Recent Comments:
Marantz releases AV8003 processor and MM8003 amplifier separates in the US {Engadget HD}
Jun 17th 2008 2:10PM Joseph, I'm using all six of my HDMI inputs right now:
1) PS/3 [gaming, Blueray]
2) DVR/Satellite receiver
3) OTA HD television receiver
4) XBox 360 [gaming, HD DVD - yes, I bought quite a few]
5) Mac mini [media librarian)
6) Upconverting DVD player
I'm also using several component inputs, and even SVHS for the house security system's aux output. Here's the system:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/2531688467/
...In the future, I expect to add a standalone Blueray player, for one, and I'd also like a front panel input for an HD camcorder on any system I upgrade to.
Zargon, I own plenty of Marantz gear:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/sets/72157600798126397/
...so I'm quite familiar with the fidelity; but frankly, if I have to go to fooling with switchers, I'm not interested. The job of audio gear is *both* to make the experience pleasant and provide good fidelity. And while Sony doesn't have the high-end cache' that Marantz does, the fidelity is nothing to sneer at.
By the way, I also own a Denon from the previous generation, it has 3 component inputs, and if you want to talk about frustrating, try dealing with not *one* component switcher, but two. It brings inconvenience to entirely new levels; no one in the house could run the system but me. That's no good. Fidelity or not, I chucked that into the family room where it handles 720p for the kids.
What the both of you need to understand is that your view of how audio gear is used is not definitive of how everyone uses it. When someone says four inputs is not enough, derision is a poor response; if you don't understand why they might want them, just ask.
Marantz releases AV8003 processor and MM8003 amplifier separates in the US {Engadget HD}
Jun 14th 2008 7:34AM Yes, exactly. 4 HDMI inputs rules this out for me, and I would have *loved* to have a separate head so I could set up all discrete amps.
My Sony has six HDMI inputs. Check it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/2531688467/
InFocus kicks out IN5100 series projectors {Engadget HD}
Jun 13th 2008 5:27PM WXGA = 1366×768, and XGA = 1024×768, since Engadget has decided to be obscure, rather than informative.
What is funny about this is that I bought an Optoma HD-80 1080p DLP unit for about $2500 (retail); so (a) we know they can make these things at a reasonable end-user price, and (b) they can do it at full HD (1920x1080, progressive.)
It's no wonder adoption of projectors is so slow. Five grand, seven grand, even more... it's silly. I have a bright, clear picture on a 1.0 gain screen at 204" -- that's right, 17 *feet* diagonal -- with just 1300 lumens. How bright is it? When the screen goes white, it'll bloody well blind you. WTF would a consumer need 5000 lumens for? I'd have to wear sunglasses.
Here's a pic of my setup (click "All Sizes" above the image to see a hires version):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fyngyrz/2531688467/
...for reference, I pushed the shadow detail way up in that image, the room is a lot darker than it looks.
XCM offers up Mega-Cool component-to-VGA converter {Engadget HD}
Jun 13th 2008 5:13PM See, I'd be asking "Why doesn't it light up? Why? How am I going to know where to prod it in the mass of already far too anonymous components?"
What it needs is an *option* to light up. You could turn it off, I could leave it on.
Failing that, a very minor hack - like cutting one leg of an LED - will probably get you what you want. That is, darkness. :-)
Krell unleashes its Evolution 707 preamp/processor {Engadget HD}
Jun 13th 2008 4:44PM My receiver, a Sony STR-DA5300ES, has 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs. All of which are used. Plugged into them (presently) are a satellite receiver, an XBox360, a PS3, a Mac (as media librarian), a unscaling DVD player, and an Accurian HDTV Receiver. HDMI output goes to a DLP projector. In addition, the Sony has lots of component, SVHS and composite inputs, not to mention optical and coaxial audio and a special input for iPods. And a separate PIP input. All this for about $1500.
Looks to me like Krell isn't putting effort into the right part of the design. I mean, really, if they want to tempt me, they're going to have to at least outdo the mundane consumer rigs in input flexibility. Four inputs just doesn't cut it. Offer nine, or even twelve (and dual or triple independent HDMI outputs), and they'd have my attention -- and my money.
How long before something comes out that makes me want more inputs than six? A hi-def security DVR, or an HDMI radio or other audio source, or a handheld camera that just begs for a handy, front panel HDMI input?
For those of you who have struggled with switchers, you know that a well integrated input that your remote understands and gives direct random access to is far preferable to an array of outboard multiplex hardware.
Seriously... manufacturers, hi-end doesn't just mean more channels. Enable me. Add features and flexibility. Maybe even add some front panel controls so I don't spend my entire life wading around in menu hell. C'mon. I DARE you.
Steve Jobs keynote live from WWDC 2008 {Engadget}
Jun 9th 2008 4:32PM Well, as a matter of interest to me, that keynote scored a zero.
I would have loved to hear about progress with the OS. But I guess that's just no longer the priority for them. For Jobs in particular, which is a problem, given the whole cult of personality thing.
The iPhone (and the iPod touch) are fun toys; even toys that enable with solid functionality -- but they aren't computers, and they aren't what made, or keeps, me an Apple customer.
The whole thing just fills me with a vague sense of foreboding. When (and if) companies lose sight of their core competencies, they either change direction completely or they flop over and die.
Well, the good news is, other operating systems exist, and they'll all run fine on my Apple Intel machines, worst comes to worst. So even if Apple becomes "the iPhone company", I have reasonable choices to make.
How would you change Canon's Rebel XSi? {Engadget}
May 24th 2008 8:06PM Higher non-stretched ISO. It's all about the ability to gather light and use it well; every time ISO goes up, your lens collection becomes more versatile.
I already have a 40D; waiting eagerly for 50D on the assumption it'll reach past ISO 1600.
The magic number for me is the ISO that lets an F/8 lens (or telescope) shoot the Orion nebula in about one second. We're talking VERY high ISO's now. 100k plus. Technically doubtful at best... you'd be counting individual photons. Accurately.
Right now, the only lens I have that can capture Orion in 1 second (at ISO 1600) is an f/1.2 85mm. That's some expensive glass without much gain. Right now, we either have to use a tracking mount (works very well, quite expensive) or stack multiple exposures for gain as opposed to noise reduction (doesn't work all that well) or both (really, really works well, quite expensive) if we want to use tighter apertures, which we do need to do if we want more magnification.
Ask Engadget HD: What's the best 60-inch (or more) 1080p monitor? {Engadget HD}
May 8th 2008 1:53AM I agree. Modern DLP front projection @ 1080p is the final word for me.
Archer Quinn documenting his free energy project, descent into madness {Engadget}
May 6th 2008 7:31PM Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are numerous sources of energy where we don't have to put as much in as can be retrieved; there are numerous demonstrations of such approaches, too. Radiometers take advantage of flying photons and will run all day as long as they're in the light. The "dipping bird" uses "free energy" from the sun to repeatedly evaporate and condense a liquid, turning that into a weight transfer that can provide spare torque at the pivoting axis. Solar panels capture free energy from the sun that would otherwise just bounce elsewhere -- including back out into space. Etc. These things are, as described in this poor guy's page, essentially perpetual in that they'll last as long as the materials that make them up survive (to us, it's perpetual... none of us are going to be around when the sun burns out and point a finger and say, "See, I told you asshole, NOT perpetual!")
He claims -- and I'm not backing him up by any means -- that gravity can be made to do work by using it to turn one side of a wheel down; then (he claims) that the wheel can be freed of some amount of the work of lifting the weight back up by using magnets, which (he claims) can provide lifting energy for free, thereby making most of the weight's effect drive downward under gravity's force.
My guess -- without having put pen to paper -- is that the magnets will weaken (if they can do the job at all) as they do work (moving mass through a distance) and so that in the most optimistic view, this will fail even if everything else about the design is brilliant and perfectly executed. Magnets will support something that's not moving without weakening; because work is moving mass and that's not moving mass.
Just my 2 cents.
"Free" energy is all around us. He's right about that. In the sense that we didn't create it, we can't use it up, and using it won't have any dire consequences. But as far as I can tell, this is a side effect of the sun, whereas gravity is something else entirely.
On the OTHER other hand, if someone develops a "gravity shield" of any nature, all bets are off. ;-)
Apple quietly enables movie purchases from Apple TV {Engadget HD}
May 2nd 2008 2:19PM I read this on Engadget HD, I guess I was just assuming the movies in question were HD. If not, then I'm not interested. At 204", standard DVD just doesn't hold up.
