Products > Test Equipment
Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread
mnementh:
--- Quote from: tautech on June 03, 2018, 02:57:13 am ---
--- Quote from: GerryBags on June 03, 2018, 02:51:54 am ---
--- Quote from: tautech on June 03, 2018, 02:43:25 am ---
--- Quote from: GerryBags on June 03, 2018, 02:38:29 am ---Bear in mind that for a good thirty years compact disc was king and vinyl had gone the way of the dodo, except that now the sales of vinyl are increasing dramatically, top acts are releasing stuff on vinyl again and even the lowly tape cassette has started to see some re-adopters. Take the comparison with the pinch of salt it requires, but it does demonstrate that a shift from digital back to analog, even after all the big names have abandoned a technology, can happen if enough customers make their desire for it known.
--- End quote ---
::)
Good luck listening to vinyl while driving you car, truck, tractor, boat............
Yeah you say put it on a USB stick.......well it ain't analog anymore !
--- End quote ---
Heh. I remember how long it took car stereo manufacturers to come up with a CD transport that could deal with the vibration, and how many people do you know that still listen to CD's in their car?
--- End quote ---
Yeah shit roads are the enemy but they'd be worse for vinyl.
Most I know play CD's especially when tripping.
I've got a rear 12 stacker in my SUV and others I know have 5 or 6 disc units in the head deck.
--- End quote ---
CD audio is shit. But it's shit that plays anywhere.
I have a handful of CDs in my car at any time... that's how I vett them for addition to my iTunes.
From there I rip whatever albums I feel like including on my phone as 128KBPS MP3s. I know CD is only 44K, but the noise overhead makes a difference. That difference isn't there (or at least I can't hear it on a cheap android phone with half-decent headphones) between 128K & 192K. The stuff I consider my "Core" music I've bought in 256K .m4a format where appropriate due to high-quality source material or multiple-regression digital remastering.
None of this compares to the latest crop of lossless digital players (I had a chance to play around with a pono at a convention a couple years ago and was blown away by it, but just couldn't bear the "cost of entry" into the ecosystem), but those REALLY only give better than I get from iTunesPlus IF the source material was recorded with lossless digital masters. Obviously none of the music I grew up with fits that bill, so most of my collection would still be iTunes.
Why iTunes? Because it has a good UI, it is well thought out for managing a large music collection and I have high-quality DRM-free copies of all of my music on my HDD and numerous other players besides my collection of ipod Nanos. AND my wife is a music teacher, so our shared collection is several hundred GB, most of which she carries on a 160GB iPod Classic for her work.
mnem
*toddles off to ded*
Mr. Scram:
Both 128 Kbps and 192 Kbps mp3s are dreadful. I'm far from an audio snob, but the compression often sucks the life out of the highs and lows and leaves audible distortion. CD quality is much better than that and what I would consider the benchmark for proper quality. I know there is HD audio out there, but that's beyond what my ears and equipment can handle. Picking a nice song becomes more important than the equipment it's recorded with or played on well before that point.
Specmaster:
--- Quote from: tautech on June 03, 2018, 02:35:31 am ---mnementh
It's very true 'feature creep' or as I like to call it 'oneupmanship' has impacted immensely on the UI present in a modern DSO and all manufacturers are guilty of this to some degree.
On the other hand instead of owning multiple bits of equipment a modern DSO can offer a lot of additional functionality as part of the 'package' so instead of overloading the bench we have it all in a single unit. Manufacturers of both high and low end gear do it.
Of course with some gear it's just 'tick box' additions while with others this additional functionality is real and capable.
So while you might not agree new entry level DSO's are 'dirt cheap', once you factor in these newly added capabilities it changes the view on the 'old CRO vs new DSO' argument.
We could go on for weeks more than the few days we've done thus far but I'd like to round out with my comments on this topic are entirely based on what I've seen in my marketplace and I fully expect buyers into the future to become more and more aware of the 'added value' in modern instruments. In the US where a plethora of used gear is available the marketplace is very different.
This discussion we've had has gone on before in various threads over the years and could/should continue with its own new thread in the TE board where we'd hopefully get a better consensus and greater participation than just here in the TEA thread.
I won't start it as it'll only be seen as some sort of Siglent propaganda. ::)
--- End quote ---
Problem with the extra features / functionality being built-in is that they aren't as good as a dedicated piece of hardware for a given function. Also you may require to be able to use both or more functions at the same time which I don't believe is possible with a DSO?
Also if the DSO fails, then you are also bereft of the other pieces of gear that it attempts to simulate, that in my book is just a no no. No audio phile would accept a all in one unit for the same reasons.
I believe it has become nothing more than a cynical means of justifying the higher starting price as you mentioned, factoring it in, the cost is not bad, looks like an attempt to minimise the higher then it needs to be price. Fact is, it suffers from the constraints I outlined above and also of course many people will already have the various items already in their home labs.
I doubt it costs that much to add in these mediocre extra functions anyway as with digital systems, most of the hardware is already there and is more software driven to make the changes?
From mobile device so predictive text might have struck again [emoji83]
Mr. Scram:
Developing software features costs time, effort and money too. I know the hardware crowd tends to underestimate that, but if you just look at the horrible software that's consistently supplied with even very expensive logic analysers you know that proper software development isn't trivial.
Specmaster:
--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on June 03, 2018, 06:11:55 am ---Developing software features costs time, effort and money too. I know the hardware crowd tends to underestimate that, but if you just look at the horrible software that's consistently supplied with even very expensive logic analysers you know that proper software development isn't trivial.
--- End quote ---
True, in that case stick to the core function of a scope and hopefully reduce the prices and make the UI better. Most people already have the other items anyway.
From mobile device so predictive text might have struck again [emoji83]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version