Dreadhead

In short yup. I have other ideas though. There is nothing particularly earth shattering about this particular box or approach but I do give them props for commercializing after the false start with Yamaha. There is a lot of similar software that is available already, beyer even has a system and DSP box with head tracking etc. What makes their patent is the in-situ calibration not anything else which there is already prior art for. I emailed back and forth with one of their engineers but when I pointed out some of the prior art he mysteriously stopped replying to email.... I'm thinking of getting some in ear mics and some other things to do some of this myelf since I've already had quite a bit of success with just building mono DSPs that essentially make one driver sound like another. The strength of the in-situ approach is that when you do it that way your error in your absolute measurement is entirely moot because all you care about is the difference. As I said before thought it won't model distortion.

somethings that makes computer thingies produce music stuff

Thanks for the info. Looks like they used the Prism ADA-8XR because that and the Orpheus are there only 192 ADs that prism sells and I see the ADA-8XR on the Abby Road website. Damnit now I want the CD's and the Prism DA

I am stoked about this. I wonder who did the mastering.... I just looked and it looks like Abby road mostly uses Rosetta 200s in their mastering rooms. hmmmm.... There will be mono masters too (not for me)

Me too but it's not going to happen here where I am either. My wife has offered that if we dig out the basement I can use it for that but I just don't see that happening because the cost would be nuts unless we rebuild the house too.

You can add it for another $180 or so.

Lipinski Speakers has a recommended room that looks insanely sweet: Lipinski Sound - surround sound philosophy I really want to hear these speakers sometime. Some really respected people love them.

Also it sort of makes your expensive dac useless because whatever you do the SVS ADC and DAC are being used to output to both the speakers and to the headphones.

It's actually pretty straightforward mathematically and I'm not to sure I love their approach to head tracking and the treatment of the delays but it is good. (details can be found in their patent if you wish) It's essentially linear so distortion will not come through so if you try and model a SET tube amp setup you may be less impressed but it is very cool technology.

Very cool. Seems pricey at 3k though. edit: well it includes a Stax system and head tracker so maybe not.

Happy Birthday!

Went to work, then a meet in Arlington and then relocated all my music to a new share and set my PMP to sync for the next 5 hours.

happy birthday

In short yes I drooled and drooled for a long time but the more I looked the more they made no sense for me. Now I think they almost make no sense for anyone that's not producing prints over 40 inches and requires that at that size you can see the pores on the subject. Don't get me wrong they are still cool stuff. Also I want to blow over 6k on a DAC (possibly incl ADC) so maybe I'm not in a real position to judge value

I read that before I posted the link but if you look at the individual test scores excluding the iso score the there is still a beat down taking place. Especially when one talks about the value. That said your argument about larger sensors having problems is false. They make the sensors as part of a larger wafer if that was true then it would hold true for smaller sensors near the edge etc. They just get fewer sensors per wafer which of course drives up cost. Also larger pixel size is an advantage generally for ISO and the pixels in MF are huge so that again sounds like an excuse. Optically when you want small depth of field or are expanding it out to insanely large sizes MF has a physical advantage (but I'm not sure about the expanding part because resolution is likely sensor limited in this case) but otherwise it's just cache. I've seen fashion photographers taking shots on a well lit beach with massive flashes because their Hassy doesn't have good iso and they are stopped down for depth of field so I fail to see the advantage for that use. The color and contrast are no better (I had thought they were but that test shows they aren't).

Sorry to hear that. Those pics are lovely.

More proof that you need not spend 30k for image quality: DxOMark Sensor Doesn't make the optical differences go away but the MF stuff generally gets beat down by the newest DSLRs

Found it: Solvay Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "eventeen of the twenty-nine attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners," fuck me

Bragg ... Lorentz.... Bohr.... Dirac.... Langemir ..... Holy crap I assume that was the famous (for physics) conference where Enstein and Heisenberg got in a shit-fight over the uncertainty principle. Sometimes I wish I'd kept on in theoretical physics track instead of going to practical hydrodynamics for my PhD.

The civet crap stuff: Animalcoffee - Kopi Luwak from Indonesia

Yeah I know. They do offer them in the more "normal" bi-naural setup as well. I want them for doing in-situ headphone and speaker measurements and getting HRTFs.

I've been looking at these off and on: Stereo microphones, USB Microphones, Preamplifiers, Digital Recorders, Cables and more at Rock Bottom Prices from The Sound Professionals - Great deals on Microphone, Preamplifier, Digital Recorder, Cable and more! I like the ear inserts (though I'd be using these mics for a very different purpose).Though the church stuff off ebay looks good too: STEREO MICROPHONES & PREAMP 4 R09 MT2 DAT AND MINIDISC - eBay (item 250296589780 end time Apr-15-09 14:41:33 PDT) Core is a lot more expensive but well respected.

If you're looking at SS then the GS-X is kick ass. The balanced ultra desktop looks pretty good too.

Larger formats have lower DOF for the same field of view. Which is worse for me anyway. I have a hell of a time getting enough DOF most of the time when I have to shoot wide open to get a bird in the shot. Your opinion may vary. The other things are just a function of sensor size and as I said if you're at the 800 iso that the MF cameras seem to top out at the contrast, noise and image clarity from most modern DSLRS is plain excellent. I mean look at these iso 6400 shots: Nikon D3X, Nikon D3 and Canon 5D Mark II ISO 6,400 Comparison

Where are the measurements? The size of the sensor proves something? after that lead in I was hoping for something about lp/mm on which you might likely have a point if printing large prints. I wonder at your statements about noise when a Hassy can only go up to iso 800 in it's 31mp form..... Even less at others. NR is virtually non-existent for most of the latest crop of DSLR at those isos. A lot of the noise that happens at HIGHER (MF unavailable) isos is to do with the fact that you have to put a higher voltage across the sensor to get higher sensitivity and the leakage between pixels increases with smaller pixel spacings. Hence better high iso performance for the d3/d700 etc because they have relatively large pixels.