Hi! For me it doesn’t mean anything. I am not worrid at all what ever happens. We are not there yet and when we are then i have to deal with things as they are. One thing though is that i don’t want to drag around more equipment just because it will give me better quality of the audio. I want my phone and a good pair of headphones and thats it. Its enough to have my headphones with me as they are a bit clumsy even if they are foldable. I use the B&W P7. Good phones but they could have been a bit smaller. But if there are extreemly small headphone amps out there i am willing to give them a shot. /A > 26 juni 2016 kl. 12:49 skrev Scott Granados <sc...@qualityip.net>: > > Ok two points here, very sad day that you have to edit another publication to > make it available here. And btw, you missed a word that will almost > certainly get the moderators panties twisted in to a neat little bunch.:) > Even though that word is totally acceptable on your BBC btw. > > That being said, I think the poster of this article has a drug problem.:) Ok > hyperbolic but a little true, I think the positions are nuts. The only one > that sways me a little is the DRM argument. However, this does not scare me. > I remember back in the digital audio tape days, while DRM killed the > consumer DAT market the units I used along with everyone else in the > recording game at the time had a neat little dip switch that you could set to > disable DRM.:) You usually had one dip switch for sample rate, one for drm > and maybe 1 or 2 related to clock functions. Flip the dip and bam, no more > DRM. So I expect in future if I order my adapters from Caruso Music instead > of Best Buy I’ll be fine. (if you see my point) (the commercial gear is > usually better and almost always more open) And yes the ridiculousness of > the state of things is not lost on me I just point out that it it is not as > cut and dry as proposed. > > The rest of it is bunk, nobody says you have to use a wireless technology, > dongles are not bad, I like dongles because they allow me to customize my > tools to the way I need them and getting pure digital out has a lot more > benefits than downsides. Since the media is entirely digital in the first > place and there’s no way to store analog content in a modern phone you can’t > make the argument that you want an analog signal path through the whole > system for audio quality reasons, since it starts digital leave it digital as > long as possible. I can add the D/A convertor of my choice that meets the > spec I want and not be tied to the cheap give away DAC they include in the > phone. Likewise, I can sample with the quality I want and dump it back on > the bus of the phone with out the phones cheap ADC getting in the way not to > mention quantization error as the internal sampler drifts from my external > digital sound source. Unless I’m missing something, phones are not including > word clock time for me to sync with.:) > What if I want to build a set of highend headphones. I could take that > digital signal, pull it up all the way to the users head and include an > amplifier made with nice MOSFET transisters and a healthy overclocked > beautiful analog devices or maybe a higher end Burr Brown in each can > attached right to the transducer with a minimal amount of analog signal path > for signals to bleed in and out of. Not to mention with a digital signal > right to the can I can do much more highly accurate sound canceling > calculations. That’s just one example I can think of off the bat. > I’m just not convinced by this article. IF we extended out this guy’s > argument we should never have digital television because analog was the way > it’s done even though digital television is far far better. What do you all > think? > > > > > > > On 6/25/16, 9:39 PM, "M. Taylor" <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com on behalf > of mk...@ucla.edu> wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > Here is an interesting article that I thought you'd like to read, the URL to > which is located at the end of the text. > > NOTE: I edited out the 1 profane word that appears in the original text so > as to bring this piece in compliance with our list policies. > > Enjoy, > > Mark > > Taking the headphone jack off phones is user-hostile and stupid, Have some > dignity > By Nilay Patel on June 21, 2016 > > Another day, another rumor that Apple is going to ditch the headphone jack > on the next iPhone in favor of sending out audio over Lightning. Or another > phone beats Apple to the punch by ditching the headphone jack in favor of > passing out audio over USB-C. What exciting times for phones! We're so out > of ideas that actively making them shittier and more user-hostile is the > only innovation left. > > ditching the headphone jack on phones makes them worse > > Look, I know you're going to tell me that the traditional TRS headphone jack > is a billion years old and prone to failure and that life is about progress > and whatever else you need to repeat deliriously into your bed of old HTC > extUSB dongles and insane magnetic Palm adapters to sleep at night. But just > face facts: ditching the headphone jack on phones makes them worse, in > extremely obvious ways. Let's count them! > > (Also, here is a list of reasons you might actually prefer Lightning > headphones, by my friend Vlad Savov, but let's be clear that my list is the > superior one.) > > 1. Digital audio means DRM audio > > Oh look, I won this argument in one shot. For years the entertainment > industry has decried what they call the "analog loophole" of headphone > jacks, and now we're making their dreams come true by closing it. > > Winter is coming > > Restricting audio output to a purely digital connection means that music > publishers and streaming companies can start to insist on digital copyright > enforcement mechanisms. We moved our video systems to HDMI and got HDCP, > remember? Copyright enforcement technology never stops piracy and always > hurts the people who most rely on legal fair use, but you can bet the music > industry is going to start cracking down on "unauthorized" playback and > recording devices anyway. We deal with DRM when it comes to video because we > generally don't rewatch and take TV shows and movies with us, but you will > rue the day Apple decided to make the iPhone another 1mm thinner the instant > you get a "playback device not supported" message. Winter is coming. > > 2. Wireless headphones and speakers are fine, not great > > I am surrounded by wireless speaker systems. (I work at The Verge, after > all.) And while they mostly work fine, sometimes they crackle out and fail. > It sucks to share a wireless speaker among multiple devices. Bluetooth > headphones require me to charge yet another battery. You haven't known pain > until you've chosen to use Bluetooth audio in a car instead of an aux jack. > > Bluetooth: next year it'll work great. > > 3. Dongles are stupid, especially when they require other dongles > > Shut up, you say. All of your complaints will be handled by this charming > $29 dongle that converts digital audio to a standard headphone jack! > > Have some dignity > > To which I will respond: here is a photo of Dieter Bohn and his beloved > single-port MacBook, living his fullest #donglelife during our WWDC > liveblog: > > Photo of macbook with a bunch of dongles > > Everything is going to be great when you want to use your expensive > headphones and charge your phone at the same time. You are going to love > everything about that situation. You are going to hold your 1mm thinner > phone and sincerely believe that the small reduction in thickness is > definitely worth carrying multiple additional dongles. > > Also, they're called [redacted] dongles. Let's not do this to ourselves. > Have some dignity. > > 4. Ditching a deeply established standard will disproportionately impact > accessibility > > The traditional headphone jack is a standard for a reason - it works. It > works so well that an entire ecosystem of other kinds of devices has built > up around it, and millions of people have access to compatible devices at > every conceivable price point. The headphone jack might be less good on some > metrics than Lightning or USB-C audio, but it is spectacularly better than > anything else in the world at being accessible, enabling, open, and > democratizing. A change that will cost every iPhone user at least $29 extra > for a dongle (or more for new headphones) is not a change designed to > benefit everyone. And you don't need to get rid of the headphone jack to > make a phone waterproof; plenty of waterproof phones have shipped with > headphone jacks already. > > 5. Making Android and iPhone headphones incompatible is so incredibly > arrogant and stupid there's not even explanatory text under this one > > 6. No one is asking for this > > Raise your hand if the thing you wanted most from your next phone was either > fewer ports or more dongles. > > I didn't think so. You wanted better battery life, didn't you? Everyone just > wants better battery life. > > Original article at: > http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/6/21/11991302/iphone-no-headphon > e-jack-user-hostile-stupid > > -- > The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries > list. > > If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if > you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or > moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. > > Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara > Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com > > The archives for this list can be searched at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries > list. > > If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if > you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or > moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. > > Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara > Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com > > The archives for this list can be searched at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries list. If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com The archives for this list can be searched at: http://www.mail-archive.com/macvisionaries@googlegroups.com/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
