untangle

Love it.

Can you please add filters for "by-genre" and "kindle-only"? Please..

The ability to collapse the nested replies.

This would aid in keeping page formatting within bounds, and also in scanning the scope of the threads.

This article is one of the most lucid and accurate that I have read on this topic.

However, one thing that's missing here (and in nearly all other similar pieces) is a full discussion of the prerequisites of the sampling theorem. For example, the signal must be bandwidth-limited (and no finite-time signal can be).

But this is a minor concern, as there are many elements in the analog domain of the recording and playback chains that serve as low-pass filters - starting with the mics. So bandwidth-limiting is effectively achieved.

For a similar reason, the discussion of the "harmful" effect of high-frequencies to playback electronics and loudspeakers to be a bit overdone IMO. Peruse the excellent lab results of modern audio gear on Stereophile's web site. You'll find that bandwidths exceeding 30kHz are rare.

One last thing. When doing subjective "testing," keep in mind that what some folks are hearing may be limitations of their gear. For example, most DACs derive their clocks for higher sampling rates (88/96/176/192) by clock-multiplier circuits. IOW, 44kHz and 48kHz are the only ones clocked directly by a crystal. These multiplier circuits are often noisy, contributing to jitter. The audible effect of this jitter is hard to predict.

Bob

PS As an avid audiophile, I find the clash of subjectivists and objectivists on this normally-buttoned-down forum to be a bit of a trip.

> In theory, it's true that the human hear can't hear above ~18kHz, but it can hear the influence of the very high pitch harmonics on a lower frequency.

That may well be true. But those mixed-down harmonics that are heard "live" would then be captured by the 16/44 (or whatever) sampling. IOW, the recording captures what you heard. Those upper harmonics have no emergent properties. Their effect is captured.

Bob

Well put.

I also find that the nature of the musical content matters as well. For me, the most easily detected artifacts occur in complex material (e.g., symphonic or multi-tracked rock), especially when a lot of upper-bass and lower-midrange energy is present. Even so, the defects are slight.

As a disclaimer, I listen with extremely high-end gear and have access to high-resolution source material. It's possible that these effects are undetectable with normal kit.

I'm a big fan of Apple's products. Have been since the Apple II. But when I look dispassionately at the core capabilities, I do not see uniform excellence.

Apple clearly excels at: marketing/brand, hardware, and partner/supply chain management. But Apple's software quality is all over the map. Further, Apple does not "get" the internet (and never has).

Since "hardware vs software" was the focus of JG's post, I'll briefly state my case around those two elements.

Apple gets hardware. I doubt that anyone would argue otherwise. Fabulous objects-of-desire emerge from amazing industrial designs. I can't even think of a laptop I'd consider in the same league as the Air. Ditto the iPad, iPod, and Airport. (The iPhone is in a much closer race with the Samsung gear.)

Apple also sports price-performance advantages In certain key areas. iPods have held more memory per dollar since the earliest days of MP3 players, for example. HP was unable to match the iPad. And now the Air and other "computer products" have closed the gap. This is an under-appreciated aspect of Apple's game.

Apple sometimes gets software too. I personally loath the one-button-ultra-modal aspect of IOS. But the myriad of brilliant features (e.g., pinch, scroll, etc.) blow me away, in both a design and execution sense. Apple is great at UX-in-the-small. But at application-level, things aren't so balmy.

iTunes and its syncing model are frustrating at best. Mail, iCal, and Address Book are only now getting better than (elegant) toys. These three have had serious bugs for years. iWork - forget it. App uninstall is incomplete, leaving many remnants. OSX's underlying file system is a joke, as is MacPorts. Lion's desire to mimic IOS is frustrating at best.

Apple is the greatest show on earth based mainly on their brand development and their ability to produce must-have objects.

Oh, and I'd (reluctantly) take Win7/Air and IOS/Samsung -based on the strengths of the hardware in each case. A split decision.

Bob

This video, despite its vague title, documents the history of software objects. In fact, its subtitle is "The 50th Anniversary of Objects?"

Very nicely done.

Bob

Chuck Moore is one of my heros, and has been since those '70s that he talks about.

Try as I might, I have had a hellofatime using Forth (and now Factor) to get nontrivial things done. But I keep trying, because I find the philosophy so compelling. And I figure I'll learn something.

He has always considered Forth to be a 'personal leverage' tool rather than a programming system suited to a team. Similar in this regard to Lisp and J I suppose. The fact that he has never hired a programmer (!) reinforces this notion.

I wish him luck with his chips....

Bob

"[we are]...not one of those uglies." (CEO using sonogram analogy in memo to employees.)

This is the $310M man? Are you kidding me?

Next he'll be off killing elephants with the GoDaddy guy.

Bob