The End of Speaker Cables.?

[esldude]

I think Kal's comment there is seeing this correctly. This isn't about good sound, much less great.

 

OTOH, I am really surprised at this late date we don't have a wireless standard agreed to that allows transmission of lossless digital at either 44/16 or 48/24 material. I think active speakers are the way to go. And a wireless connection of quality would be a great way to do things. It goes against audiophile habits and it would eliminate all this constant flux of gear. I also think a good wireless connection (bluetooth aint it) would be a boon to those wanting a mch rig. I do note as much as I think active speakers are a plus, it actually is easier to run speaker wires all around places than to run balanced XLR's and have a power plug next to your speakers in many cases.

[esldude]

There is WiSA.

 

I agree with your comment about easier to run speaker wires.

 

Yes, have read a little about WiSA and it looks good if only everyone would get on board. Maybe this will be the one. Capable of 96/24 for up to 7.1 channels.

[esldude]

One thing is ionizing radiation can definitely have effects adverse and otherwise. The radiation of phones and such devices even that of a microwave oven are non-ionizing. So that is something of an important divide. Non-ionizing radiation might still have some issues to worry about that are via more complex pathways or that are more subtle. There is good reason to think non-ionizing radiation isn't going to be large concern.

 

X-rays are ionizing. Higher band UV is ionizing. Somewhere in the UV range and lower frequencies are non-ionizing. So RF like cell phones are in the non-ionizing band of things.

 

I worked in and out of an office environment most of my working years. The last 3 was almost fully in office and on the phone a lot. The phone was on the left and I therefore used my left ear mostly. It seemed I could hear on the phone more clearly in my left ear eventually. I later tripped across research into that very thing among office workers. Indeed it appears the brain develops better pattern matching to have better hearing acuity over phones in one ear vs the other in such situations. There was no apparent effect in overall acuity for other purposes. Though I have wondered how that could be. I am guessing the brain switches in the better filtering for phone use as needed.

[esldude]

Non-ionizing radiation is already a big concern - for example, about 90% of all skin cancer is caused by exposure to solar UV, and there's nothing complex or subtle about the mortality rate for melanoma or the extensive destruction and disfigurement resulting from morpheaform and other aggressive basal cell carcinomas. As I can't rid my environment of its extraneous energy and chemical content, I can only learn to live with it. But that doesn't mean that I accept its benignity. As a species, we ignore these risks at our own peril - we're screwing up our planet at a pace that absolutely mandates mutation if we're to continue to inhabit it.

 

I'm truly glad that I'm no longer young. It took me all these years to build up sufficient equanimity to sleep at night and go to work every day, and I don't think I'd be as mellow if I knew that I had enough lifespan left to suffer the consequences of our collectively poor planetary hygiene. At least now I have the answer to BB's classic query: everybody asks me why I sing the blues.

 

Wireless speakers? Bring 'em on. I won't live long enough to mount a cellular response, and my kids' heads are so thick that it'll take Goldfinger's laser to penetrate them.

Solar UV that causes melanoma is ionising radiation. Just below that in the near UV is where it no longer is ionising.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app