[David E. Bath]

Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[[email protected]]

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

[Steven Sullivan]

David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way through their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Serge Auckland]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way
through their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

I have a question about Foobar which I am hoping you will be able to answer.
I currently use Musicmatch Jukebox, which does everything I need, except
that when replaying a series of tracks from a cd which is intended to be
played straight through, there is a short break between tracks. For example,
Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, when played on a CD player, it plays
continuously, but playing the ripped tracks on Musicmatch, there is an
irritating short break (around 200mS) between tracks. Does Foobar also
introduce a short break, or will that keep tracks continuous.

If Foobar won't, does anyone know what will?

Thanks

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

[Randy Yates]

(David E. Bath) writes:

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

This is a temporary novelty item, in my estimation.

They are already working on high-speed wireless standards, e.g., for
transferring raw HD video wirelessly. When they become mature, you'll
just use a plain old PC in the office with boring hard drives and a
wireless card speaking to a wireless D/A in the living room / home
theater.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:40:03 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbu...m?postversion=
2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way through

their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

The neatest solution I've seen (so far) along these lines is :

http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLink.php

Use your MSB-modified 80 or 160 Gig iPod and Apple loss-less compression and
you can hold your entire music library in your hand while wirelessly playing
it on the worlds finest audio equipment (that is if you happen to own the
worlds finest audio equipment :-)!

[Codifus]

David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

This is nice. A bit expensive, though. The market it's addressing is
rapidly going to undercut it. The interface looks sweet, almost as if
Apple made it

It's not going to able to holds its own for long, unfortunately. When
they make a digital output for the iPod touch, for example, game over.
Connect the Ipod to a Benchmark DAc1 or Lavry DA10 and you have pretty
much the same thing .. . . .OK except for capacity.

I have an Apple Airport Express right now. Not alot of people know that
it has a digital optical output. I'm saving up for a sweet DAC to mate
it to so my iTunes collection can truly sing.

CD

[Chung]

Sonnova wrote:


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

And, of course, they have been saying that for the last 20 years...Or
maybe 30 years. Bubble memory, anyone?

[Codifus]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):


"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.
Mechanical storage media will always be around because it's cheaper. Not
all computational scenarios require dead silent access with near zero
access times. The portable hard drives in MP3 players are a perfect
example. They are pretty much silent with acess times good enough to
transfer digital audio.

I own an iPod nano, a flash based mp3 player, and as great as it is, I
don't see hard drive based players going away because they'll always be
cheaper and offer much more capacity. Technology will adapt. The new
range of Ipods boast gapless playing. That's for both the flash and hard
drive based players. That feature alone makes them a worthwhile upgrade.

CD

[Steven Sullivan]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way
through their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

I have a question about Foobar which I am hoping you will be able to answer.
I currently use Musicmatch Jukebox, which does everything I need, except
that when replaying a series of tracks from a cd which is intended to be
played straight through, there is a short break between tracks. For example,
Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, when played on a CD player, it plays
continuously, but playing the ripped tracks on Musicmatch, there is an
irritating short break (around 200mS) between tracks. Does Foobar also
introduce a short break, or will that keep tracks continuous.

Foobar does not introduce a break...but that be because I
am playing FLAC files.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:40:03 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbu...m?postversion=
2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way through

their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

The neatest solution I've seen (so far) along these lines is :

http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLink.php

Use your MSB-modified 80 or 160 Gig iPod and Apple loss-less compression and
you can hold your entire music library in your hand while wirelessly playing
it on the worlds finest audio equipment (that is if you happen to own the
worlds finest audio equipment :-)!

160 Gb wouldn't hold my entire library (800+ CDs), even with lossless
compression.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:23:46 -0800, Chung wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

And, of course, they have been saying that for the last 20 years...Or
maybe 30 years. Bubble memory, anyone?

Just because it hasn't happened yet is no indication that its not going to
happen. It's inevitable and a logical extension of current trends. That the
technology is maturing a bit more slowly than some might have predicted does
not change that.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:24:32 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):


"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.
Mechanical storage media will always be around because it's cheaper. Not
all computational scenarios require dead silent access with near zero
access times. The portable hard drives in MP3 players are a perfect
example. They are pretty much silent with acess times good enough to
transfer digital audio.

That's a bit of a flaw in your logic. You are saying that mechanical storage
media will always be with us in the FUTURE because it's cheaper TODAY. That's
like a 19th century pundit saying that gas light would always be the
artificial light of the masses because at that time, the gas service was
already in place and was cheaper than electricity.

I own an iPod nano, a flash based mp3 player, and as great as it is, I
don't see hard drive based players going away because they'll always be
cheaper and offer much more capacity.

How do you know that?

Technology will adapt. The new
range of Ipods boast gapless playing. That's for both the flash and hard
drive based players. That feature alone makes them a worthwhile upgrade.

Granted that at this moment the cost/megabyte favors HDD, but I don't see how
you can possibly assume that this will always be the case. There are sound
reasons for eliminating moving parts in storage media. First is cost. A
socket is always going to be cheaper than a motorized mechanism. Second is
reliability - especially in portable devices, but also in stationary devices.
Drop your HDD-based iPod on the concrete and there's a good possibility that
the HDD will be damaged. Everyone knows that even on desktop computer that
are never moved, that hard-disk drives have a finite life, that's why we are
encouraged to back them up. Also solid-state memories use less power, are
smaller and lighter. Everything points to solid-state memory devices being
preferred over HDD. Its simply a matter of time.


CD

[Arny Krueger]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

I don't see where hard drives are avoided. In most lexicons of computer
terms, hard discs are a form of memory.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message ...
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

MP3 file players that are based on flash have been around for most of the
decade. The only thing that has changed is the amount of flash memory that
was available.

My M-Audio Microtrack is a credible mp3 and wav file player that uses CF
cards up to 16 GB. Oh, it also happens to record from professional mics even
those that need phantom power, up to 24/88 or 16/96!

As a MP3 player for consumers the Microtrack would probably be a dud,
because its directory services are very basic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

Agreed. IME flash is the timex watch of storage - it takes a licking and
keeps on ticking. Many flash-based audio devices will continue to run while
undergoing extreme shock and vibration, until either the storage media or
the batteries fall out!

However, because of its cost, flash is usually used in sneakernet
applications. By that I mean that day-to-day working projects ride on flash
only long enough to access large archives on hard drives, where they are
dumped or reloaded from. I personally own about 10 GB of flash in the form
of USB, CF, and MiniSD formats.

There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players,
DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap
enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

As long as mechanical media prices advance as rapidly as flash, and we keep
inventing new ways to eat up gigabytes and terabytes of memory, it has a
long life ahead of it in the marketplace.

For example, my personal video editing platform PC has about a terabyte of
space in the form of hard drives. At 3-12 gigabytes per project, it doesn't
take long to eat up that space. A terabyte of flash might cost $750-1500
today. That's about 4-6 times the cost of corresponding hard drives.

Flash has two very practical disadvantages as compared to hard drives.
Typically data transfer of flash-based devices top out below that of hard
drives. Flash memory has a finite life in terms of read/rewrite cycles. In
most photographic, sneakernet and portable audio applications the rewrite
life is so large as to not present any practical limits. As a hard drive
replacement for a high-performance computer, flash's rewrite limit gets
dicy.

[Rob Tweed]

On 5 Nov 2007 01:10:24 GMT, Codifus wrote:

It's not going to able to holds its own for long, unfortunately. When
they make a digital output for the iPod touch, for example, game over.
Connect the Ipod to a Benchmark DAc1 or Lavry DA10 and you have pretty
much the same thing .. . . .OK except for capacity.

I have an Apple Airport Express right now. Not alot of people know that
it has a digital optical output. I'm saving up for a sweet DAC to mate
it to so my iTunes collection can truly sing.

You may want to check out the E-MU 0404 USB 2.0. A fraction of the
price of the Benchmark but I've been really knocked out by the clarity
and detail of music played through it. I've not seen any A/B
comparison against the Benchmark: it would be interesting to see how
it fared.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Codifus]

Rob Tweed wrote:
On 5 Nov 2007 01:10:24 GMT, Codifus wrote:


It's not going to able to holds its own for long, unfortunately. When
they make a digital output for the iPod touch, for example, game over.
Connect the Ipod to a Benchmark DAc1 or Lavry DA10 and you have pretty
much the same thing .. . . .OK except for capacity.

I have an Apple Airport Express right now. Not alot of people know that
it has a digital optical output. I'm saving up for a sweet DAC to mate
it to so my iTunes collection can truly sing.


You may want to check out the E-MU 0404 USB 2.0. A fraction of the
price of the Benchmark but I've been really knocked out by the clarity
and detail of music played through it. I've not seen any A/B
comparison against the Benchmark: it would be interesting to see how
it fared.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
I've checked the EMU and I'm quite seduced by its reviews and reported
capability. What turns me off, though, is that the EMU is controlled by
the computer via USB. I want a standalone unit like the DAC1 or DA10.
A standalone EMU-0404 I would buy in a heartbeat.

CD

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:43:35 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:40:03 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbu...htm?postversio
n=
2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way
through

their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

The neatest solution I've seen (so far) along these lines is :

http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLink.php

Use your MSB-modified 80 or 160 Gig iPod and Apple loss-less compression
and
you can hold your entire music library in your hand while wirelessly
playing
it on the worlds finest audio equipment (that is if you happen to own the
worlds finest audio equipment :-)!

160 Gb wouldn't hold my entire library (800+ CDs), even with lossless
compression.

Are you bragging or complaining? Most people have around 150 CDs. I was
talking to the average user, which obviously doesn't include you - or me. I
have more than 2000!

[Codifus]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:24:32 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):


Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):



"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

Mechanical storage media will always be around because it's cheaper. Not
all computational scenarios require dead silent access with near zero
access times. The portable hard drives in MP3 players are a perfect
example. They are pretty much silent with acess times good enough to
transfer digital audio.


That's a bit of a flaw in your logic. You are saying that mechanical storage
media will always be with us in the FUTURE because it's cheaper TODAY. That's
like a 19th century pundit saying that gas light would always be the
artificial light of the masses because at that time, the gas service was
already in place and was cheaper than electricity.
A better analogy would be the invention of the combustion engine that
came in the late 1900s and is still with us now. Some technologies just
remain, adapting and evolving.


I own an iPod nano, a flash based mp3 player, and as great as it is, I
don't see hard drive based players going away because they'll always be
cheaper and offer much more capacity.


How do you know that?
Simple logic.

1.HD based players have a finite life and are more delicate. They have
to be priced less than RAM players to even exist in the market.

2. Most users tend to baby their electronic devices. My nano has not
been subject to any hard drops, so if I had the HD based ipod, chances
are extremely likely that it would still work fine now, like my nano,
but have way more carrying capacity.

3. I travel on the subway alot and find that ipod owners tend to really
have this need to show off that they have an ipod. They're always
holding them. For every flash based player I've seen there were at least
3 hd based players outnumbering them. Users want capacity for less.



Technology will adapt. The new
range of Ipods boast gapless playing. That's for both the flash and hard
drive based players. That feature alone makes them a worthwhile upgrade.


Granted that at this moment the cost/megabyte favors HDD, but I don't see how
you can possibly assume that this will always be the case. There are sound
reasons for eliminating moving parts in storage media. First is cost. A
socket is always going to be cheaper than a motorized mechanism. Second is
reliability - especially in portable devices, but also in stationary devices.
Drop your HDD-based iPod on the concrete and there's a good possibility that
the HDD will be damaged. Everyone knows that even on desktop computer that
are never moved, that hard-disk drives have a finite life, that's why we are
encouraged to back them up. Also solid-state memories use less power, are
smaller and lighter. Everything points to solid-state memory devices being
preferred over HDD. Its simply a matter of time.


CD



CD

[Codifus]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message ...

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.


Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


MP3 file players that are based on flash have been around for most of the
decade. The only thing that has changed is the amount of flash memory that
was available.

My M-Audio Microtrack is a credible mp3 and wav file player that uses CF
cards up to 16 GB. Oh, it also happens to record from professional mics even
those that need phantom power, up to 24/88 or 16/96!

As a MP3 player for consumers the Microtrack would probably be a dud,
because its directory services are very basic.

Must be a typo, but why in the world would someone choose 16/96 over 24/88?

CD

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

I don't see where hard drives are avoided. In most lexicons of computer
terms, hard discs are a form of memory.

Since I excluded hard discs from my statement, I think my meaning was
quite clear. The units use some sort of solid-state memory as the
article specifically says it is a discless system.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 4 Nov 2007 18:14:34 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

Seems? Can we see where it says that the files are in memory?
I see this statement at the website: "All audio storage is mirrored,
ensuring zero downtime in the event of disk failure."

Sure seems like it is on disk.

Kal

[Chung]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:23:46 -0800, Chung wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players, DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap enough
and reliable enough to be archival.
And, of course, they have been saying that for the last 20 years...Or
maybe 30 years. Bubble memory, anyone?

Just because it hasn't happened yet is no indication that its not going to
happen. It's inevitable and a logical extension of current trends. That the
technology is maturing a bit more slowly than some might have predicted does
not change that.

They have been saying that for the last 20 years, too

[Rob Tweed]

On 6 Nov 2007 04:24:07 GMT, Codifus wrote:

I've checked the EMU and I'm quite seduced by its reviews and reported
capability. What turns me off, though, is that the EMU is controlled by
the computer via USB. I want a standalone unit like the DAC1 or DA10.
A standalone EMU-0404 I would buy in a heartbeat.

Actually the great thing about the EMU is that it *does* work
standalone - you can disconnect the USB and use it in what they refer
to as "Direct mode" as a standalone DAC for any digital source via its
SPDIF inputs. And of course it has the great advantage of working as
an extraordinarily high quality ADC for recording to digital too. The
mic inputs in particular are staggeringly good. It's made me realise
just how good my old trusty Calrec CM652 microphones really are.

The EMU has all the input/output level controls you need on the box
itself and I'm now using it primarily as a digital pre-amp, plugged
directly into a Behringer power amp (another ridiculous bargain of
very impressive quality). The combination is stunning.

Of course a lot of the time I'll have the USB connection in place so I
can play all my CD copies via iTunes (all either wav or Apple
lossless), but I don't touch the software interface to it (though I
carefully set up the iTunes and Mac sound configuration as per the
Benchmark recommendations).

You *can* configure and control the EMU from the computer via the USB,
but trust me, it works standalone - I use it like that a lot.

Sorry if I'm sounding like an EMU salesperson here - it really is just
because I'm so knocked out at being able to buy so much quality for
such a ludicrous bargain price. My only gripes are that I just wish
the controls were on a front panel rather than on top, but then again
it's meant for on-site recordings so its configuration makes sense.
It would also be nice to have RCA connectors instead of 1/4 inch jacks
for the audio output, but that's easily solved by buying some decent
adaptors or, in my case, 1/4 inch jack to RCA cables. It also doesn't
like you plugging in a live SPDIF input whilst playing back via USB -
you appear to have to power-cycle it to change over inputs or you get
a very nasty digital munged mess.

Those are minor niggles. The fact is that for about 270 UK pounds
I've been able to buy a ADC/DAC *and* power amp that has knocked the
spots off anything I've had or used before - we're not talking subtle
differences here. Truly amazing for less than the price of most
mid-range mediocre gear. Just shows you that there really are some
bargains out there if you look beyond the normal places. Funny, isn't
it, that you won't see either the EMU or the Behringer being talked
about in the hi-fi mags or on sale in the hi-fi shops. Now I wonder
why that might be? Hmmmm?

Anyway at the price they sell the EMU, just buy one and check it out.
I don't reckon you'll be disappointed.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Rob Tweed]

On 6 Nov 2007 04:24:37 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

Are you bragging or complaining? Most people have around 150 CDs. I was
talking to the average user, which obviously doesn't include you - or me. I
have more than 2000!

.....now 2000 really *is* bragging ;-)

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Serge Auckland]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Serge Auckland wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

"I believe in what they are doing, says Jeff Joseph, president of
Joseph
Audio, a manufacturer of premium speakers in
Melville, N.Y. "Sooloos has found a way for anybody to find their way
through their music without giving up a bit of
quality. Not even Apple does that'

Er, I've been doing that for a couple of years now using a PC , a
decent
soundcard
and foobar2000, for a lot less $$ than the Sooloos.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

I have a question about Foobar which I am hoping you will be able to
answer.
I currently use Musicmatch Jukebox, which does everything I need, except
that when replaying a series of tracks from a cd which is intended to be
played straight through, there is a short break between tracks. For
example,
Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, when played on a CD player, it plays
continuously, but playing the ripped tracks on Musicmatch, there is an
irritating short break (around 200mS) between tracks. Does Foobar also
introduce a short break, or will that keep tracks continuous.

Foobar does not introduce a break...but that be because I
am playing FLAC files.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Thanks, but I don't understand the reference to FLAC files. Most of my music
on my Musicmatch jukebox is in WAV format, some more recent additions are
320kbps MP3. On Musicmatch, all types of files have a short break between
tracks, it's just a part of how it works. Musicmatch's Tech Support people
were very helpful, but said it's a "feature" of the software, and there's no
way round it other than to put the CD in twice, once as individual tracks
when one wants to pick and choose, and again as one single track for playing
all the way through. I really need to know if there's any other software out
there that won't put in this short gap.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:25:33 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:24:32 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):


Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):



"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players,
DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap
enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

Mechanical storage media will always be around because it's cheaper. Not
all computational scenarios require dead silent access with near zero
access times. The portable hard drives in MP3 players are a perfect
example. They are pretty much silent with acess times good enough to
transfer digital audio.


That's a bit of a flaw in your logic. You are saying that mechanical
storage
media will always be with us in the FUTURE because it's cheaper TODAY.
That's
like a 19th century pundit saying that gas light would always be the
artificial light of the masses because at that time, the gas service was
already in place and was cheaper than electricity.
A better analogy would be the invention of the combustion engine that
came in the late 1900s and is still with us now. Some technologies just
remain, adapting and evolving.

I disagree that's a better analogy. The ICE is still with us because TO THIS
DAY no one has found a better portable automotive energy source than
petroleum distillates. Nothing else has the power per weight or volume that
gasoline and Diesel fuel has, and most bring other problems with them that
make them, if not impractical, at least inconvenient. Solid-state memory has
only one drawback currently, and that's cost per gigabyte and that's
dropping all of the time. Yes, CDs and DVDs are still much cheaper than flash
memory, but that won't always be true.


I own an iPod nano, a flash based mp3 player, and as great as it is, I
don't see hard drive based players going away because they'll always be
cheaper and offer much more capacity.


How do you know that?
Simple logic.

1.HD based players have a finite life and are more delicate. They have
to be priced less than RAM players to even exist in the market.

Those are the mediums two biggest drawbacks and someday, in the not too
distant future, will be the reason why the technology will become obsolete.

2. Most users tend to baby their electronic devices. My nano has not
been subject to any hard drops, so if I had the HD based ipod, chances
are extremely likely that it would still work fine now, like my nano,
but have way more carrying capacity.

Your private experiences have little to do with the world at large.

3. I travel on the subway alot and find that ipod owners tend to really
have this need to show off that they have an ipod. They're always
holding them. For every flash based player I've seen there were at least
3 hd based players outnumbering them. Users want capacity for less.

And eventually, flash memory will provide it.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:53:41 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

Agreed. IME flash is the timex watch of storage - it takes a licking and
keeps on ticking. Many flash-based audio devices will continue to run while
undergoing extreme shock and vibration, until either the storage media or
the batteries fall out!

However, because of its cost, flash is usually used in sneakernet
applications. By that I mean that day-to-day working projects ride on flash
only long enough to access large archives on hard drives, where they are
dumped or reloaded from. I personally own about 10 GB of flash in the form
of USB, CF, and MiniSD formats.

There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players,
DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap
enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

As long as mechanical media prices advance as rapidly as flash, and we keep
inventing new ways to eat up gigabytes and terabytes of memory, it has a
long life ahead of it in the marketplace.

For example, my personal video editing platform PC has about a terabyte of
space in the form of hard drives. At 3-12 gigabytes per project, it doesn't
take long to eat up that space. A terabyte of flash might cost $750-1500
today. That's about 4-6 times the cost of corresponding hard drives.

No argument there, but the assumption that this will always be the case would
be to argue against past technological trends. If computer history has taught
us anything its that all technology gets cheaper with time. At some point,
flash will have so much capacity at such a cheap price/gigabyte that it will
displace electromechanical storage in every application where it's
sufficient. That's all it needs to be. Cheap enough to replace HDD technology
in first one application then another. Eventually, that will mean that for
all practical purposes it will have displaced electro-mechanical storage in
all portable devices, automobiles (one of the worst environments I can think
of for an HDD, yet many new cars come with them onboard) and most home
computers - probably starting with laptops.

Flash has two very practical disadvantages as compared to hard drives.
Typically data transfer of flash-based devices top out below that of hard
drives. Flash memory has a finite life in terms of read/rewrite cycles. In
most photographic, sneakernet and portable audio applications the rewrite
life is so large as to not present any practical limits. As a hard drive
replacement for a high-performance computer, flash's rewrite limit gets
dicy.

That's not necessarily so. Read/write speed is mostly a question of power
budget . Most Flash memories used today are slow because they are designed
for things like digital cameras, portable music players and the like and are
designed to draw little current. Increase the power budget and speed goes up.
And there are available technologies such as shadow RAM which can make the
read/write access times of flash much faster than a HDD, in fact, DRAM fast,
but in the places where it is generally used today, speed is not THE issue.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:26:12 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message ...

"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.


Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


MP3 file players that are based on flash have been around for most of the
decade. The only thing that has changed is the amount of flash memory that
was available.

My M-Audio Microtrack is a credible mp3 and wav file player that uses CF
cards up to 16 GB. Oh, it also happens to record from professional mics
even
those that need phantom power, up to 24/88 or 16/96!

As a MP3 player for consumers the Microtrack would probably be a dud,
because its directory services are very basic.

Must be a typo, but why in the world would someone choose 16/96 over 24/88?

CD

Depends upon what you're going to do with the file after its created, I
guess. Everything has to be translated to a standard file type and some
oversampling/high-bit files might convert to one filetype easier than
another. I tend to record everything at 24/96. My outboard D/A can accept it
and it does sound superior, and I can always down-convert to 16/44.1etc.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 6 Nov 2007 04:26:34 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
Saw this on Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/02/smbusiness/audio.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007110213

Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs.

I don't see where hard drives are avoided. In most lexicons of computer
terms, hard discs are a form of memory.

Since I excluded hard discs from my statement, I think my meaning was
quite clear. The units use some sort of solid-state memory as the
article specifically says it is a discless system.

Can you direct me to a reference for that in a more reliable source?
We journalists can make mistakes in our enthusiasm but the
manufacturer's website clearly refers to contingencies in the event of
a disc failure. Also, the unit I have in my house right now sounds
awfully like a disc drive.

Kal

[John Stone]

On 11/5/07 10:27 PM, in article , "Kalman
Rubinson" wrote:

On 4 Nov 2007 18:14:34 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

Seems? Can we see where it says that the files are in memory?
I see this statement at the website: "All audio storage is mirrored,
ensuring zero downtime in the event of disk failure."

Sure seems like it is on disk.

If you dig a little into their web site, you'll find mention of storage
options in the terabyte range along with several statements about disk
backup. Terabytes of flash storage seem very unlikely. I believe their
statement about no moving parts applies specifically to the controller
hardware and software, not the music file storage.

[Codifus]

On Nov 5, 11:27 pm, Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 4 Nov 2007 18:14:34 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

Seems? Can we see where it says that the files are in memory?
I see this statement at the website: "All audio storage is mirrored,
ensuring zero downtime in the event of disk failure."

Sure seems like it is on disk.

Kal

It's a very closed, proprietary system.

You buy a music CD from Sooloos.
Sooloos sends you the CD as well as an encoded hardrive with the music
on it.
That hard drive is attached to your Sooloos system and the music is
then almost instantaneously uploaded into the RAM of the system.

The mirroring you mention must be part of the secondary, offline
storage.

Talk about being locked in. I'll continue building my own server,
thank you

CD

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
John Stone writes:
On 11/5/07 10:27 PM, in article , "Kalman
Rubinson" wrote:

On 4 Nov 2007 18:14:34 GMT, (David E. Bath)
wrote:

In article ,
writes:
"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.

True, but this starts at terabyte increments.

Seems? Can we see where it says that the files are in memory?
I see this statement at the website: "All audio storage is mirrored,
ensuring zero downtime in the event of disk failure."

Sure seems like it is on disk.

If you dig a little into their web site, you'll find mention of storage
options in the terabyte range along with several statements about disk
backup. Terabytes of flash storage seem very unlikely. I believe their
statement about no moving parts applies specifically to the controller
hardware and software, not the music file storage.

Yes, I see that on their website, although their "All components are
fanless and use virtually no moving parts, for near-silent operation"
statement is a little misleading.

I see on Stereophile's review that it's made clear the discless
statement was supposed to be limited to the "Source" component, not
the system as a whole.
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/107sooloos/

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 6 Nov 2007 23:47:21 GMT, Rob Tweed wrote:

On 6 Nov 2007 04:24:37 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

Are you bragging or complaining? Most people have around 150 CDs. I was
talking to the average user, which obviously doesn't include you - or me. I
have more than 2000!

....now 2000 really *is* bragging ;-)

Not around here. I deal in multiples of that.

Kal

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 7 Nov 2007 00:04:24 GMT, John Stone wrote:

If you dig a little into their web site, you'll find mention of storage
options in the terabyte range along with several statements about disk
backup. Terabytes of flash storage seem very unlikely. I believe their
statement about no moving parts applies specifically to the controller
hardware and software, not the music file storage.

Agreed. They also say no fan, so the noise must be from the disk
spinning. :-)

Kal

[Codifus]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:25:33 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):


Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:24:32 -0800, Codifus wrote
(in article ):



Sonnova wrote:


On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:39:29 -0800, wrote
(in article ):




"Seems it stores the music files in memory, not hard discs."

There are just now starting to appear drop in flash memory "disks" for
conventional hard drives. Very expensive but as always the price is
dropping and can be projected to be the storage device of the near
future.

Ipod type plug in devices are a form of this even now.


There is no doubt that solid-state storage is the wave of the future and
says
are numbered for all mechanical storage media, hard-drives, CD players,
DVD
players, you name it. It's just a matter of the memory getting cheap
enough
and reliable enough to be archival.

Mechanical storage media will always be around because it's cheaper. Not
all computational scenarios require dead silent access with near zero
access times. The portable hard drives in MP3 players are a perfect
example. They are pretty much silent with acess times good enough to
transfer digital audio.


That's a bit of a flaw in your logic. You are saying that mechanical
storage
media will always be with us in the FUTURE because it's cheaper TODAY.
That's
like a 19th century pundit saying that gas light would always be the
artificial light of the masses because at that time, the gas service was
already in place and was cheaper than electricity.

A better analogy would be the invention of the combustion engine that
came in the late 1900s and is still with us now. Some technologies just
remain, adapting and evolving.


I disagree that's a better analogy. The ICE is still with us because TO THIS
DAY no one has found a better portable automotive energy source than
petroleum distillates. Nothing else has the power per weight or volume that
gasoline and Diesel fuel has, and most bring other problems with them that
make them, if not impractical, at least inconvenient. Solid-state memory has
only one drawback currently, and that's cost per gigabyte and that's
dropping all of the time. Yes, CDs and DVDs are still much cheaper than flash
memory, but that won't always be true.


I own an iPod nano, a flash based mp3 player, and as great as it is, I
don't see hard drive based players going away because they'll always be
cheaper and offer much more capacity.


How do you know that?

Simple logic.

1.HD based players have a finite life and are more delicate. They have
to be priced less than RAM players to even exist in the market.


Those are the mediums two biggest drawbacks and someday, in the not too
distant future, will be the reason why the technology will become obsolete.
Hard drives keep getting smaller and smaller yet their capacity keeps
increasing. Not only that but their failure rates are going down too.
It's going to take a long while for flash memory to catch up.


2. Most users tend to baby their electronic devices. My nano has not
been subject to any hard drops, so if I had the HD based ipod, chances
are extremely likely that it would still work fine now, like my nano,
but have way more carrying capacity.


Your private experiences have little to do with the world at large.

And your preaching has everything to do with the larger world? Like I
said, most users tend to baby their HD based players, so HDs are fine.


3. I travel on the subway alot and find that ipod owners tend to really
have this need to show off that they have an ipod. They're always
holding them. For every flash based player I've seen there were at least
3 hd based players outnumbering them. Users want capacity for less.


And eventually, flash memory will provide it.
When flash memory gets cheaper than HD memory in terms of cost per
gigabyte, then I'll be with you on that. Untill then, HD memory is the
cheaper and much more cost effective way to go.

CD

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:47:21 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 6 Nov 2007 04:24:37 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

Are you bragging or complaining? Most people have around 150 CDs. I was
talking to the average user, which obviously doesn't include you - or me. I
have more than 2000!

....now 2000 really *is* bragging ;-)

If you think I'm bragging, try storing them - or MOVING them! I don't know
how I even ended up with so many. I don't even particularly LIKE CDs!