The Next Big Thing For The Internet?

[Ali]

Originally Posted by tbailey

Hey i'm pretty stupid when it comes to computers

have you guys heard of "The Grid"

supposedly the next big step for the internet

some guy at the law office was talking about atoms being smashed and downloading a movie on your PC within seconds

here's an article dealing with it

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2001/03/42230

What this essentially refers to is Grid Computing. High performance data transfers between long distances. My University has already started to implement this technology with an another University where an astonishingly high speed network will be developed for my Univesity to the other University hundreds of miles away. The next big thing in computer technology or if you can refer to as the Holy Grail of computing is Parallelism, with modern advances in CPU and GPU architecture, we are slowly coming close to achieveing this.

[lilly]

Originally Posted by dreamer

...Not really. CDs are superior to LPs in my opinion. They're smaller, much more robust, cheaper and offer superior sound quality (IMHO). In fact I can't think of any new technology that is not an advancement over what came before (VHS->DVD->Blueray for example)...

Not really, even today, mp3, or wav formats cant replicate the audio warmth like an LP....irrespective of bitrate. sometimes analog is much better than digital. Another good example is 35mm versus HD cams

[dreamer]

No offense but I think people who think that LPs have better sound quality than CDs are imagining things (I think the opposite is true). Same with the difference between CD and MP3 - there is none, given a sufficient bit rate. And of course an IPod is much better than a portable CD player, a CD player can't store 10,000 songs...If the sound quality is horrible buy better headphones because that is the problem then.

[GianGian]

Originally Posted by lilly

Not really, even today, mp3, or wav formats cant replicate the audio warmth like an LP....irrespective of bitrate. sometimes analog is much better than digital. Another good example is 35mm versus HD cams

I see I am not alone. Analog > Digital

Originally Posted by dreamer

No offense but I think people who think that LPs have better sound quality than CDs are imagining things (I think the opposite is true). Same with the difference between CD and MP3 - there is none, given a sufficient bit rate. And of course an IPod is much better than a portable CD player, a CD player can't store 10,000 songs...If the sound quality is horrible buy better headphones because that is the problem then.

If you think that there is no difference between CDs and mp3s, I can assure you that the problem are not the headphones, it's your ears.
Now you need to tell me that digital photos are better than analog photos, because that is so obviously false.

[espire]

Regarding CD vs. LP, the former gives you clean recording, small size, and track seeking, while the latter gives you detail and warmth. You can combine the best of both worlds by running a CD through a vacuum tube amplifier into high-end headphones.

Regarding MP3 vs. CD, there is a significantly noticeable difference when using 128kbps MP3s. around 256kbps makes the difference unnoticeable most of the time, and proper LAME-encoded 320kbps MP3s are totally indistinguishable from CDs. If you think that you can tell that difference, you haven't tried to on a double-blind test.

Analog and digital each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and each is better suited for different purposes. As analog technology stagnates, digital technology is still improving, slowly making analog more and more obsolete. Many major chip manufacturers are already removing analog circuits from their production when something digital can do the same.

Regarding analog photos vs. digital photos, film definitely does give you a higher image quality and more detail. However, the convenience of digital allows you to experiment more quickly and more easily, which will often result in better photos, despite having slightly less detail. As well, how often does one take pictures that need to be cropped to 1/60th of the image, or enlarged to several feet wide, that the detail will be so vastly important?


...but I digress

[dreamer]

Regarding MP3 vs. CD, there is a significantly noticeable difference when using 128kbps MP3s. around 256kbps makes the difference unnoticeable most of the time, and proper LAME-encoded 320kbps MP3s are totally indistinguishable from CDs. If you think that you can tell that difference, you haven't tried to on a double-blind test.

Exactly. Like I said, given sufficient bit rate you simply can't hear the difference. And I have excellent hearing by the way.
And yes, what headphones you use with an MP3-player is very important for good sound quality.

Regarding analog photos vs. digital photos, film definitely does give you a higher image quality and more detail. However, the convenience of digital allows you to experiment more quickly and more easily, which will often result in better photos, despite having slightly less detail. As well, how often does one take pictures that need to be cropped to 1/60th of the image, or enlarged to several feet wide, that the detail will be so vastly important?

Good points. A digital camera is really much more practical than an analog camera.

[OGRE]

Originally Posted by dreamer

*Edit*: The article that was linked to at the beginning of this thread is almost seven years old. Seems like the idea got nowhere (at least for the general public)...

I studied fiber optics in electrical engineering back in 1983. In the "general public" sense, I got fiber optic phone/internet at the house in 2006....twenty three years later.

As for the digital/analog debate, I've watched that evolve over the past twenty or so years. In terms of sound quality, digital beats analog, IF (and it's a big if) the digital sampling is of a sufficient rate to capture the entire bandwidth of the analog signal, and IF (another big if) the reading device does the same. Sufficient rate means fast sampling, and fast sampling (when stored) means lots of storage space. It was not until recently that storage technology (price and capability) reached a mass market appeal at a sufficient sampling rate to match analog.

Even then, I still note some of the standards still can push digital economy at the price of quality. What sells better? You can put 100 or your favorite songs on you IPOD...OR....you can put 10 of your favorite songs on your IPOD AND hear the top end of the woodwinds in Mozart's collection....with upgraded headphones?

Another problem is analog vs digital transmission on the airwaves. We're going to all digital TV transmission in Feb 2009. Radiowaves are subject to interference and distortion. As long as the interference and distortion can be corrected by the digital error correction coding, the digital signal will deliver a near perfect image. However, once the interference busts the error correction threshold, you lose the entire digital signal. It will blank out...and skip. Contrast with analog, where you might get some static or snow, you will still be able to see/hear it.