• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About davewantsmoore

  • Rank
    Log! It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
  • Birthday October 16


  • Location
  • Country
  • First Name

Display Name History

  1. No... the way you stereotype the 'dogmatic scorners' in such a dramatic way. Aside from a few outliers and trolls, my experience is that they really don't exist the way you think they do (people are actually much more rational and helpful, and have good motivations).
  2. Thanks - PS, I think you got no likes cos quite a few people though you had banned ME.
  3. A quick impedance measurement will help with some more info. PS - I feel sorry for you
  4. It is impossible to prove this (as you should be well aware) ... The only way to approach it is to examine what evidence exists for it not being a myth (ie. the claim that it is a myth being true). In my experience there is very little evidence. Everyone I've met wants "enjoyable sound", and almost every engineer has not been as "anal" as the "two opposing camps" theory makes it sound.
  5. ... that what goes into your ear is an accurate reproduction of what is on the recorded media. So, if you system has an "error" (unjustified peak or a dip) in amplitude or phase .... then fixing this error will lead to hearing more of the music.
  6. Because it sounds better. Modifying a systems performance away from "accurate" (ie. introducing known "errors") ..... is like if you decided to add a teaspoon of sugar to every piece of food you ate. This might improve the taste of some foods for you .... but not all food. For some parameters though, there is quite a wide range of what one would consider an "error". Overall bass vs treble balance is a good example, as both the layout of rooms/speakers/listeners, and the different levels used on recordings .... can vary this quite widely.
  7. IMHO it is a complete myth that there are two "camps" like this.
  8. Like I said, it's a myth that other ways don't work
  9. Apple focus on making all of their devices and products work easily / seamlessly together ..... but it's a myth that "other ways don't work". I use many non-apple things alongside my apple hardware/software just fine.
  10. I'd be surprised if they take away the copper in satellite areas, so in this case I don't think it is .... yet. ... going by the described geography, I would think that the original proposals for the NBN would have also seen a satellite service for prof (with the same data limits).
  11. Right. Got where you're coming from now That may be some time though ?! (speculation) Yes, but you can have 150. I think it's fair that we spent >4x more per person on satellite.... I'm not sure spending more would have been fair. If you think there are enough people in the valley to support fixed-wireless, then you might put a submission to the 'technology switch program', and see how much it would cost. If you're talking 100s of houses, then you might find that it's only a 4 figure commitment per household (as opposed to 5). Worth a look perhaps.
  12. FWIW, this number is based on the maximum expected users. Based on the expected number of users by mid this year .... it is currently >20x more expensive to connect a satellite user.
  13. Given that ISP have the option of paying either $27, 45, or 67 per month as the wholesale cost for a satellite connection service (before they pay for any of the data you transmit) .... then that would indicate you're paying for the lowest class service. The higher grades enforce different maximum contention ratios and data caps. You should probably have a sniff around for something more suitable.
  14. If you mean this literally .... then you need to find a new ISP. 25mbps download speed (which is what you ISP is paying for, and getting from NBN) is enough to stream pretty much anything. Again, apologies if I've misunderstood what you mean here..... but it isn't NBN who can't "be bothered" offering fixed-wireless services in your area ..... it is the Australian tax-payer who has refused to pay for it. As you are in a satellite areas, the taxpayer has already spent more than 4x as much money on you, then they have on people in wired, or in fixed-wireless areas. They reason they have not deployed fixed-wireless in your area is becuase it will cost more than the cost of deploying satellite to you (ie. more than 4x as much as a typical person). Perhaps you will argue that, yes you think that they should spend the additional (above 4x) money on you .... and you might be able to make a good argument for it (!?) ...... but let's call a spade a spade.