- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2415 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
32 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 14247
Right lads. The PS3.
Is it worth getting one just for the Exclusives?
I have a 360 and that would remain the main console for anything multplat you see, but I am tempted by MGS4 and the like.
|>>|| No. 18449
>It's equalled in performance by a cheaper card also by Nvidia, isn't it? The 780 I think
Hmm, apparently so. That's interesting as the Titan is double the price.
|>>|| No. 18450
It's easy to make a quick buck off people who think price equates to quality. See also audiophiles who spend hundreds of pounds on cables which carry the same signal as those costing pennies.
|>>|| No. 18453
I can understand for analogue signals why you want to reduce noise input during transfer but HDMIs carry digital signals - the whole point is that you can chuck in a reasonable level of noise and it will make no difference to the readability of data.
|>>|| No. 18454
A TV will show precisely the same image whether you use a £1 HDMI cable or a £100 HDMI cable. Cables for digital signals are either working or broken, there's no subjective, qualitative middle ground.
|>>|| No. 18455
That. The video on a digital carrier will be either there, badly broken or gone. The only risk with a cheap cable is if the construction is a bit shoddy, and even then those ones are cheap enough to be more or less disposable. Unless you need to run the length of the banquet hall in Bufton-Tufton Castle, you probably don't even need to hit double digits.
|>>|| No. 18456
Yes. Definitively. Even when a cable's carrying analogue signals, the only time cable quality could conceivably make a difference, double blind tests show that self-professed experts on audio struggle to tell the difference between a coat hanger and a high end cable, let alone between different grades of cable.
As far as digital signals are concerned, there is no chance at all that "higher quality" cables have any effect on signals. The "science" cited to back it up is about as credible as homeopathy.
|>>|| No. 18457
James Randi has an open prize of $1m, available to anyone who can tell the difference between different types of commercially-available audio cables. The prize remains unclaimed.
The typical audiophile wank persists because nobody in the hi-fi community actually understands electronics or acoustics. If you read the pro audio press you get a very different picture, because most of the writers have backgrounds in engineering rather than journalism. Most audiophiles wouldn't even recognise the names of many of the best manufacturers of audio equipment - Geithain, Klein & Hummel, Quested, Trident, Bryston et al.
|>>|| No. 18459
There's a price point where a cable might be built better and thus would be more durable, but when it comes to signal transmission, a fifty quid Monster cable is categorically no better than a metal coathanger. In fact the coathanger's probably better.
|>>|| No. 18461
>James Randi has an open prize of $1m, available to anyone who can tell the difference between different types of commercially-available audio cables. The prize remains unclaimed.
That's not it. The prize was offered to the makers of a particular line of audiophile cables (may or may not have been the people behind Monster) if they could demonstrate a perceptible difference in sound. Initially they thought it would be a good idea to promote their cables, but when they saw the terms of the tests, they went into full-on backpedal mode using the flimsy excuse that they'd "just discovered" that the prize is usually offered to those who can demonstrate paranormal abilities, and that they weren't claiming any.
|>>|| No. 18462
The Hummel and a few other German artillery pieces were named after flying insects.
'Hummel' means Bumblebee. The others that I know of are the 'Wespe' (Wasp) and 'Grille' (which I think means Cricket).
|>>|| No. 18465
I'd love to be in that business. The whole audiophile thing looks like a licence to print money.
|>>|| No. 18466
I don't think that it's quite that simple. If it's got piss all to do with cables, I imagine that it's got a fair deal to do with shrewd marketing.
People wouldn't spend £4000 on some wire just because I said it was a good investment... would they??
|>>|| No. 18467
There really is some nonsense in the "ultra-hifi" sector. Speaker cables complete with two terminators so they can be bi-wired. Cable elevators to ensure the cable doesn't touch the ground. Directional cabling. Wooden knobs for volume controls. Flashers, demagnetisers and edge markers for CDs. Soundfield optimisers (in the form of silly-looking ornaments). Cable cookers. Fucking cable cookers. Finally (and I shit you not) a rock you place on top of the CD player to stabilise it.
Seriously, it's like a competely guilt-free way of relieving gullible people of all that excess money. Guilt-free mostly because of just how stupid you actually have to be to fall for this sort of bollocks.
|>>|| No. 18468
Also something I forgot to mention.
Ultra-high-def-full-3D-up-the-arse computer graphics requires a shit lot more work than something like Minecraft.
|>>|| No. 18469
Directional cabling is the one that floors me. I simply don't understand how they can get away with this shit.
|>>|| No. 18471
I don't think it's much more silly than a lot of things people do or spend money on.
|>>|| No. 18473
Surely if you wanted to really minimise noise in signal transfer optic fibres would always beat even the best copper cable?
|>>|| No. 18474
No. "Directional cables" have arrows on them to show which way the signal should be travelling (i.e. from source to amp to speaker). Which is of course bollocks because the signal is AC.
|>>|| No. 18476
No, he means cables that have arrows on them to show you which way the signal is supposedly going. This madness even extends to directional ethernet cables:
Optic cabling is for digital signals. Copper cables can be used for digital signals. The same data passed over either will (by definition) be identical; if it isn't then you'll know about it, digital signals do not typically degrade gracefully (another reason why DAB is bad, IMO).
I'm not aware of fibre optics ever being used to transmit analogue sound or video, though in principle there's no reason why not. I imagine bends in the cable would become a much bigger deal.
|>>|| No. 18477
There is no way that baseband signals require expensive cabling. Once you get into the GHz and THz then you need to switch to waveguides and things get rather more complicated, but that's totally irrelevant for audio.
|>>|| No. 18478
>This madness even extends to directional ethernet cables
Fuck me, how on earth have the ASA not been roped into sorting this out yet? Where's my green pen?
|>>|| No. 18485
There are some audio applications for digital optical connections - S/PDIF for stereo digital audio, ADAT for 8-channel, MADI for higher channel counts. Optical is only really relevant today for extremely long signal runs, where signal losses over copper would be too great. AES3 and MADI work perfectly well over balanced cables and coax respectively up to 100m.
Preventing EM interference is quite easy by using balanced signals (differential signalling). Two conductors carry the same signal in opposite polarity, so any interference picked up by the cable can be easily cancelled out. Balanced analogue audio runs can give perfectly satisfactory performance over many hundreds of metres, even in very EM noisy environments.
If audiophiles really understood audio, then they would use professional interconnect formats rather than buying very expensive unbalanced interconnect cables. They would also use actively powered loudspeakers rather than speakers with a passive crossover. The Hifi mags would mainly discuss acoustic room treatment, rather than the minutiae of different equipment - mediocre kit will massively outperform the very best equipment if it is operating in a better acoustic environment. The best upgrade for any mid-tier hifi setup is a big bass trap and a couple of HF diffusers at the mirror points.
|>>|| No. 18486
I've had a conversation in Richer Sounds in which someone laughed at me because I said I listen to music on my Genelecs.
I hope he's re-mortgaged his house to buy magnets to wrap around his cables by now.
|>>|| No. 18487
How important is it to match the impedances of the transmission line and load for audio signals?
|>>|| No. 18490
>>18476 I'm not aware of fibre optics ever being used to transmit analogue sound or video
I do it, to get (low quality) audio and video in and out of EMC test chambers, where copper conections are right out(tm) .
Audio goes in & out out FM'd, video goes out as baseband and to hell with the crappiness, I just need to see if it's alive.
However, I'll accept that this isn't a conventional consumer product.
And, to 487, matching impedance for audio signals is not required, or sane or helpful, over distances that you will ever meet.
|>>|| No. 18491
Unless you're dealing with an extremely long line, not very. The frequencies involved are relatively very low (<20kHz), so design is relatively very simple. Consumer equipment just uses the convention of having low output impedances and very high input impedances, which works fine over short distances. The telecoms industry operates on a 600 Ω nominal standard, mainly because of the issue of reflections over very long lines.
You can occasionally get a bit of high frequency loss in some systems. Guitar pickups have a characteristic impedance of several kΩ and amplifier inputs are up to 1MΩ. You tend to get high frequency loss over cables of more than a few metres due to cable capacitance (the cable behaves like an RC filter). You can also get some slightly odd inductance issues, as the load will affect the performance of the pickup. The usual solution for long runs is to just use a couple of transformers or buffer amps (a DI and reamp box) to bring the impedance down to more manageable levels.
Side note: When wireless systems for electric guitars were first introduced, many guitarists complained that they sounded "brittle" and "harsh". This was of course because replacing the long cable with a digital wireless link prevented the high frequency loss that guitarists expected to hear. Most manufacturers responded by adding a "cable tone simulator" function, which is just a suitably tuned lowpass filter.
|>>|| No. 18492
As a student and guitarist I found that reply interesting thanks. Any recommendation for further reading on signal engineering and/or acoustics involved in gigging?
|>>|| No. 18639
So, if this is such a good deal, what's the catch? I wouldn't be surprised if the catch was "it's actually not that good a deal".
|>>|| No. 18641
>>18639 Googling about, that's about the cheapest you are going to get a PS4, but on average they're now only about £340 ish so it's not a huge saving, but it does show how relatively cheap it is for next gen console.
|>>|| No. 18642
The catch is that the PS4 has no games, and by the time it has a decent set of exclusives, it will have dropped in price even further.
Obviously I'm using hyperbole, as it does have some games, but neither of the big two next-gen consoles have good libraries or even one or two must have games. I know Wii U is also a next-gen console, but it's not really in the race with XBone and PS4, mainly because it has incredibly minimal third party support compared to the other consoles, meaning it's all up to Nintendo and Platinum Games to keep the console going.
|>>|| No. 18643
>PS4 has no games
I thought I was stuck in a time-loop for a while there...
|>>|| No. 18644
Nintendo don't agree with the consumer practises of the Western Developers and have been frozen out, which does affect the Wii U's attach rate in the west, but it is still outselling the PS4 in Japan and has done, with the obvious exception of its launch, all year.
Same goes for video game "Journalism". Nintendo have cut out the middleman and now none of the vloggers are getting their slice of the pie and are having some pretty spectacular tantrums over it. Their games still get consistently reviewed high so you've got to wonder what manner of glorious Nippon worshiping would be going if Nintendo were dishing out the incentives Sony and Microsoft have been recently.
|>>|| No. 18645
Yeah, I've got to say I admire Nintendo's aloofness when it comes to the media. There doesn't seem to be as much marketing and previewing and empty promises from Nintendo compared to western publishers. I think because they don't rely on politicking with review sites or utilising expensive extended ad campaigns, they have to produce good quality games to be successful and it works. I also like them for not focusing too heavily on storytelling in games. Games with stories are good and all, but sometimes I just want to be a stocky Italian plumber dressed as a cat and scrambling over a giant cake. Super Mario 3D World was potentially GOTY 2013, in my opinion.
As for the vlogger thing, it looks like certain vloggers will be able to get ad revenue. Not sure which though. Hopefully not that pretentious twat TotalBiscuit.
|>>|| No. 18646
>I think because they don't rely on politicking with review sites or utilising expensive extended ad campaigns, they have to produce good quality games to be successful and it works.
I think that's putting the horse before the cart; they have always made games of impeccable quality and consequently haven't needed to be as reliant on marketing as developers with less consumer cachet. If anything I think the Wii U is proving to be a good counterpoint to this line of thinking, since apparently lots of people think it's some kind of tablet upgrade to the original Wii and not a platform in its own right. Nintendo arguably should've been more proactive with their advertising.
|>>|| No. 18647
I thought this for about 6 months. They really needed a similar TV advertising campaign in the UK to what they did with the Wii.
|>>|| No. 18648
Speaking of PS3, I just realised I've never checked my message inbox. I just checked it now, and found my first bit of hate mail. I feel quite proud.
|>>|| No. 18649
If you ever play an online FPS even slightly well you'll get loads of shitlords hatemailing you.
This one time I was playing Black Ops (don't judge - I bought it for the zombies. Mostly.) and I somehow stumbled into a glitch where my character didn't die when he should have and just kept running about like the goddamn terminator. Naturally the match soon became me stabbing enemies whilst they emptied machine guns and rocket launchers into me (sometimes even killing themselves with the explosion - but not me). The amount of 'wtf hax' hatemail was golden. One guy even had genuine hacks and offered to boost my character for the 'secret'.
|>>|| No. 18650
It is bad on Fifa. So many sore losers and winners, so I stopped playing.
The most rage that I've had in a single exchange was from a guy on MW2, though. I'm not one to use the this kind of vernacular but "CoDbabbies" seems to fit most of the userbase.
|>>|| No. 18651
The best hatemail comes from playing Demon's/Dark Souls. I think because there is some weird expectation of honour, and if you don't bow before duelling with the person you've invaded it's considered poor form.
The hatemail I got was from my first and so far only online match on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure All Star Battle. Apparently I'm a "spamig bitch", even though the most popular character's fighting style is based pretty much solely around spamming punches.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]