Dreadhead

yup bought it anyway.... She was born in Alexandria so I had to give it a try. Damn you Amazon prime.

So how's the mastering? The amazon thing about how it was recording looks pretty cool though makes me wonder about the mastering. I think I'll buy it anyway....

Sigma 150-500 OS Lens for my trip to the Galapagos in Sept.

CJ. Good luck with the internship. I hope it keeps you interested

I look forward to your impressions. I think I'm going to skip this one and go straight to the Prism or Weiss. I just found out that the Prism list price is nearly 2 grand less in the UK. Hopefully I can sort something out with a dealer here or I'll have to do an import but that's a lot of money.

David Pogue is a crack smoker, he's obviously spent to much time with apple gear. The camera is cool though.

Yup. Well you are at least using the (far less than $3000) ADC in the Smyth box on whatever whatever decoder you had to get it to 8 channels in the first place.

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