doctor_big wrote:
So I take it you're not an audiophile?
I just like music, and have a keen interest (and some professional
experience) in audio technology, but that's all.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
doctor_big wrote:
Another question: What's the cheapest amp/DAC combo you can think of
that is transparent and accurate and will sound the same as any other
competently-designed components regardless of price?
For the DAC part, I am pretty sure the #8364;140 Audioengine D1 that
drives my
darrenyeats wrote:
He doesn't have his speakers yet and I doubt more finesse than the 10db
step is necessary. Plus, unlike the input setting, attenuators are not a
free lunch (impedance).
We both agree that the attenuator probably isn't needed, but...
I think attenuators should be used
johann wrote:
Oh dear!
All part of the fun of living in the centre of Amsterdam... People do go
a bit crazy a couple of times a year.
Did it not work well or are just USB more convenient?
It worked just fine, but not having to use the hifiberry gives me more
case options and frees up I/O
johann wrote:
Seems like many people consider the RPI to be on par with SBT or
Transporter using digital out.
I must ask, did you ever try one or is that just something you
read/heard/believe?
Tried. Right now my system has 2 SBT's and 2 RPI's (and 3 Radios, plus
lots of other stuff).
To
johann wrote:
And you think they sound as good as SBT or close enough at least?
Just as good, yes.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch,
johann wrote:
Feeding what DAC/amp and with what kind of interface (USB, S/PDIF, etc)?
Hypex DLCP and Cambridge DacMagic over optical, Audioengine D1 and MF
V-DAC over USB. I hope this is not leading down ah, but your system is
not resolving enough alley... :)
To try to judge the real from
ralphpnj wrote:
But your system is not resolving enough :)
:)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
johann wrote:
I'm sure it is resolving enough but your ears are not golden. ;)
Tonight they aren't even silver - already had so many fireworks go off
outside my window that I have a ringing in my ear...
RPIs to USB only or do you have some extra board in them?
USB only now, I did try the
Squeezed_Rotel wrote:
I wish I could see how this result -3.5 dB from 3V- is derived.
20 * log10(4.8/3)
I also understood that the ideal goal was to operate the Transporter as
close to 100% as possible.
Indeed, but 3-4 dB won't make a difference.
To try to judge the real from the false
darrenyeats wrote:
I would first try the 4.8V input setting on the actives and see if it's
quiet enough. At least with my actives the equivalent control has no
effect on impedance ... it's a neat and minimal solution.
Indeed. Try 4.8V (it is only 3.5 dB from 3V), and only if you find
amcluesent wrote:
While my TP keeps working I'll keep it, but a Linn Akurate DS would be
my choice as replacement
Why?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many
Archimago wrote:
TThe -problem -and I think what really is troubling is that claims are
now made on articles of faith (hence religion) without any evidence.
Oh, there are so many reasons for it - the need to believe, confirmation
bias (I only read what I believe), the current me-centred just
Archimago wrote:
Yup. As of this AM Your comment is awaiting moderation. Whether they
allow the response to see the light of day I think will be interesting
and speak volumes about the writer and web site. I do believe my
response was reasonably moderate and respectful, but clear about the
Archimago wrote:
IAnd if truly some people refuse to even agree at this basic level,
fruitful discussion is likely impossible.
Unfortunately confirmation bias seems to be a rather strong force...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
So you posted that as a comment to their blog? So far it doesn't seem to
have showed up...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Mnyb wrote:
It is alone reason enough to never ever trust anything done at CA :)
Does the location of your Ethernet isolator give better sonic
improvement than other location such as from the NAS or to the audio
device?
As if we would need even more reasons? :)
To try to judge the real
Archimago wrote:
Yup. As of this AM Your comment is awaiting moderation. Whether they
allow the response to see the light of day I think will be interesting
and speak volumes about the writer and web site. I do believe my
response was reasonably moderate and respectful, but clear about the
bakker_be wrote:
It's just that I quite like to prick other people's bubbles :D
OK, but it's almost like posting a link to a story in The National
Enquirer about Elvis in his hiding place fighting nuclear mutant giant
ants. What's the point?
To try to judge the real from the false will
netchord wrote:
may i offer a contrarian view: do not listen blind- we don't listen to
music with just our ears, but you should trust what you hear, or what
you think you hear, even if you know what you're listening to.
Why? We know that both expectation bias and confirmation bias are very
repeating my advice from the other thread:
If you actually want it to be a good test, what you need is someone to
help you. Have your friend connect up the cables, without telling which
one is the left and which the right. Then listen until you decide if you
like left, right, or can't tell a
Kellen wrote:
I will try with more frequency but my friend and I did the test just as
you say. In blind mode.
And the important part is to have controls to see if you also hear
differences when there are supposedly none.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
probedb wrote:
Why? Why would you convert everything to DSD?
Because it is more analog and doesn't have the nasty digital-sounding
stair-steps of PCM.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
Mnyb wrote:
Star steps that does not even exist ! :)
Which is why I mentioned them. Since when has non-existence of something
been a hindrance to audiophiles? :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a
ralphpnj wrote:
So Julf I think your statement should be revised to read: Since when has
*-the supposed*- non-existence of something been a hindrance to
audiophiles?
No, I'll revise it to But music is *art*. It is about emotions and
inner feelings. What would some bloody scientists
ralphpnj wrote:
*DSD IS JITTER FREE!!*
No, it isn't. It actually requires very expensive USB cables to deal
with the jitter.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many
ralphpnj wrote:
Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) - filled
with audiophile voodoo and other nonsense.
Why can't they be honest and label it science-free?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
probedb wrote:
I do hope the part about 16/24/32 was a joke.
I am assuming the whole posting was 100% joke/irony.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people -
ralphpnj wrote:
As I just responded to probedb, yes it was meant as a joke but it is
really hard to make a joke about something that it is itself one big
joke. While you and many other of my fellow forum members might
instantly recognize the joke, unfortunately most audiophiles would not
darrenyeats wrote:
I used to rail against all compression but sometimes it's fitting, if
done well, in certain genres.
And we have to keep in mind that heavy compression and distortion has
been an essential element in all modern electric guitar music since at
least Chuck Berry...
To try to
pablolie wrote:
Integrity is relative. There are always corner cases where checksums
will not be able to ensure it entirely (sorry to worry you). best
practice, as always - early backups, ongoing integrity checks.
I agree - but the checksums are still a pretty good indicator. If all
the
Stratmangler wrote:
I grew up when there was real creativity in the pop genre - sadly not
the case today.
[image:
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/739/968/b5b.jpg]
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
lake_eleven wrote:
Would it be possible to disable WiFi in SBT as I am using ethernet. I
have EDO installed and I do not want to use TT3.0 to disable WiFi. Any
alternatives?. I am under the assumption disabling WiFi would improve
sound quality.
You can turn it off by ssh-ing into the touch,
Stratmangler wrote:
I was referring to the rubbish that gets thrown at us on TV and
mainstream radio.
There have always been interesting artists, but they usually find it
difficult to get mainstream exposure.
I agree about the mainstream rubbish, but at the same time streaming and
internet
Mnyb wrote:
Duh whats digital VC is it some digital cossover or what :)
It is a venture capitalist that is either fully on or fully off :)
OK, I assume volume control is more appropriate.
it cant hurt to give all the DSP and xover some headroom
It is of course not really an issue if you
Mnyb wrote:
is it not enough to just turn down the digital volume a bit?
Yes.
Just turning down the volume could have some theoretical impact on 24bit
material but , somewhere with the noise of my dust-mites in the other
room ...
Have you come across a single recording actually using more
pablolie wrote:
but i believe when companies don't open-mindedly acknowledge disruption,
they get obsolete and replaced by new companies that do.
Indeed. A week ago I had the pleasure to attend an event where David
Byrne and independent music publisher Michel Lambot discussed the future
of
Not sure about the violates nyquist part - it is, as you say, a
well-known issue, and the simple solution is to have sufficient headroom
in analog stages or in any DSP operations where the wave data is
recalculated.
One of the actual benefits of the Mastered for iTunes standard is that
it tests
Fizbin wrote:
I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and
FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've
had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the
FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could tell him
Mnyb wrote:
Either it s a high res file then you get the bogus presentation of
bitrate or hi is simply disabling native flac so that he gets pcm(wav)
to the player .
Is PCM/WAV the fallback fromat?
Or some really wierd convert.conf fiddling or soem strange combinationof
file types
Mnyb wrote:
I do believe that you percieve a difference . I dont beleive that there
-is- a diffrence . This is diffrent if you understand me ?
I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a
rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this
particular
Mnyb wrote:
But very much of what audiophiles seriusly suggest is agiainst
fundamental physical theories ,there is simply no reasoanable
mechanism to explain the effect of many things.
Indeed. And here I draw an analogy to, of all things, UFO's. Yes, there
are serious UFO researchers out
SBGK wrote:
and yet the hifi world goes on and people outside of this forum continue
to improve the sound of their systems.
And yet the industry goes on and continues to produce better sound for
lower price, completely outside internet forums or hi-end hifi...
To try to judge the real from
darrenyeats wrote:
If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed though!
But who will be the first ones up against the wall?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
superbonham wrote:
If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called
'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already
today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the
consumer's acceptance (and money) in the end.
But the audiophile
darrenyeats wrote:
Put down the burning torches and let the subjectivists back into this
forum, or I predict you won't have a real forum anymore.
We aren't blocking them from the forum - but we do challenge unsupported
and unjustified statements. I find that that leads to a more real forum
ralphpnj wrote:
What does a unicorn fart smell like
Less digital?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Mnyb wrote:
But then something happened and the forum basically got invaded by
some very confused people claiming just about anything like that LMS on
different OS sound different ? Weird software mods etc the list of crazy
stuff grew exponentially.
I have seen that happen on a bunch of
cliveb wrote:
Audiophilia is nothing to do with rational or scientific debate. It is a
religious belief system whose proponents' behaviour in audio forums is
like Jehovah's Witnesses constantly knocking on your front door. They
cannot be reasoned with. Engaging with them here is the
darrenyeats wrote:
In 2054 maybe someone will discover something about audio which changes
the goal posts. Evidence-based reasoning isn't the same as turning out
to be right in the end.
More than happy to be *proven* wrong. But just someone saying but I
*know* it is so doesn't cut it.
To
jh901 wrote:
I don't know who pays for this site to be maintained, but there is no
moderation at all. It isn't possible to carry on a genuine, adult
conversation here about the hobby we are all presumably so passionate
about.
So you feel that a genuine, adult conversation isn't possible
And if both the input and the output are truly balanced/differential, it
doesn't matter. Neither pin is connected to ground/earth, and both pins
are just as hot (as in carrying a signal). The only difference is
absolute polarity, and the source material doesn't seem to be consistent
on that
netchord wrote:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.music.equipment.slimdevices.beginners/16754
Well, in that thread, Sean states rather clearly: That's right. The
XLRs are proper differential, balanced outputs.
So both pin 2 and pin 3 are hot, as in carry the signal, and are not
referenced to
Mnyb wrote:
Are there test signals for this ? you may need a scope ?
The standard way is a truncated sawtooth wave, and yes, that requires a
scope. But a good first test is the 'Absolute Polarity Blind Listening
Test' (http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_abspolarity.php). If you
don't hear
netchord wrote:
interestingly, reading that thread, it seems either Luxman, or Sean,
have it backwards as to which pin = the original American standard.
Sean: Pin 3 hot was American practice, but in 70s we adopted the EU
standard of pin 2 hot. by implication, the Transporter, which was
jh901 wrote:
Not on the internet where anonymity leads to incivility. Anyone can
masquerade as a subject matter expert.
Even worse, anybody can spout whatever silly opinion, and then shout
you can not deny my subjective observations.
Winning hearts and minds, discovery and curiosity are
jh901 wrote:
Not on the internet where anonymity leads to incivility
And the real irony is that you use an anonymous handle, while I post
under my real name.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a
ralphpnj wrote:
My guess is that there is now a very big opportunity for someone to come
along and offer well made, lower priced but still great sounding audio
equipment without the fancy audiophile approved finishes.
A bunch of companies do, but their products are not taken seriously by
JJZolx wrote:
I wish I had more money too. Those bastards with so much money that they
can buy nice stuff are just ... -stoopid-.
Luckily I have gotten to a point in my life where I have been able to
afford some pretty expensive toys (cars, motorcycles, electronics etc.),
but I don't see any
JJZolx wrote:
Oh, good. Say it again for anyone who missed your last 200 posts on the
subject.
So how about your point of view? What makes you think there is a
correlation between price and sound quality? Or is your point that sound
quality doesn't matter - what matters is the price of your
JJZolx wrote:
What makes you think that's my point of view?
Mainly the stuff you write.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
probedb wrote:
Holy poop! Why would anyone embed an image that large!?!?
Because bigger is better, just like with sample rate? :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool
dafiend wrote:
I think you meant ;) not :)
Absolutely. But I did turn on the irony bit the http stream...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
JJZolx wrote:
For example, I have a 24/96 version of Clapton's -Slow Hand-, and the
Lame Mp3 transcoding of it is almost identical in size to the Mp3
transcoding of the standard 16/44.1 CD.
Which makes sense, as mp3 is based on what the human ear can hear...
To try to judge the real from
nicholasg wrote:
I actually like that they look utilitarian. I also wonder about people
who talk the getting the absolute sound but seem more worried owning
speakers that look like high-end furniture or components made for
aircraft grade billets of aluminium ;-)
If music is the most
nicholasg wrote:
Anyone have experience of these speakers or the manufacturer in general?
I have a fair bit of experience with Genelec, but not with that
particular model. Genelec has been around for quite a while and is
well-known and highly regarded in pro audio and studio circles, but
their
pablolie wrote:
It has prolly been named before, but I heard favorable stuff, and the
concept seems very similar to a Transporter or SB, except priced between
the two.
Seems yet another uPnP/DLNA streamer, with all the limitations that go
with that? Sounds pretty expensive in relation to
netchord wrote:
i will also say that were they both available today, and say ~$500 apart
in price (i know the originals were much more), i'd strongly consider
the Transporter on looks alone, even if I were just using it asa
transport. it's one of the sexiest pieces of audio gear i've ever
netchord wrote:
i've owned bryston equipment in the past (power amp). and thought it to
be extremely well made, and an excellent sounding piece of equipment.
and btw, it had a 20 year -transferable- warranty. name anyone else, in
any business, who offers something similar.
A nice finish,
ralphpnj wrote:
Let it be said: Digital audio did slay the audiophile.
True - but kind of sad, in some ways. Sort of like how the Internet and
mobile phones killed the ham radio operator, and the ECU killed the
backyard car repair guy. But nostalgia is one thing, denial of reality
another...
ralphpnj wrote:
Wait a minute I have a friend who is an avid ham radio operator and
although most of what you say is true, ham radio remains important since
all these radios need to remain functional in the case of an emergency
is a power generator - which makes them very valuable.
I am one
daverich4 wrote:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/585-sotm-sms-100-mini-server-review/
Just remember that a review on computeraudiophile.com is... well... a
review. :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
bartman wrote:
I don't think there are any work-arounds to allow 192 khz files to play
on the Transporter ( if someone knows this is possible -- p-lease
respond - as I'd like to get that working ! )
AFAIK the Transporter is limited to 96k, but that really isn't an issue.
I did try the EDO
pippin wrote:
Wow, didn't remember this. Looks like the Transporter indeed measures
quite a bit better, especially the DAC's resolution looks quite
superior.
I'd still be pretty surprised if the differences would actually be
audible.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
pippin wrote:
I remember very well to have participated in a listening test 13 years
ago in which nobody was able to tell apart 256 Kbps mp3 from a raw CD
signal. I still have the demo files and on my current setup I _am_ able
to tell apart at least some of the tracks - admittedly that
pippin wrote:
I remember very well to have participated in a listening test 13 years
ago in which nobody was able to tell apart 256 Kbps mp3 from a raw CD
signal. I still have the demo files and on my current setup I _am_ able
to tell apart at least some of the tracks - admittedly that
netchord wrote:
i have both a transporter (with knob) and a touch. it's been some time
since i listened to them in the same system (they're in different rooms
now), but i'd say the transporter is unquestionably a better sounding
device, at least via its analog outputs.
Was your comparison
jh901 wrote:
'Lumin' (http://www.audiostream.com/content/lumin-network-music-player)
i guess it still suffers of the limitations of UPnP. Any idea of the
price?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a
garym wrote:
Link says 7200.
Ah, yes. Somehow missed that. Not really a Transporter replacement then,
I guess...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people -
garym wrote:
Reliance on UPnP actually bothers me more than the price tag. :cool:
A reasonable price tag doesn't bother me, a silly one does...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge
get.amped wrote:
Not sure that automobiles can be exempted though.
You have a point...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
bzlrbi wrote:
These are typically recordings separately mastered. Whether they
prove anything to you is not my concern.
Yes, they prove that you can hear differences between differently
mastered versions of the same record. They do not prove anything about
your ability to hear differences in
Apesbrain wrote:
These arguments are so predictable but this one was more predictable
than most.
Maybe some day someone will actually respond with Oh yes, true, I had
that wrong. Thanks!. Some day. Maybe. Not holding my breath. :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
ralphpnj wrote:
In addition, logic, science and objective proof are no match for
subjective listening.
Ah yes! Logic, science and objective proof is for boring people.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
ralphpnj wrote:
And for almost all other enthusiast hobbies such as photography, video,
computers (except Apple), automobiles. Wine and high end audio rely
wholly on unprovable subjective claims (and lots of advertising money).
Even in wine they have now mostly moved to blind tasting...
bzlrbi wrote:
I've got varying sample rates (i.e. 16 vs. 24bit) on a number of
recordings on a HD, and if I switch back/forth blindfolded, I bat
about 100% on telling which is which.
So these are recordings that all started as the same hi-res recording,
but were downsampled and/or truncated
Peiter wrote:
http://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/pcaudio/lan_isolator.html
At only ~ 200 Euros this must be the next tweak for my Transporter ...
Another great candidate for foo of the year...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
ralphpnj wrote:
Now, now ( Jeff % you @ should ! not * be } so hasty #$ with snide
)( remarks. )*()** This really could be @#$ a game * changing
)**(*( product.
Edit: I wrote the above original post without the LAN-Isolator RLI-1 in
my system and it did not contain all those extra
RonM wrote:
Because the recording standards for a live recording from 40 years ago
are unlikely to have captured the level of detail that could, in theory,
benefit from the high resolution of the DVD audio.
Indeed. SNR is likely to be at a vinyl-like 65 dB or so, corresponding
to 11 bits,
netchord wrote:
i saw them on that tour, and would gladly pay to download them in 24/96
or 24/192. Qobuz has them in 16/44, but the only other download option
that's available is 320k mp3.
Why would 16/44 not be enough for material that is pretty much 10 or 11
bits?
To try to judge the
netchord wrote:
you've made an assumption you have no way of verifying.
you might read some of the background on the project, which was several
years in the making/remastering.
What is there to verify? If it was originally recorded 40 years ago, it
would have been recorded on magnetic
netchord wrote:
why do you care?
Why do you care about why I care?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
kidstypike wrote:
Yeah, I'd care to know about why he cares about why you care. :)
We are a caring bunch, aren't we?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people -
bzlrbi wrote:
I have no problem telling the difference between a 16/44.1 and a 24/96
recording on my home system.
What downsampling software do you use?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid
Are you worried that the downsampling would be audible? Have you managed
to successfully ABX 96 vs. 192 on *any* player?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people
bzlrbi wrote:
I assume it would be audible on the Transporter. The question I have is
if the downsampled 24/192 would sound the same as the 24/96 version. I
don't have any DAC capable of handling 24/192 so, no, I can't do a
comparision.
The downsampling would have to be really badly
adamdea wrote:
Of course one could argue that an SBT connected to a dac is the same
thing. Or indeed an Rpi.
That was pretty much my point.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that
adamdea wrote:
I don't know whether anyone around here had noticed this but John
Westlake, who is currently in the process of designing the Mdac 2
updating (from scratch) of the m-dacf, is currently planning on working
on an embedded chip version (using an Rpi or more likely Micro-SOM i2)
Steve Baumgarten wrote:
wonderful short video essay about Claude Shannon
Whenever I see the old Bell Labs (now Alcatel-Lucent) Murray Hill
building I feel a sense of profound loss.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
ralphpnj wrote:
Not to worry since the Bell Labs Murray Hill building has been replaced
with this image:
16145
That is exactly what I am sad about. Bell labs came up with an amazing
amount of wonderful technology, without evert managing to turn it into
commercially viable products. Apple
801 - 900 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
