10 obsolete technologies to kill in 2010

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142656/Mike_Elgan_10_obsolete_technologies_to_kill_in_2010>

    Cigarette-lighter receptacles in cars—true, we only use them as a source of
    power these days. But what can we replace them with? I gather there’s a move
    to 48V electrics in newer cars (mainly at the upper end of the market for
    now), but it seems a bit roundabout to me to step up the car battery power
    to 100-240V to feed it to an AC outlet where you plug in the AC adaptor for
    your gadget, only to step it down to 12V or 5V DC or whatever else it needs.
    Couldn’t we provide, say, a standard 12V DC outlet that gadgets can plug
    straight into?

    WWW—agreed, if only because it takes too long to say. :)

    Home entertainment remotes—I’m not so sure about the idea of using mobile
    phones. Some people are actually resorting to things like wireless keyboards
    to control their home entertainment systems, which is about as far from
    mobile phones as you can get.

    Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
    >

    I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
    in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
    other formats.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
     
    Enkidu, Dec 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Logo Guest

    Business cards obsolete?

    I use these all the time.

    I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
    much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
    movbile, and email address in one go)

    I also don't want all my business contacts (hundreds of them that
    change on a regular basis) sitting in my phone nor do I want my
    plumbers details in there either.
     
    Logo, Dec 25, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >> Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
    > >

    > I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
    > in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
    > other formats.


    Still uses an obsolete fragile low capacity storage medium.

    I am suprised they still charge the premium they do for car headdecks
    with a dvd transport in them. Even then its a stupid idea IMO when a USB
    drive or SD card is so much more robust and able to be rewritten easily etc.

    Thats why I got the $80 headdeck from the warehouse for the crap car.
    Takes SD, and USB, and plays them.

    Crap user interface but the $800 ones are not ten times better so not
    worth it.
     
    Richard, Dec 26, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    geoff wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:hh15pp$etp$...
    >> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142656/Mike_Elgan_10_obsolete_technologies_to_kill_in_2010>
    >>
    >> Cigarette-lighter receptacles in cars-true, we only use them as a source
    >> of
    >> power these days. But what can we replace them with? I gather there's a
    >> move
    >> to 48V electrics in newer cars (mainly at the upper end of the market for
    >> now), but it seems a bit roundabout to me to step up the car battery power
    >> to 100-240V to feed it to an AC outlet where you plug in the AC adaptor
    >> for
    >> your gadget, only to step it down to 12V or 5V DC or whatever else it
    >> needs.
    >> Couldn't we provide, say, a standard 12V DC outlet that gadgets can plug
    >> straight into?
    >>
    >> WWW-agreed, if only because it takes too long to say. :)
    >>
    >> Home entertainment remotes-I'm not so sure about the idea of using mobile
    >> phones. Some people are actually resorting to things like wireless
    >> keyboards
    >> to control their home entertainment systems, which is about as far from
    >> mobile phones as you can get.
    >>
    >> Music CDs-they're still the only thing my car stereo can play.

    >
    > If that dork thinks that "no significant advantages over downloadable media,
    > such as MP3 files" then good luck to him. Sounds like the sort of tit who
    > has his widescreen TV set to always stretch out 4:3 to 16:9 and doesn't even
    > notice (or care about) the short fat people and cars with oval wheels.


    The only benifit they offer over MP3 is allegedly better sound quality.
    And it has been proven by the crap that comes out that no one gives an
    ass about sound quality.

    It also mentioned "such as MP3 files" - there are other formats as well,
    many of which surpass the specs of a redbook audio cd, just none that
    are blessed by the copyright holders with their restrictive DRM etc. I
    have many 192k flac files sourced from dvd-a or something. Cant hear a
    difference between them and the 44.1kHz downconversion I made to encode
    for the mp3 player.

    Optical discs are annoying, inconvenant, require stupudly large devices
    to play them on, take massive amounts of space up, are slow, suffer from
    moving when being used, cant have 2 tracks off them being played at the
    same time in different locations, and really really deserve to die.

    The only feature of them that makes them worthwhile is you can wrap them
    up in some shiney paper and give them to people at xmas if you belive in
    that sort of thing.
     
    Richard, Dec 26, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Mutley wrote:
    > Enkidu <> wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> Music CDs—they’re still the only thing my car stereo can play.
    >>>

    >> I'd be surprised if that is all it does. What millennium did you buy it
    >> in? My not-so-new car stereo can play music CDs, MP3, and a number of
    >> other formats.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Cliff

    >
    > My wife's 3 year old Mazda 2 will only play audio CDs no MP3 or the
    > like.. So these cars are hardly last century..


    Mums 4 year old hyundai does mp3 and wma off round shiney trinkets that
    are a pain in the ass. No aux in or USB slot so never really gets used
    other than with the FM recieving the lousy signal from an ipod transmitter.
     
    Richard, Dec 26, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:05:11 +1300, Richard wrote:

    > The only benifit they offer over MP3 is allegedly better sound quality.


    Audio CDs as a medium hold 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio. They are capable of better sound quality than
    MP3s given that MP3s take 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio and use various methods to throw away audio
    information.

    Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable* of better sound quality.

    This is, of course, entirely subject to what sort of audio is being put onto the CDs - is it a poorly
    mastered piece of rubbish, or is it a state-of-the-art high quality audio product.

    If poorly mastered rubbish then you might as well bung it into low bitrate MP3s and distribute it over the
    Internet.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 26, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:05:11 +1300, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> The only benifit they offer over MP3 is allegedly better sound quality.

    >
    > Audio CDs as a medium hold 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio. They are capable of better sound quality than
    > MP3s given that MP3s take 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio and use various methods to throw away audio
    > information.


    mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
    depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
    still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.


    >
    > Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable* of better sound quality.


    Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
    destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
    the cd is not capable of better sound quality.
    It is possible that encoding directly to a digital distribution format
    from a 24/96 master will avoid signal degradation caused by going
    through the 16/44.1 compromised format first.
    >
    > This is, of course, entirely subject to what sort of audio is being put onto the CDs - is it a poorly
    > mastered piece of rubbish, or is it a state-of-the-art high quality audio product.
    >
    > If poorly mastered rubbish then you might as well bung it into low bitrate MP3s and distribute it over the
    > Internet.
    >
    >

    No point living in the past.
    Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
    Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
    accept. Much better to upload free and download at 24/96 FLAC for $10 an
    album straight to the artist. New benchmark.

    http://bandcamp.com/faq#aiffwavuploadrequirement
     
    victor, Dec 26, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:

    >> Audio CDs as a medium hold 16bit 44.1kHz PCM audio. They are capable of
    >> better sound quality than MP3s given that MP3s take 16bit 44.1kHz PCM
    >> audio and use various methods to throw away audio information.

    >
    > mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,


    Agreed - they could be derived from inferior already-encoded sources and therefore result in an even
    worse audio product.


    > depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
    > still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.


    There is only one audio compression format that I am aware of that is loss-less, and it really only is best
    when encoding from uncompressed PCM audio - the same as what is on CDs.

    All other compression codecs - including MP3 and OGG - achieve their reduction in bit-rate by actively
    discarding audio information; and the greater the reduction in bit-rate means the greater amount of
    audio information has to be discarded, so what you're saying is incorrect.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 26, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:

    >> Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable*
    >> of better sound quality.

    >
    > Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
    > destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
    > the cd is not capable of better sound quality.


    That is faulty logic. The audio format on CDs *is* the uncompressed standard for PCM audio for music.

    Just because your own equipment is so poor that you cannot hear all the detail in a CD then you can't
    blame the original audio source for that.


    > It is possible that
    > encoding directly to a digital distribution format from a 24/96 master
    > will avoid signal degradation caused by going through the 16/44.1
    > compromised format first.


    16/44.1 *is* the audio standard. It is not in any way a "compromised" format.

    24/96 is a high-definition audio standard for audio DVDs, not for CDs.

    Have you ever seen an audio DVD player for sale in NZ? Come to think of it, have you *ever* seen an
    audio DVD for sale in NZ?

    Also, there is little point for encoding an MP3 at greater than 16/44.1 because even at 16/44.1
    considerable audio information is disposed of; and even greater audio information would need to be
    disposed of if you encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of using an audio compression
    codec is to achieve a reduction in file size while not reducing the quality of the resultant output too
    much.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 26, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:

    >> This is, of course, entirely subject to what sort of audio is being put
    >> onto the CDs - is it a poorly mastered piece of rubbish, or is it a
    >> state-of-the-art high quality audio product.
    >>
    >> If poorly mastered rubbish then you might as well bung it into low
    >> bitrate MP3s and distribute it over the Internet.
    >>
    >>

    > No point living in the past.
    > Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
    > Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
    > accept. Much better to upload free and download at 24/96 FLAC for $10 an
    > album straight to the artist. New benchmark.


    Why can't you simply pay $10.50 plus postage and get a CD posted to you directly?

    That way you achieve your aim of giving money only to the musician and nothing to the studio that the
    musician used to record the music.

    Mind due, in this day and age of home/garage studios there is little point of thinking that you could get
    actual high-quality audio out of them - they don't have the money to purchase a good (say Neumann or
    AKG) microphone and just use what they can afford.

    And, if they don't actually need a good microphone, what is the likelihood that what they will be
    producing will be sampled/processed garbage in any case?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 26, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:

    > Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
    > Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
    > accept.


    WAV is only a container - the audio inside it might actually be MP3 instead of PCM audio.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 26, 2009
    #12
  13. In message <hh4n2d$ujt$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
    > depending on the format selected they discard no audible information and
    > still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.


    MP3 specifically is an older lossy format, and many people do notice the
    difference at bitrates below 192k.

    Newer lossy formats like AAC do a better job at lower bitrates.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 26, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:55:15 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <hh4n2d$ujt$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> mp3s and other encoded formats don't have to be derived from cds,
    >> depending on the format selected they discard no audible information
    >> and still achieve significant reduction in bitrate.

    >
    > MP3 specifically is an older lossy format, and many people do notice the
    > difference at bitrates below 192k.
    >
    > Newer lossy formats like AAC do a better job at lower bitrates.


    A better job is still not a good job. Lossy audio compression is still lossy audio compression, altho' for
    the purpose of listening to music in a car or on a bus or walking through the city it really doesn't matter -
    there is too much background noise in those environments for it to be worth using good audio formats.

    And if you're wanting it for home use, then why on earth are you purchasing compressed audio in the
    first place!!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 27, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    Logo wrote:
    > Business cards obsolete?
    >
    > I use these all the time.
    >
    > I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
    > much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
    > movbile, and email address in one go)


    They save a shitload of writing down my details for people who keep
    impaling themselves on the front bumper of my battletruck.
     
    EMB, Dec 27, 2009
    #15
  16. EMB <> wrote:

    > Logo wrote:
    >> Business cards obsolete?
    >>
    >> I use these all the time.
    >>
    >> I have my work business card and I have a personal business card (its
    >> much easier than trying to tell someone my home phone, address,
    >> movbile, and email address in one go)

    >
    > They save a shitload of writing down my details for people who keep
    > impaling themselves on the front bumper of my battletruck.


    Perhaps you should consider mounting a self-service dispenser up there...
    Or perhaps something a tad less innocuous - like a couple of inflatable
    rubber fingers.

    --
    - Nicolaas
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Dec 27, 2009
    #16
  17. In message <>, Mutley wrote:

    > Define an "Audio DVD Player" ??


    Something that can play DVD-Audio discs.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 27, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, Mutley wrote:
    >
    >> Define an "Audio DVD Player" ??

    >
    > Something that can play DVD-Audio discs.


    I would have thought it was obvious, but sadly there are several people
    out there that seem to have confised concert and music dvds with
    dvd-audio and sell them as such.
     
    Richard, Dec 27, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
    >
    >> Clued up artists are releasing their material through services like
    >> Bandcamp where uploads at 16/44.1 wav is the worst quality they will
    >> accept.

    >
    > WAV is only a container - the audio inside it might actually be MP3 instead of PCM audio.
    >
    >

    They mean the usual ripped CD PCM, but it really doesn't matter, its a
    legacy format, the current industry mastering standard is 24/96.
    Its easy to record a live mix as 24/96, Garageband comes standard with
    Macs supporting 24bit recording. Then upload your work for sale as 24/96
    flac
     
    victor, Dec 27, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:03:42 +1300, victor wrote:
    >
    >>> Thus, there is no "allegedly" about it - CDs are absolutely *capable*
    >>> of better sound quality.

    >> Only if they are selected as the original source and the audio at the
    >> destination is audibly degraded. If you can't hear a difference, then
    >> the cd is not capable of better sound quality.

    >
    > That is faulty logic. The audio format on CDs *is* the uncompressed standard for PCM audio for music.
    >
    > Just because your own equipment is so poor that you cannot hear all the detail in a CD then you can't
    > blame the original audio source for that.
    >
    >
    >> It is possible that
    >> encoding directly to a digital distribution format from a 24/96 master
    >> will avoid signal degradation caused by going through the 16/44.1
    >> compromised format first.

    >
    > 16/44.1 *is* the audio standard. It is not in any way a "compromised" format.


    Its a standard for cds that is the best they could do in 1982, thats all.

    >
    > 24/96 is a high-definition audio standard for audio DVDs, not for CDs.


    And files downloadable from the internet

    >
    > Have you ever seen an audio DVD player for sale in NZ? Come to think of it, have you *ever* seen an
    > audio DVD for sale in NZ?


    Seen plenty of computers that record and replay 24/96 audio.
    Seen plenty of downloadable 24/96 files


    >
    > Also, there is little point for encoding an MP3 at greater than 16/44.1 because even at 16/44.1
    > considerable audio information is disposed of; and even greater audio information would need to be
    > disposed of if you encoded the MP3 at 24/96; and the whole point of using an audio compression
    > codec is to achieve a reduction in file size while not reducing the quality of the resultant output too
    > much.


    The only reason for encoding an mp3 is if you want to play an mp3. If
    you do, you can choose your bitrate to suit yourself.
    I keep my collection as flac and transcode as necessary to other formats
     
    victor, Dec 27, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. news-server.sc.rr.com

    IOS for unsupported/obsolete router

    news-server.sc.rr.com, May 15, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    432
    Walter Roberson
    May 16, 2005
  2. Sentient Fluid

    Spell checkers are obsolete...

    Sentient Fluid, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    550
    Sentient Fluid
    Sep 15, 2003
  3. drsd2kill

    Bava's KILL BABY KILL widescreen

    drsd2kill, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    599
    drsd2kill
    Nov 27, 2004
  4. drsd2kill

    KILL BABY KILL widescreen

    drsd2kill, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    721
    drsd2kill
    Nov 29, 2004
  5. Rajesh5575
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,329
    bedro
    Apr 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page