The submission's article here is a little too concerned with irrelevancies -- BSD vs Linux, graphic equalizers -- and is not concerned enough with the biggest improvement in audio quality over the last twenty years: measurement and realtime correction of audio playback systems.
The simplest example is with headphones, because the measurement can generally happen once per model, rather than each time you move things around in a room. Take moderately capable headphones -- this does not correlate with price, there are good choices for $25 and bad choices for $2500 -- and measure their frequency response from 20-20000 Hz. Construct the minimum set of parametric equalizations to bring them to a target curve -- that's the bit which has gone from deep expensive magic to ten seconds on a modern CPU -- and apply that from now on. Your $25 headphones are now 97% as good as the best available in the world.
The standard cautions, because HN is full of pedantic floccinaucinihilipilificators: the headphones must not distort too much; ear canals differ and must be accounted for individually; preference in target curves differ; Olive and Toole's curves are representative of what a reasonably large sample size of humans "like"; uncalibrated microphones introduce their own distortions. Speakers in rooms must be measured in those rooms, as currently configured in terms of furniture and anything absorptive or reflective at audio frequencies.
The second biggest issue, the one not related to quality as such, is the availability of sufficient and sufficiently cheap bandwidth and storage to allow people to run their own music servers and personal/household music streaming services.
> The standard cautions, because HN is full of pedantic floccinaucinihilipilificators
I think (I am not sure, I’m more familiar with the in-room speakers style of audio reproduction) the “biggest” issue is that different speakers have different time-based nonlinearities. This should be most clear in impulse responses. At an extreme example, a headphone that has terrible resonance at 400hz can never be fixed purely by EQ using a standard amp.
> The standard cautions, because HN is full of pedantic floccinaucinihilipilificators
I think (I am not sure, I’m more familiar with the in-room speakers style of audio reproduction) the “biggest” issue is that different speakers have different time-based nonlinearities. This should be most clear in impulse responses. At an extreme example, a headphone that has terrible resonance at 400hz can never be fixed purely by EQ using a standard amp.
Now, this could be solved at least partly using current drive amplifiers. Apple has apparently done this on their AirPods. But it’s not a common thing at all.
It's true, which is why that's in the standard cautions.
But it's also the case that you can get reasonably priced headphones and speakers (reasonably priced by the standards of nonaudiophiles!) that do not have terrible resonances. So: you can't fix everything, but if you're paying attention before you buy, you can avoid making mistakes.
E.g.: Kali LP8v2 are frequently on sale for $400/pair; that includes amplification. Moondrop Chu II IEMs are under $25.
https://venam.nixers.net and nixers.net
I have two main feeds, one is about Unix, really deep articles. And I got usual life stuff and philosophy-related articles. I always try to take new perspectives when I write. The second link is to the nixers community.
You're misinterpreting what eSIMs are if you think they provide a new way to connect to the network, they don't. They are simply a new sim form factor, so step two in your analysis is unrealistic as the mobile equipment is still owned by mobile operators. There's literally no difference with current sim other than the sim being embedded in the device and the users being allowed to install multiple profiles on it.
I don’t think they were assuming eSIMs provide a new type of connectivity. I think they were referring to the fact that these embedded SIMs are more integrated into the device and therefore physically agnostic to the mobile operator of choice. This would make switching from e.g. Verizon to Apple like switching from from Netflix to Disney+ – much easier since it’s fully software-based. For Apple that would be easy to bundle with the rest of their services. Yet another thing that will retain customers in their ecosystem.
Disclaimer: I've been working in the eSIM ecosystem for the past 3 years.
The integration in the device doesn't really mean the device manufacturer has more control on the sim, far from it. The integration is limited to the interface needed to download/enable/disable profiles, what's referred to as an LPA (local profile assistant). Still OP is misinterpreting that this somehow gives the ability to device manufacturer, which are not network providers, to somehow be able to now step into the telco space. The reality is far from it and Apple cannot provide such service. What they do on the field though, is market devices are easier to use and follow up with mobile operators so that the integration is seamless.
This was discussed in the specs of the latest version (v3), and actually Apple and other GSMA members stood in the way of this. AT&T and Verizon wanted to include lock as part of the specs but it didn't pass and they were accused of collusion: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/04/20/apple-verizon-att-switc...
So in summary, it's the opposite of a carrier lock.
This is great! I took the same approach to my glitch art: edit the file data to introduce glitches true to the image format. It's been over a decade since then and your post has me itching to get back into it so thank you!
reply