Some more of my ideas

[comradekingu]

With 3d printing there are PLA type compounds that have carbon fiber in them and use the plastic as a bonding agent.

Some more info about that? is that a "endless" core inside the filament or short unallined fibres?

Im thinking endless due to the nature of how 3D printing is done.

Noticed it here http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1375236253/proto-pasta-gourmet-food-for-your-3d-printer

Protoplant is legit from my experience.

From the measurement it doenst seem to have any worthwhile characteristics, unless you want to shank someone with it...

Heat resistant PLA seems better which is on the same kickstarter.

 

[mclien]

I just watched the kickstarter video and it's clearly mentioned, that it's made from short carbon fibers, which is usually used to make spattling compount. They put it in the PLA, I mostly put it into resin (epoxy) when laminating things (like bicycle frames, or surfboards).

So normally these parts are designed to make use of the direction of the fiber. Most likely the short fibers a of a length from 0.1 to 0.4 mm. The material gets less brittle by that, but nothing compared to a embedded fiber that is one part from one end to the other of you construction and lies in the direction of the force, that impacts the part.

So better that other 3D material, most likely even better than the standard "resin-only" case too, but still a large gap to a real fiber compount part.

BTW: Perhaps it's an idea to start an extra thread for the carbon fiber case?

 

[ekianjo]

Maybe sligthly wider keys on the keyboard. It would aid typing faster.


The thing is having software that actually supports the features out of the box would be nice. It does not need to be perfect.


But for example bluetooth on the p1 was never fully realised ie, streaming music wirelessly etc.

because music quality over bluetooth sucks balls.

 

[Exophase]

because music quality over bluetooth sucks balls.

Why would bluetooth degrade audio quality? Unless you think there's not enough bandwidth available for decent quality, which isn't the case.

Maybe your problem was with quality of headphones you used, not that the music was transmitted over bluetooth.

 

[moz]

I was under the impression that bluetooth audio had a big latency problem (?)

 

[EssoAir]

because music quality over bluetooth sucks balls.

Why would bluetooth degrade audio quality? Unless you think there's not enough bandwidth available for decent quality, which isn't the case.Maybe your problem was with quality of headphones you used, not that the music was transmitted over bluetooth.

In my experience bluetooth does degrade quality. But I think that's cuz its compressed for some reason

 

[Exophase]

In my experience bluetooth does degrade quality. But I think that's cuz its compressed for some reason

You can use aptX uncompressed for up to 96KHz/24-bits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX I don't know what the hardware support is like but it's an overgeneralization to say bluetooth audio just sucks across the board.

I was under the impression that bluetooth audio had a big latency problem (?)

Which shouldn't be a real factor when you're just listening to music, which is what I thought "streaming music wirelessly" was about.

 

[ekianjo]

because music quality over bluetooth sucks balls.

Why would bluetooth degrade audio quality? Unless you think there's not enough bandwidth available for decent quality, which isn't the case.Maybe your problem was with quality of headphones you used, not that the music was transmitted over bluetooth.

http://m.cnet.com/news/bluetooth-audio-vs-wires/57445372

 

[ekianjo]

and this too


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1483831/quality-of-bluetooth-audio-these-days

 

[WizardStan]

People cannot trust their senses. There are those that will swear up and down that their $500 Monster cables make sound much better but when actually studied scientifically they are in no way better than a coat hanger connected with alligator clips.

There are Bluetooth codecs that will make music sound inferior but these are primarily designed for voice transmission. To think that that would necessarily apply to Bluetooth in general is ridiculous.

 

[xiongxioi]

There are those that will swear up and down that their $500 Monster cables make sound much better but when actually studied scientifically they are in no way better than a coat hanger connected with alligator clips.

I agree, many audiophiles are somewhat misinformed and quite stubborn. 

However, quality is not the greatest concern when it comes to bluetooth. As far as I know, I have yet seen a half decent bluetooth headset. 

It's only for future proof at this stage. Bluetooth audio quality is not even that important. Since a large portion of casual music lovers use Monster headsets plugged to their iphones and android devices, and they don't seem to have a problem. This would be somewhat good to keep in mind, but not worth spending any effort on. 

 

[comradekingu]

Bluetooth audio is objectively something that degrades sound. aptX included. Stop comparing it to something else, instead present a solution that is equivalent.

 

[Binky]

Bluetooth audio is objectively something that degrades sound. aptX included. Stop comparing it to something else, instead present a solution that is equivalent.

eh?

I thought the last few posts had just presented arguments suggesting that bluetooth does not necessarily degrade SQ? - and what is the "something else" its being compared to?

 

[Klumpen]

There are those that will swear up and down that their $500 Monster cables make sound much better but when actually studied scientifically they are in no way better than a coat hanger connected with alligator clips.

I agree, many audiophiles are somewhat misinformed and quite stubborn.

I disagree. Audio perception differs greatly between humans.

I hear a lot frequencys than most and can distinguish overtone combinations quite precisely, good thing that it's part of my job now.

These discussions often sound like cyclopes ranting about overprized VR helmets.

 

[b_o_b]

I like to see P2 consistently being able to function without battery. Based on  this comment from Kodeln that appears to be a hit or miss on P1.

 

[WizardStan]

I disagree. Audio perception differs greatly between humans.

I hear a lot frequencys than most and can distinguish overtone combinations quite precisely, good thing that it's part of my job now.

http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/There have actually been many studies like this one, including some which actually recorded the output from each and found it to be exactly identical. Not kind of close, exact audio copies. And there are people that will still claim that these exact same audio outputs sound different, even when they fail a double blind audio test. Just google for "monster vs coat hanger". This is the argument against people claiming that the can hear a difference between bluetooth and wired: humans are surprisingly easy to fool.

If you are simply saying, anecdotally, that you can hear a difference and want to use that anecdote to support... something (actually, what are we arguing about here? Are we just talking about bluetooth audio for the fun of it or is there a point here somewhere?) then I am going to request some science to back that up. Unfortunately the only scientific studies I can find on the subject of bluetooth headsets are on how much radiation they produce and whether it's safe or not.

 

[Klumpen]

I meant this more in general (especcially audio systems), I never had a monster cable or a metal coat hanger.

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

My grandma said my wife's cooking is terrible. But I gave the foods my wife cooks to my uncle to bring it to her, magically, she said the foods my uncle cooks are just fantastic

 

[WizardStan]

I meant this more in general (especcially audio systems), I never had a monster cable or a metal coat hanger.

So exactly which statement were you disagreeing with, and what evidence do you have that would support your disagreement?

 

[comradekingu]

Bluetooth audio is objectively something that degrades sound. aptX included. Stop comparing it to something else, instead present a solution that is equivalent.

eh?

I thought the last few posts had just presented arguments suggesting that bluetooth does not necessarily degrade SQ? - and what is the "something else" its being compared to?

Electrical contact audio is the comparison. I read the aptX wiki page thinking bluetooth audio could now be taken seriously, and that wasnt the case.

Arguments about cables and the pseudoscience that helps them sell have nothing to do with wireless audio.