600$ ? You mean, if you already had paid the small fee (i.e. couple of thousands) for the camera itself, then you´ll get the upgrade for 600 .
But some tech bucks the trend. Look at the lifecycle of the average iphone which goes through at least 2 if not 3 users (often within the same family). Still makes it to the scrapheap within 6-7 years, which is low compared to older tech.
But I am not part of this trend. My oldest amp is 50 this year.
I can not find any documentation of 240fps for anything live or normal speed broadcast. I just don't see it happening. If you can find confirmation of that frame rate, I'd be very interested to see it!
Interestingly, Sweden are trying to introduce VAT reductions and tax breaks for repairs, to try and encourage less waste...
Some of us do actually have standards to meet with our sound systems. There are requirements for most of my work to meet speech intelligibilty standards. Quite tough if the room doesn't play nice.
That is a performance standard that in the construction process is often expected when the specification is product based. In theory that puts the onus on the designer. But in practice the designer is part of the specifications team from the start and often the only one of that team who understands the performance requirement. So as a long term player they often are shielded from the blame and dump it downstream.
As to consumer systems, the limit to fidelity is in the common standards. Practical engineering would have you design to a limit with safety factors. Would you go into a building with a roof designed to tolerate a covering of 12" of snow but collapse at 13" on a day with a heavy snow storm?
So not only have such designers looked at extreme weather conditions for the region they also allow for variance in the strength of materials. For example the would treat steel as having a yield strength of 10,000 PSI and the derate that by a third. (For example the steel I use is rated at 30,000 PSI +/-5%.)
Now for audio some folks really can percieve a pure tone a bit above 20,000 hertz. With training even higher. Of course musical instruments close measured go way higher. So with a minimum safety margin we should specify a high frequency limit of 30,000 hertz or above. Low frequency limit following the same guidelines should be 3 hertz or lower. Distortion under any conditions including multi band transients and multilevel probably only needs 80 dB. But in a system with dynamic range this could easily require 140 dB or more "dry."
So it is possible to write performance specifications for a single channel of flawless perceptible performance. Getting this level of quality through the entire chain is perhaps a bit if the issue. Ignoring that the physical components available to do it don't and possibly can't exist.
BTY Scott you might be confused. It is not that the bigger resistor has less Johnson noise, it is that the bigger Johnson...
That is a performance standard that in the construction process is often expected when the specification is product based. In theory that puts the onus on the designer. But in practice the designer is part of the specifications team from the start and often the only one of that team who understands the performance requirement. So as a long term player they often are shielded from the blame and dump it downstream.
As to consumer systems, the limit to fidelity is in the common standards. Practical engineering would have you design to a limit with safety factors. Would you go into a building with a roof designed to tolerate a covering of 12" of snow but collapse at 13" on a day with a heavy snow storm?
So not only have such designers looked at extreme weather conditions for the region they also allow for variance in the strength of materials. For example the would treat steel as having a yield strength of 10,000 PSI and the derate that by a third. (For example the steel I use is rated at 30,000 PSI +/-5%.)
Now for audio some folks really can percieve a pure tone a bit above 20,000 hertz. With training even higher. Of course musical instruments close measured go way higher. So with a minimum safety margin we should specify a high frequency limit of 30,000 hertz or above. Low frequency limit following the same guidelines should be 3 hertz or lower. Distortion under any conditions including multi band transients and multilevel probably only needs 80 dB. But in a system with dynamic range this could easily require 140 dB or more "dry."
So it is possible to write performance specifications for a single channel of flawless perceptible performance. Getting this level of quality through the entire chain is perhaps a bit if the issue. Ignoring that the physical components available to do it don't and possibly can't exist.
BTY Scott you might be confused. It is not that the bigger resistor has less Johnson noise, it is that the bigger Johnson...
Last edited:
In fact - at least theoretically - audio has "such thing" . If no difference between the original soundfield and the reproduced soundfield exists it is per definitionem "the best" i.e. perfect.
In this regard it is a bit easier compared to cars and other stuff.
Even if it not possible to reproduce the original soundfield, as an intermediate step it is already sufficient to reproduce the ear channel signal, that´s why binaural recordings can be very convincing.
Practically it is difficult because every part of the recording and reproduction chain introduces some imperfections which aren´t directly accessible for evaluation.
RNMarsh´s proposal is something like a brute force approach (taking the best and hopefully the result will be the best too) but it might be misleading as something like two channel stereo reproduction is already broken right from the beginning.
Imo that is one of the reasons of the diverging opinions about reproduction quality. Which variant of "broken" somebody considers to be the best depends strongly on individual differences/preferences.
Last edited:
How would you possibly define that? How could you measure it?
It isn't. But most rooms and systems are. Don't blame the format.
I don´t understand the first question; if original and reproduced soundfield are identical it should be considered as perfect.
The measurement part is more tricky, therefore the "at least theoretically" clause in my post.
Measurement is an approximation to reality, but within some constraints and possible further enhancement it is already quite good. If there is some interest i´ll provide examples of different measurement approaches.
I don´t blame the format, but i don´t understand what you mean with "it isn´t" .
The reference should be the original sound field. Two channel stereo reproduction is a better approximation to reality than mono reproduction, but the inventors already knew back in the thirties (last century) that they would need a nearly unlimited number of discrete channels to recreate the soundfield and therefore favoured at third channel but dropped it due to practical considerations.
The purpose of an audio company is to make money. They do that by providing product that customers will buy. There's only a very weak link between objective performance of the product and sales.
What I sense (not aimed at you specifically) is that we don't really know what tech specs will guarantee 'the best' product. Therefor, what we do is 'do the best we can' which means, hey, lets try this. Or that. Whatever.
Again, that is for me the reason why audio design isn't going anywhere. I mean, there's advances in how we store, consume and pay for audio. But as far as the quality, however defined, of what is coming out of our amps, have we made any progress at all over the last, say half century? I'm not seeing it.
Jan
Last edited:
I am reminded of the story of Bill Gates house costing 100 million dollars to build. (don't know if it's correct, but it's the number I saw). There were lots of people providing negative commentary on the excess and how bad Gates is. And yet, he dropped 100 million dollars into the local economy. That is a great thing for the local tradesmen as well as the next in line for the money the tradesmen now spend..
A true story in my neck of the woods..a powerball winner hired local mechanics to redo a building they purchased to open a fine dining establishment. One of the mechanics, don't recall if it was a rocker or an electrician was complaining to me that the owner had them strip and redo the inside 4 times, as they didn't like how the end result came out. I asked if he was paid for all four times, he said yes. Begging the question...why are you complaining??
At least with the watches, the money is being put into the economy...
Actually, that is not exactly correct.
You would be surprised at the level of tech needed to cut the gears, the screws, the springs to an accuracy sufficient to make the watch work. I personally am working on a plunge EDM to drill a 3 mil hole in a 10 mil balance shaft for the watch guy here, and the level of accuracy needed to do that to the tune of tens of millionths of an inch is rather daunting.
The springs themselves are a tech problem. The hairspring has to maintain elastic properties forever at any temperature, never fatigue..the balance wheel has to have temperature coefficients locked out the wazoo...this in itself is a daunting metallurgy problem. A three axis tourbillion is not just a work of art, it is rather complex, and must survive shocks despite the complexity.
The alloys used for all gear teeth is an interesting problem in static/dynamic friction and wear as well.
When 50,000 man hours are put into such a device to build it, the "men" who do it are retaining skills that are at the top of the game. That level of understandings does indeed trickle down, even though it may take years.
BTW, even the high tech physics labs around the world use technology first developed for clocks. Invar, gridiron pendulums to name two.
I've kept my Peugeot PX-10E on the road since 1972. I've been a bike nerd all along, when it wasn't fashionable..
Then I must be a consummate engineer. I spent two hours fixing a 3 dollar AA cell driven electric clock insert...
John
Last edited:
It turns out "begging the question" is a peculiar term, much like a legal term. It doesn't mean "raising the question." Rather is refers to a logical fallacy based on a type of what could be viewed as circular reasoning. From Google:
Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
Sorry for going there, but it could be something useful to know about in the future.
Also, the reason someone might complain about redoing work despite more money is because some people work for more than just money. There can also be satisfaction from a job well done, and pride in quality of workmanship. When someone puts out extra effort to do a great job, it can be disappointing to see it destroyed.
Last edited:
You found the definition on the internet...which of course, begs the question: Are you sure it's correct?...
I don't know, I think I liked what I thought it was better...
I always though the phrase meant that given the information as presented, there was an inconsistency that required questioning.
Totally agree. an excellent tradesman by definition, has pride in the work. (well, IMHO they should anyway)
In the case I mention, it was not the quality of the work being dissed, it was the design of the overall package. The owners were not exactly sure if what they requested would be consistent with the ideas they had in their heads. They were rich, not interior designers..
And the final product? Man, I didn't care for it at all..
John
Count me in with DPH and JN as a bike nerd then. Still riding since five and still riding a vintage Italian CIOCC bike with all Campy parts except for the pedals. My favorite bike was stolen, a custom Gios Torino but the CIOCC is still a great bike. Modern tech would say I should be on a carbon framed bike but since I have worked with advanced composites and carbon fiber for many years I just know the cost isn't worth it, there is little quality control and longevity is a huge question. Fall with a carbon fiber frame and tell me where your getting the C-scan done to show the frame is not damaged internally?
Technology does not guarantee quality, a quality product is much more than just the latest tech. How do you advance the art of audio design when some of the most recognized names in audio refuse to move forward with simple devices like Opamps? These days the best audio development is probably going into cell phones, no question I see the listed demands for audio designers for the cell phone industry, I surely don't see that level of requirement for transducer or electronics development from companies like Harman/ JBL.
Technology does not guarantee quality, a quality product is much more than just the latest tech. How do you advance the art of audio design when some of the most recognized names in audio refuse to move forward with simple devices like Opamps? These days the best audio development is probably going into cell phones, no question I see the listed demands for audio designers for the cell phone industry, I surely don't see that level of requirement for transducer or electronics development from companies like Harman/ JBL.
True the watches don't consume many resources. Following some of the practices that go on in the rain forest, using a few extra 1000's of board feet of exotic lumber is not IMO a good thing. This has been fashionable in posh homes.
+1. I'm riding a 1988 peugeot 753 chorus. I did have a 96 trek carbon frame that the yoofs at the cycle shop said they had seen in a museum, but that was stolen 5 years ago. I've got used to steel again. the 753 used to be the winter bike. Swapping between them was always a bit noodly for the first couple of corners!
Agreed, using rare resources such as exotic lumber wasn't in my thinking. I was thinking only about the herds of free-range sheetrock, the PEX forest, and the ceement ponds...
John
billshurv,
Just don't fall on the chain side with a vintage French frame, finding the bolt for the rear derailleur with those stupid French sized threads would not be fun. I have an old frame in the garage I just found my old box of parts for with of course a French Gitane frame from the early 70's. Still have all the vintage Campy parts to put it back together.
Just don't fall on the chain side with a vintage French frame, finding the bolt for the rear derailleur with those stupid French sized threads would not be fun. I have an old frame in the garage I just found my old box of parts for with of course a French Gitane frame from the early 70's. Still have all the vintage Campy parts to put it back together.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.