DAP - General Chat Thread

1 'A', 3 B's, 1 'D'

Although the 'D' was in psychology, which I'm dropping anyway
 
Well done, what school do you go to, im assuming you live in liverpool from your name? If you dont already know, i live in liverpool and im currently waiting for my GCSE results
 
Grey Area bemoaning the decline in quality of electronics (and, I'd say, just about everything else these days), is yet more proof of manufacturers ensuring they sell more products in the future, no? Good for business, bad for consumers ...
 
Grey Area said:
And all that smallness and lightness and cheapness comes at the cost of durability and usability. But apparently the vast majority of consumers is happy with reduced durability anyway.
Excellent rant there, Björn!

There are people who want durable and reliable devices. There are those who hate mobile phones with cameras, colour screens and tiny buttons, but as long as there are enough people willing to keep spending their disposable income on the latest gizmo, no matter how flawed they are, they'll be the ones the manufacturers are trying to make money from.

But consider how far prices have dropped. Remember how much Discmans and MD players and mobile phones used to cost when they were first introduced? How much the iPod used to cost? The technology has been improving, yet things are getting cheaper all the time. Are you still willing to pay the sort of prices that were being commanded for these things a few years ago before they became popular?

When I buy something for more than an insignificant amount of money, then I want it to last until I'm dead. Two of my watches are actually older than I am, and they are working fine, both because they are high quality, and because watch manufacturers don't use planned obsolescence; unlike electronics companies they can maintain the products they put out decades ago.
That's not a realistic expectation. Different products have different lifespans, and often the lifespan is related to how quickly the technology is moving in that area. Your two watches are not technology devices. Assuming they're tasteful, they won't become obsolete. If they last until you're dead, that's great; you can hand them down to your children. But why would you want an old television to last until you're dead? Or a brick-sized mobile phone? Or a computer from the 1980s? "Planned obsolescence" doesn't just mean the manufacturers make them cheap so you have to keep replacing them. It also means they don't unnecessarily expend cost and effort on making something last longer than it needs to. It costs money to make things last. How much do you think your watches cost? A lot more than the $2 ones you can buy from discount stores, I'm sure. Would you want to pay the cost of making a mobile phone last until you're dead when you're not even going to be using it in a few years time? As technology moves on, technology devices become obsolete all the time. It's true that a lot of them aren't built to last: sometimes it's just because they're shoddy, but it's also because the manufacturers don't really expect you to be using them in a few years because they'll be out-of-date and obsolete by then anyway.

Andrew
 
dups45 said:
are you still in school sasso? i finished 9 weeks ago! getting GCSE's this time next week though :(

Yeah, but don't forget im in australia. Whats GCSE? If we want, we get a UAI - University Admissions Index, mark out of 100. We finish, I think somewhere around october or November, I never really checked. But we are on the home stretch now.
 
ak47wong said:
Excellent rant there, Björn!

There are people who want durable and reliable devices. There are those who hate mobile phones with cameras, colour screens and tiny buttons, but as long as there are enough people willing to keep spending their disposable income on the latest gizmo, no matter how flawed they are, they'll be the ones the manufacturers are trying to make money from.

But consider how far prices have dropped. Remember how much Discmans and MD players and mobile phones used to cost when they were first introduced? How much the iPod used to cost? The technology has been improving, yet things are getting cheaper all the time. Are you still willing to pay the sort of prices that were being commanded for these things a few years ago before they became popular?

That's not a realistic expectation. Different products have different lifespans, and often the lifespan is related to how quickly the technology is moving in that area. Your two watches are not technology devices. Assuming they're tasteful, they won't become obsolete. If they last until you're dead, that's great; you can hand them down to your children. But why would you want an old television to last until you're dead? Or a brick-sized mobile phone? Or a computer from the 1980s? "Planned obsolescence" doesn't just mean the manufacturers make them cheap so you have to keep replacing them. It also means they don't unnecessarily expend cost and effort on making something last longer than it needs to. It costs money to make things last. How much do you think your watches cost? A lot more than the $2 ones you can buy from discount stores, I'm sure. Would you want to pay the cost of making a mobile phone last until you're dead when you're not even going to be using it in a few years time? As technology moves on, technology devices become obsolete all the time. It's true that a lot of them aren't built to last: sometimes it's just because they're shoddy, but it's also because the manufacturers don't really expect you to be using them in a few years because they'll be out-of-date and obsolete by then anyway.

Andrew

Yeah its true things become "out of date" for whatever reason, like size, speed, compatibility. But If there is a device that someone likes and does the job, and will do the job for many years to come, you want it to be able to last that long, like how much smaller do you wan't a HDD walkman to be?, Because there are conflicting features, you want the smallest sized device, but you want a big, clear screen and mega huge battery capacity. Those dimentions go in opposite directions. OK batteries will get better capacity for their size as time goes on, but the screen size is the screen size, there is no soon to come invention that will make the screen small and compact on the player but also large and clear to see. well, hologram maybe, but realisticly.

I think grey area is also saying he may not use it for the rest of his life, but he is still going to use if for a few years, and as he said many scratches appeared within weeks, the materials are just not strong enough. I would rather have a heavier device that is BOMB proof rather than a feather weight device that scratches when you blow on it.

Yeah manufacturers don't expect you to use the device for the rest of your life, but come on, its getting rediculous, these days I'm scared to touch the devices with fright of harming or scratching it. The screen on my HD can't be cleaned by wiping it as if you would a mirror, because the tinyest touch makes a scratch. My MD litterally was beaten up because of me dropping it, running into things with it in my pocket, and my own testing of the skip protection (purposely dropping and hitting it, lol) but its still fine, really, well actually it started having disk errors after a few years, which i fixed by taking it apart, oiling the gears and putting it back together. Unfortunately the front panel stopped working because i split the tape like wires connecting it inside. Stupid me, but it still shows how durable it is. The front is made of i think Aluminium, and the back is made of plastic painted silver, and the back has turned white around the edges, the front almost looks new. and the screen is barely scratched. I think ill go and wrap my HD5 up in a hundred socks to preserve it for the same amound of time as my MD.
 
I know nothing could be more off topic - absolutely nothing. We, and especially me, have the knack to often drift terribly off topic. But there is something I have to show you. After electronics, roller coasters are by far my most favourite things - if anybody had the oppurtunity to go on Rita Queen Of (on!!??) Speed at Alton Towers (which is by far the best roller coaster in the UK), then take a look at this.

It is called Kingda Ka and built by the same company, Intamin. It is the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world. Take in these specs; it is 456 feet high and travels at 128 m/ph - it is a hydrolic launch roller coaster and if you click on the following link your breath will be taken away - oh by the way, the last hill gives you 4 seconds of negative g's!! That is 4 seconds of weightlessness!! --> http://www.sixflags.com/parks/greatadventure/index.asp
Just click on ' take a virtual ride'

Anyway, along with great electronics, these are the things that take my breath away... :)
 
shadowritten said:
Just took that distortion test (link to which buried in Grey Area's rant). Not sure I understand the results, though. I screwed up twice at -12dB. Then I carried on identifying which sample was distorted right down to around -30 ... something dB. Then it stopped testing me.

Any of you tech gods care to explain what this means in layman's terms? Are my ears as knackered as I thought? I was using rubbishy headphones, btw, plugged into equally rubbishy PC speakers - so I started with a considerable disadvantage! Oh, I didn't alter any of the default test settings, either - except to choose headphones, naturally.

Be gentle with me. Just want to know what this actually means ...


Hey i took the test too. Its wierd, ive never heard that kind of distortion before. Or maybe i just cant hear it ;)
Eventually I was able to get down to the second lowest, the one before -45 i think.
It was annoying because the first time it went down by twos but if u get one wrong it starts going down by ones. I went down by ones from about half way down, all the way to the last one, which is got wrong AAHHH, i think i just had a winning streak, it didn't go lound enough.

Problem is that they record the position that you ended on, not the best position you got to. And since i got two wrong at the end, i couldnt be bothered to i ended it....
 
ak47wong said:
There are people who want durable and reliable devices. There are those who hate mobile phones with cameras, colour screens and tiny buttons, but as long as there are enough people willing to keep spending their disposable income on the latest gizmo, no matter how flawed they are, they'll be the ones the manufacturers are trying to make money from.

I'm afraid you are right. But couldn't some manufacturer have mercy and produce something for the minority? To me it seems they'd have the monopoly right now. And I mean, high end hi-fi companies somehow survive, too. Or luxury car makers that only produce a few dozen cars every year. It is not impossible to make a profit by catering to a smaller group of customers, as long as those are willing to pay.

But consider how far prices have dropped. Remember how much Discmans and MD players and mobile phones used to cost when they were first introduced? How much the iPod used to cost? The technology has been improving, yet things are getting cheaper all the time. Are you still willing to pay the sort of prices that were being commanded for these things a few years ago before they became popular?

Yes, I am. And I'm not rich, not at all; I'm just very selective when it comes to spending my money. When I want something, then either I get that which I consider to be among the best in its class, or I try to make do without any such item. Rarely will I compromise and get something cheaper when I cannot afford the better alternative.

That's not a realistic expectation. Different products have different lifespans, and often the lifespan is related to how quickly the technology is moving in that area. Your two watches are not technology devices. Assuming they're tasteful, they won't become obsolete.

Makers of quartz watches might argue that they have been obsolete since the seventies. :)
And just to clarify, I do not mind having my stuff serviced and repaired once in a while. Those watches wouldn't be ticking today without the manufacturers' maintenance. Electronics companies usually do not offer that type of long term maintenance, though.

But why would you want an old television to last until you're dead?

Hmm. Seriously, why not?


Or a brick-sized mobile phone?

I have no idea about mobile phones, as I have never owned one. But provided I could still use that brick with today's phone networks, then I would see no need to replace it.

Or a computer from the 1980s?
I would probably replace that one, true. Computers are one area where the technological progress not only makes significant improvements every year, but where it also makes the older computers useless, as they are practically incompatible to current software. I buy a new computer every four to five years, and usually I save by buying last year's model, as it will spend most of its time being obsolete anyway. Also, I have mostly lost interest in computer games, so it is no longer necessary for me to be on the cutting edge of hardware.

Still, even for computers there are makers that try to build things that last. Look at the Thinkpads (ok, maybe a bad example, now that IBM sold that department to Lenovo; I hope they stay the same). They have kept the same boring black looks since the early nineties. Their specs make gamers yawn, their prices make bargain hunters turn away in disgust. But their keyboards feel like real keyboards in addition to being splashproof, their shells are made of titanium and magnesium, drivers are being kept up-to-date even for the old machines, spare parts have been kept in stock since the stone age, and repair services are available pretty much worldwide. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort (and price), but they try.

"Planned obsolescence" doesn't just mean the manufacturers make them cheap so you have to keep replacing them. It also means they don't unnecessarily expend cost and effort on making something last longer than it needs to. It costs money to make things last. How much do you think your watches cost? A lot more than the $2 ones you can buy from discount stores, I'm sure.

I don't know exactly, I got them from my grandfathers. But yes, they weren't from the bargain bin. However, neither were they prohibitively expensive luxury items.

Would you want to pay the cost of making a mobile phone last until you're dead when you're not even going to be using it in a few years time?

As I said, I cannot really comment too much on mobile phones, as I have no problem living without one. I'm not sure if their situation is like computers. If external changes (different signal sending, or whatever) make mobile phones useless every few years, then I would not invest too much in one. If on the other hand it is unlikely that I won't be able to use a mobile phone for making phone calls in the future, then I would want to get a better one. And given that I wouldn't want fancy cameras, colour screens etc., I might actually get away pretty cheap if I bought what I considered to be a better phone. :)

As technology moves on, technology devices become obsolete all the time. It's true that a lot of them aren't built to last: sometimes it's just because they're shoddy, but it's also because the manufacturers don't really expect you to be using them in a few years because they'll be out-of-date and obsolete by then anyway.

I can see that for some types of devices. But how would a quality DAP become obsolete? Maybe the storage size will increase. Maybe in the future there will be Terabyte-sized flash players that store everything in lossless formats. Still, I would be able to use that old DAP just fine. Today's sound quality, storage size, battery life and drag&drop file management are good enough for me. My MP3-encoder will keep working, so I would be able to get new music onto the player. Apart from a technical failure there is no reason why I should not be able to use that DAP in the future.

And to be honest, right now I do not see any progress in DAP development. Rather, it looks suspiciously like the "sneakerization" is already going strong: the basic functions stay the same, there is very little difference between brands and models, changes are mostly cosmetical or non-music-related features.

I don't doubt that for the large companies there is more money to make by producing DAPs like today. But I'm frustrated that no-one even tries making a product for the minority. These niche markets exist in so many areas, why not DAPs?

Björn
 
Sasso said:
shadowritten said:
Just took that distortion test (link to which buried in Grey Area's rant). Not sure I understand the results, though. I screwed up twice at -12dB. Then I carried on identifying which sample was distorted right down to around -30 ... something dB. Then it stopped testing me.

Any of you tech gods care to explain what this means in layman's terms? Are my ears as knackered as I thought? I was using rubbishy headphones, btw, plugged into equally rubbishy PC speakers - so I started with a considerable disadvantage! Oh, I didn't alter any of the default test settings, either - except to choose headphones, naturally.

Be gentle with me. Just want to know what this actually means ...

Hey i took the test too. Its wierd, ive never heard that kind of distortion before. Or maybe i just cant hear it ;)
Eventually I was able to get down to the second lowest, the one before -45 i think.
It was annoying because the first time it went down by twos but if u get one wrong it starts going down by ones. I went down by ones from about half way down, all the way to the last one, which is got wrong AAHHH, i think i just had a winning streak, it didn't go lound enough.

Problem is that they record the position that you ended on, not the best position you got to. And since i got two wrong at the end, i couldnt be bothered to i ended it....

I'm certainly not a tech god, I just took that test out of curiosity when I read a thread about it on headfi.org. The test throws you back a few levels each time you fail to make sure you didn't pass the earlier levels just by being lucky. And it will stop after a number of tries when it "thinks" that it has determined the level to which you can actually hear. Passing a high level once is not enough for it to think that you can actually hear that distortion. I think I had to get the last level right three times in a row or so. It helps to take short breaks between tries; listening to the full length samples multiple times wore me out. Usually I just listened to the first one or two seconds of A and B, and if I had not reached a decision, then I waited for some moments and tried again.

Björn
 
Grey Area said:
I'm certainly not a tech god, I just took that test out of curiosity when I read a thread about it on headfi.org. The test throws you back a few levels each time you fail to make sure you didn't pass the earlier levels just by being lucky. And it will stop after a number of tries when it "thinks" that it has determined the level to which you can actually hear. Passing a high level once is not enough for it to think that you can actually hear that distortion. I think I had to get the last level right three times in a row or so. It helps to take short breaks between tries; listening to the full length samples multiple times wore me out. Usually I just listened to the first one or two seconds of A and B, and if I had not reached a decision, then I waited for some moments and tried again.

Björn

Thank you. That's all I needed to know ... :thumbsup:
 
The post about the "planned obsolescence" of consumer goods is quite some issue. I think that much of this started in the 50's through advertisers and the media selling the idea that "gadget A" will make your life complete and happiness will not be achieved without it.

Slowly everyone becomes the proud owner of gadget A the market is saturated and the manufacturers are no longer shifting enough units. So they make the new and improved "gadget A" with the new indispensable "feature B". The cycle begins again. With more gadgets added to the list for that "perfect life/lifestyle".

As the public keep buying into this the manufacturers are happy and this in turn powers the industrial nations economies.

The point is now reached where people are buying the new and improved before the old has past it's useful working life. So quite reasonably manufacturers start to ask themselves why they should make items that last, cheaper materials mean cheaper goods - prices drop - more people can afford the gadgets - more units are sold and more profits made through economies of scale etc.. (Oversimplified of course!)

So now we are in the position that new features appear every few months and the old units end up in the rubbish heap (itself a huge problem).

There is something to be said for genuine improvements in technology; tape players - CD players - 30gig HDD players that allow a music collection to be transported in one small neat package. However, more can, and should, be done with old hardware (electronic gadgets especially) by improving the software, (e.g. space probes have been reprogrammed mid mission, i.e. early 60's/70's hardware enhanced and improved with modern software techniques/algorithms. Compare old playstation games with later ones etc..)

Admittedly if I used a mobile phone I would prefer a modern small phone rather than an old "brick sized" model, but mobile phones in particular seem to have new models out every other week and many are now small enough that new models seem to me to be more about the statement they make rather than their functionality. Also the reduction in size reaches a natural limit as there are ergonomic considerations to be met and maintained, (unless the device becomes voice activated for instance). So what is a manufacturer to do? Release gadget after gadget with small/cosmetic changes which "dedicated followers of fashion" buy into ("sneakerisation" as mentioned above), start combining features (DAP/mobile phone/crossword solver/game player/teasmaid etc..) or take a hit for the shareholders?

I can understand why manufacturers do it but IMO it is a sad "progression". Manufacturers should innovate but this incessant release of new models with only cosmetic minor improvements is ultimately unsustainable and just bad news altogether. I would rather pay more for a good upgradable device that is well built than less for a shoddy device that will be unusable in 12months time, but then that's me!
 
Great post, L11.

Let me summarise for those pushed for time (till you can read it at your leisure, I mean): Manufacturers - and big corps in general - have this mantra, 'Profit Before People'. Pure and simple. While shareholders who care only about financial ROI exist, this mantra will remain the rallying cry of big business ...

It's PBP all the way.
 
dont any of them realise that if they spend a bit more money developing a good player, then they will get more sales, thus more money?
 
It just hit me: the last 3 Sonic Stage iterations have coincided with a new Sony player:

SS 3: new lines of flash players
SS 3.1: HD5
SS 3.2: Sony Bean thingy

I'm betting SS 3.3 or SS 4 will come with the next Sony HD player
 
Let's hope these later incarnations offer significantly better UI and functionality.
 
a better player then software
 
Thought it was time for more general chat !
Why do people always hate successful people ? First of all it was Bill Gates getting all the stick, now it's Steve Jobs who is the brunt of the hatred :confused:
 
JohnG said:
Thought it was time for more general chat !
Why do people always hate successful people ? First of all it was Bill Gates getting all the stick, now it's Steve Jobs who is the brunt of the hatred :confused:

In the UK, we have this odd tendency to build people up then knock them down. The Americans, by contrast, seem more open to celebrating success.

Perhaps we could learn from them?
 
There's a great line from a John Lenon song called Working Class Hero:-
"They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool"
Sums it up nicely doesn't it !
 
I wonder why we never have these hate campaigns against the boss of Sony ? Perhaps it's not fashionable to have a go at him like it seems to be to have a go at the boss of Apple :devil:
 
JohnG said:
I wonder why we never have these hate campaigns against the boss of Sony ? Perhaps it's not fashionable to have a go at him like it seems to be to have a go at the boss of Apple :devil:

Give it time ... :D
 
I transferred an album onto my PSP - Atrac 256 ........................................................... it actually sounds better on the PSP. Now the HD3 sounds muffled and that it is suffacating the clarity
 
JohnG said:
I wonder why we never have these hate campaigns against the boss of Sony ? Perhaps it's not fashionable to have a go at him like it seems to be to have a go at the boss of Apple :devil:

Who is the boss of Sony?? Tell me and I will lead the hate campaign! He certainly deserves to be hated...thing is, Steve Jobs is hated for the same reason as Bill Gates - as soon as somebody starts making billions ordinary people become jealous and start hating them...

The boss at Sony deserves to be hated for his sheer incompetence...:devil:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom