is the ultimate (audio quality (that's why it costs $10,000), etc.) audio jukebox.
Linn is amazing. No other high-end audio company could even attempt to build the Classik in such a small fully functional unit. Check it out. It's $3k but worth every penny, and totally non-intrusive (size-wise) with better quality than most separates!
Amazing.
P.s., much of their other equipment is amazing as well including their expensive (a la Kivor) reference equipment.
Microsoft (thanks to Bill Gates and cronies)
Software Patents (thanks to Bruce Lehman and lawyer cronies, formerly of USPTO)
Tail-wagging-dog Politics (i.e., Congress-people succumbing to copyright stakeholders special interest taxes on CD media, etc.)
Status Quo Mentality from top (e.g., RIAA, "safe" bet managers deploying MS) and bottom (e.g., job security minded grunts recommending MS).
-=-
A little more business integrity, legal industry integrity, congressional knowledge and integrity, and IT staff knowledge and integrity!
Of course, many (not necessarily US) efforts are countering some of these issues including Linux, other open source projects, and even the Mac OS X which seems poised to set a higher standard in home/small business/enterprise client computing.
Miyamoto is truly innovative and a great game designer, but his innovations are not all encompassing. He focuses on the one player gaming experience. Nintendo is notably neglecting the online experience reportedly due to Miyamoto's direction.
I believe online has more than proven itself. Nintendo's stubornness to deny its gamers online experience will be seen as akin to their mistake in denying developers the CD medium (which they've finally caught up with in the GameCube with the proprietary mini-disc).
Miyamoto continues to break new ground and innovate but he does not address multiplayer issues. The online experience is open for a new generation of game designers. The PC game designers are likely to migrate to the consoles for a more controlled, reliable gaming platform, and the online gaming experience will eventually become the principal area for gaming and innovation.
Miyamoto trailblazed one player gaming. It'll be fun to see who trailblazes the next generation of games.
Actually, MS did put Go directly out of business. The original poster is (slightly) incorrect though. MS did not just announce one vaporware product, I believe they announced as many as three different, codeveloping (!) vaporware products well in advance of any scheduled debut (i.e., MS reacted and crushed the nascent market with nothing except marketing). None of the three product announcements ever materialized. How's that for FUD?
Go already had shipping product but corporate interest and, more importantly, sales waned rapidly *after* the MS announcements. Go died just as it was releasing its strongest platform yet.
This was MS at its peak "best" during its heyday. With the new "laissez faire" ruling, MS is probably now going to have a revival.
Go had some very interesting technology (OS, multilingual handwriting recognition, hardware) which was eventually lost in a corporate buyout by AT&T (where it then was sold to some Asian (Korean?) firm where it stagnated and died as far as I know).
Go is probably one of the most prominent examples of MS FUD destroying innovation (though there are plenty others).
Hmm, you make some good points. I guess my judgement is clouded since I have only a PowerBook, and I imagine syncing with my Palm Tungsten T and some BlueTooth phone (e.g., T68i or P800) for mobile wireless. Also, it seems like such a no-brainer, I was sure (perhaps cynically) bluetooth before Radeon 9000 and definitely before SuperDrive. Yet, those both arrived and bluetooth was no show! Even 1GHz made it. All the hard stuff made it, but no bluetooth. Seems odd.
:-)
It seems really strange to me that the two portables are updated, and yet bluetooth is most valuable on the portables. Does this mean that Steve won't bluetooth enable the whole product line come January, a year after making a big deal out of bluetooth? If he does update machines, will he now leave out the portables (which could use it most)? That seems really backwards to me.
I was really hoping that today's announcement would be Xserve Raid, with "full" PB and iBook upgrades in January. Now, I'm still waiting to upgrade my PB (and hoping for faster memory, higher resolution, bluetooth, and faster (new?) CPU). Fatter GPU memory would be nice too.
But now I wonder whether bluetooth will have to wait for another 6-9 month rev cycle. Ouch. I do not think they'll update the PB's again in January as that would be only about a month after the latest PB with SuperDrive starts shipping (if they keep their announced 3-4 week shipping schedule). The "optimal" outcome would be for the SuperDrive machines to ship late (i.e., January post-MacWorld) and for them to (surprise, surprise) include bluetooth.
My thinking is that the prime candidate for bluetooth has to be the "Ultimate" PB. So given these (otherwise surprisingly good) upgrades to the PB, does that mean we won't see BT on any Apple for another 6-9 months? Or will Apple simply ship it on non-portables first (weird)?
Par for the course. More Apple suspense. At least this is good suspense (good machines now, better machines later).
Cheers!
Wow, Apple achieved the difficult goal of adding the portable superdrive. Cool!
But Apple has been touting the virtues of BlueTooth for nearly a year (January MacWorld) and no machine yet has it built in? They didn't even add it to their new PB? What gives? Steve, hello; are you listening to your own hype? How about walking some of that talk?
Radeon 9000 --- finally. I guess I'm still waiting for their BT portables. Get rid of the dongle. At least they finally are including the 802.11b adapters with two of the three configurations (a first!). That should be built-in standard as well (for all portables).
Apple has done a pioneering and hassle-free job of integrating wireless and BT. With their hub strategy, you'd think they'd tout all that awesome work by shipping standard to take advantage of 802.11b and BT.
Fingers crossed for next edition PB (including BT and 802.11b (802.11g?)).
DreamBeans has analyzed the results and published their findings. They found a variety of biased reporting and outright lies in the original report. Their analysis is available at:
.NET version. Finally, they note that the .NET app is far from a model of application design (as MS claims).
http://dreambean.com/petstore.html
In particular, the J2EE application has not been optimized and some obvious optimizations (e.g., not using deprecated, inefficient API calls!) have been ignored. The J2EE application has been designed to do much more work storing data than the streamlined
Read their report for the juicy details (not very long).
As one of the people unsatisfied with CD quality sound, I am heartened that the industry is (finally!) stepping up to the bar and trying to produce genuinely musical sound. Even if you think you have lead ears (i.e., noone can tell the difference between CD players, CD is good enough, etc.), I think many would be surprised to hear the difference when presented to them. The article mentions how even musicians think they're hearing complete sound, until they hear what's possible. Sound perception in humans is far from perfect and sound memory and recognition less so, but our hearing is still more acute than CD's allow.
Given all that, the two competing formats are interesting especially from an engineering perspective (as I understand it). I'm definitely not expert on the formats, but here's my (half-baked) take on the current situation.
DVD-A seems like an obvious winner for more multimedia capability and the appearance of backwards compatibility (its DVD after all, right?). Cool. However, DVD-A requires lots of electronics to process the signal including sophisticated D-to-A converters (a la the CD medium where they've been trying to perfect this D-to-A process for many years). This is the 16-bit... 18-bit... 20-bit progression you've probably heard of re: CD players. It's doable, but its kind of brute force from a pure engineering perspective, and from an audio perspective, it's less than ideal because the format guarantees a reasonably long signal path through all these converters and electronics.
Enter Sony's SACD. SACD takes a radically simpler approach which puts the quality of the sound as the primary driver in the format. As I understand it, SACD format is based on an ongoing stream of bits (no words to chunk and convert). There's still work to be done, but the signal path is much shorter since the electronics are much simpler (vanilla compared to DVD sound processing). Some (many?) studios use SACD in the studio record and process music before down-converting it to CD format. So, SACD is about the music.
Given those two issues, SACD could lead to phenomenally better sound even in cheaper units SACD players (than roughly equivalent DVD-A players) if (once?) volume sales and production arrive. Simpler, cheaper, and higher quality than CD (or DVD-A for the most part). So, I'm kind of taken with the SACD approach for the new audio standard. Perhaps DVD's themselves can upgrade (higher capacities for higher resolution movies) without worrying about DVD-A so much. Good sound for movies is nice, but at least get better than 640x480 resolution for the movies!
So, here's one vote for a next generation audio format. And there are my (random, not entirely informed) two cents on the competing formats.
Wow.
>>Combine the following:
>>Unpopular language: phython
>>Unpopular API: Cocoa
>>Result: a going-nowhere application
Then add some selfish unprofessionalism:
>Actually, you can use that as an advantage. Often
>times employers will ask you to write a "prototype" and
>then when it's done, they fire you and hire some
>monkeys to do upgrades.
>If you do prototyping in python and Cocoa, you can be
>sure that won't happen.
And you get the most godawful excuse to use two of the best new technologies on the planet. Yikes, what a stinker rationale that is. I hate the whole job security attitude. It has loused more promising projects than I care to think about, and has killed many a promising engineers career with apathy and defensive posturing. Once you start thinking in terms of job security, kiss your career and your projects successes goodbye.
What ever happened to using technologies which work well or have the advantage of rapid prototyping? Python and Cocoa both have reputations for being high leverage and powerful without forgoing speed when needed. Isn't that good enough to warrant their use?
Please! Keep job security arguments away from language choice and design decisions.