jwar wrote: There's no evidence that all wired items are better than wireless items.
You actually don't believe this, right?
Yea I do.
For instance I have used wireless gaming controller for years now and I have notice zero difference. If there was a that big a difference your remote control to your tv would have wired set up. Wouldn't that be grand? Wired tv remotes!
My LTE internet works better than most internet services I've tried, wired or otherwise. So there's that as well.
Again, I don't see the evidence. You can claim latency or quality suffering, but I doubt it's the big of a difference for the average consumer to even be phased by.
It's like cds vs records. Most people cannot tell the difference with their ears. They can't, yet so many claim they have golden ears and one is better than the other no matter what data there actually is available to prove otherwise. Here's one such article out of many others http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-gam ... lly-better
My point is, be that dinosaur. It's cool. I'll keep moving with technology. I like it and embrace the change. Do I like the price of buying new everything? No, but I'm excited by the future.
TV remotes: in the late 80s we got cable when I was a kid, it had a wired remote like this:
You cant really compare a device for casual use like a tv remote control to a video game controller which requires timely, critical input or else rage ensues. The average consumer has nothing to do with this discussion, if we're framing the debate in terms of gear suitable for enthusiast use. When the enthusiasts adopt wireless tech for critical applications then you'll know it's reached a level where savvy users can no longer tell the difference. It isn't about being a dinosaur, it's about recognizing *the better mousetrap* can be 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Simultaneously.
Keep moving with technology but look before you leap; do your research. Chance favors the prepared mind. I honestly don't care what *most people favor* or what *most people hear* in sound test comparisons as sound is subjective & most people don't have a trained ear.
Using casuals for benchmark reference is silly, like forming opinions derived from *man on the street* tv news interviews
Those remotes fucking sucked ass. That was kind of my point. Also my point was in reference to wireless technology so it's all valid be it radio waves or Bluetooth.
If the casual consumer has nothing to do with this discussion then why are we talking about an iPhone which is purchased by so many fucking people that it could not even be considered anything but the casual consumer. You telling me everyone that buys those are audiophiles or purist of some sort?
Also in regards to savvy users. That's the funniest shit I think I've read in a long time. So wanting to use a wire and claiming that it's different or better makes you savvy? Be savvy all you want then sir.
This is 2016, not the 80', 90's, or early 2000's. Things have gotten better and better each year in regards to wireless and will continue to do so. It's not a new technology, it's decades old. There is no leap. We are already there just some do not want to move past old formatting. That's their prerogative.
In reference to smart phones though, you will either A)Buy it or B)not buy it. So lol at the whole topic. It's all going to be the same in 5 years because Android always follows IOS and vice versa.
"I do not have the ability to think rationally 90% of the time and I also change my mind at the drop of a hat".
Bruh, you're moving the goalposts. The crux of the issue in this discussion can be framed in a simple question: is the current wireless technology a suitable replacement for wired connections? The short answer is "maybe" or "yes and no". There's no use trying to win an argument on the internet so make your case without jingo and conjecture.
I'm not implying anything I haven't plainly stated so perish the thought of any such further accusations. Pls reread and consider what I've said without being so defensive.
Honestly don't care about the jack thing. The idea of having my phone and my music in one device always sounded annoying. Last thing I want is a phone call interrupting my music. So I have a separate mp3 player for music and the phone is just phone stuff.
So yea, its whatever for me.
ummohyeah wrote:Godspeed rule and no amount of tape would make their pedalboards safe from my cum.
BitchPudding wrote:
No, I'm THE bitch. The only one allowed here.
rustywire wrote: The average consumer has nothing to do with this discussion, if we're framing the debate in terms of gear suitable for enthusiast use. When the enthusiasts adopt wireless tech for critical applications then you'll know it's reached a level where savvy users can no longer tell the difference. It isn't about being a dinosaur, it's about recognizing *the better mousetrap* can be 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Simultaneously.
Keep moving with technology but look before you leap; do your research. Chance favors the prepared mind. I honestly don't care what *most people favor* or what *most people hear* in sound test comparisons as sound is subjective & most people don't have a trained ear.
Using casuals for benchmark reference is silly, like forming opinions derived from *man on the street* tv news interviews
But i mean....were talking about people listening to MP3s through garbage headphones that have garbage cables anyway. I really seriously doubt theres that many people walking around with some really nice sennheisers and a portable headphone amp and if there are, they'll still have to have a 1/4" to 1/8" adapter, which is going to fuck all that up anyway. And seriously dude are you saying you walk around with some open air headphones blasting your music out for everyone to hear? I didn't think so.
So that still leaves us here: An iPhone is for listening to music on the go at the gym or taking a shit at best buy. Its not audiophile grade and if you're seriously going to make that argument why are you even using a cellphone? the answer is obviously just get one of those big field packs from ww11 and walk around with a giant spool of wire. It may be inconvenient as fuck but goddamn if it isn't lossless.
D.o.S. wrote:Yeah I have a Godsmack shirt
jwar wrote:Not to be a dick or anything but My Bloody Valentine sucks ass.
My whole life is a shitpost. One. Big. Shit. Post.
but hey now we can drop $1000 on a phone that finally holds as much music as the old ipod classic did nearly 10 years ago, only to just stream everything instead resulting in multiple layers of compression before it even reaches your fancy headphones whether they're bluetooth or not.
backwardsvoyager wrote:but hey now we can drop $1000 on a phone that finally holds as much music as the old ipod classic did nearly 10 years ago, only to just stream everything instead resulting in multiple layers of compression before it even reaches your fancy headphones whether they're bluetooth or not.
True but did your iPod classic also make phone calls and do all the things these phones do?
The price is the one thing I will agree is complete bs. It's a luxury I suppose though, so whatever.
I'd like to ask for anyone who is an audiophile to take this test and see what you come up with. It's very, very interesting. I suggests to do so though with really good speakers and make sure you listen at high and low volume.
