Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Networking Hardware

TCP/IP Speakers 316

Posted by CmdrTaco from the sounds-like-the-left-speaker-is-lagging dept.
Fallen Kell writes "From the anouncement, "Polk Audio LCi-IP Ultra High Performance In-Wall/ In-Ceiling Loudspeakers are the world's first active Internet Protocol-ready Loudspeakers. They were created for IP networked systems such as the ground-breaking NetStreams DigiLinx system but also provide vast convenience and performance benefits when used in analog systems. Integrated digital amplifiers eliminate remote amplifiers connected via hundreds of feet of lossy, performance-robbing speaker wires." I had the great pleasure of having a demo on September 16th, 2005 of these speakers. The ability of connect to a wired network for sending the audio stream is simply amazing and wonderful innovation in the audio world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TCP/IP Speakers More

TCP/IP Speakers

Comments Filter:

  • Audiophile pish (Score:5, Funny)

    by hedge_death_shootout ( 681628 ) <stalin@li n u x m a i l .org> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:28AM (#13750400)
    These speakers sound better when you use gold CAT5 cable.

    • Speaker Hacking (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wenck ( 248172 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:31AM (#13750408) Homepage
      Just wait until these things become common, and their owners connect them to a wifi network ...

    • Re:Audiophile pish (Score:5, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:44AM (#13750462)
      Don't forget the little arrows on 'em to tell the bits which way to go.

      I'll also be offering my own propriatary technology which filters the datastream to make sure the 1s are all inline with the direction of travel. 1s going through crosswise is the leading cause of signal degradation.

      Rigourous highly subjective tests (remember, in Audio World objectivity is a Bad Thing) in my own lab allow me to say that I can say the improvement in all sorts of silly word parameters is astounding. Oh, and "Quantum Flux!"

      You can't leave out Quantum Flux Technology if you wish to be taken at all seriously. This High Tech Deep Juju(tm) after all.

      I'm working on a series of Internet Ready acoustic treatments for your listening room too, stay tuned to this channel. Oh sure, you thought Digital Ready should cover it. Silly boy. How would I be able to afford a villa in the Cayman Islands if that were the case?

      KFG
      • Fuck your Quantum Flux Technology, I've got Quatum Optical loudspeakers with a 2 TB dynamic range and frequency response up to 6,8 GHz.
      • You could add that on top of the special audio resonator disc that adds "warmth" to the audio, simply by sticking it to the back of the amp. It only looks like a simple wooden disc, but I swear, it cleans up all my audio problems!

      • Re:Audiophile pish (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 )
        On some cables, the arrows do (allegedly) serve a purpose. If a pre-amp and a subwoofer are both grounded, a distinctive, quite audible 60 Hz hum can be heard. Supposedly, the arrow laden cable is only grounded at one end (the pre-out), breaking the ground loop [oreilly.com]

    • Re:Audiophile pish (Score:5, Funny)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:07AM (#13750561)
      The other thing to consider is that you'll need a relatively large tower case and a beefy PS in your system in order to accommodate the vacuum tube-based NICs. Those things are big and hot, and most use two or three PCI slots.

    • Re:Audiophile pish (Score:5, Funny)

      by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @11:08AM (#13750833) Homepage
      I always wondered what a ping sounds like.

  • Caveats (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:28AM (#13750401) Homepage Journal
    I couldn't load TFA from my PDA, so take with that knowledge:

    Remote digital speakers are a great solution for lowfi and mid i systems, but true audiophiles will not accept them.

    Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing, additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution, increase the noise floor and change the sound.

    Also, IP isn't my favored priority stream transport. I'd recommend a separate network for sound and I'd be weary of any delays incorporated in the IP transport. Think ping times! Also, encoding with the ADC does not include encapsulation into an IP packet, which can lead to worse lip-sync problems. Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame). Of course, if its digital all-the-way, things can look brighter.

    But a start is a start. Here's to hoping it continues to improve. Polk has a decent hifi range and a great R&D team. If anyone can find a better solution, its them.
    • true audiophiles will not accept them.

      You misspelled audio poseur...

      Most of these "true audiophiles" are the kind who swear by valve amps, separate elements stereo systems and expensive gold cables. The truth is, there's no reason why well-designed TCP/IP-based speakers would be less good than analog ones, especially over 2m from the amplifier.
      • I don't buy into the ridiculous claims some people make regarding cables, but tube (valve) amps *do* sound noticeably different from solid-state in that their distortion characteristics are different, as any electric guitar player can tell you. A tube amp usually won't have better total harmonic or intermodulation distortion numbers than a solid-state amp, but the distortion sounds better and is often perceived as "warmth".
        • If you can't give numbers to the difference, then the difference doesn't exist. This "warmth" doesn't exist. Its the same thing as the gold cabling.

          • Re:Caveats (Score:4, Informative)

            by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:38PM (#13752182)
            It is a quantifiable phenonenom. When solid state devices are overdriven , the tops and bottoms of the waveforms are sharply clipped off. The result resembles square waves. When tube devices are overdriven, the tops and bottoms of the waveforms take on a rounded "squashed" appearance. Both of these effects can easily be seen on o-scopes and heard by not particularly discerning ears. The distortion produced by overdriven tube equipments sounds more pleasant and accounts for the "warmth".

            If we are talking about correctly designed playback equipment being operated properly, there is no audio quality reason to prefer one over the other. Clipping only occurs when an amplifier cannot amplify a signal further. This is not the regime you want your home stereo equipment to be operating in. Tube playback equipment that is not particularly linear (the amplification curve of indifferently designed tube equipment is gently "S" shaped) can sound "warm" even when not overdriven. I'd rather leave how the audio should sound to the artist and trust my equipment to accurately reproduce the artist's intention. Other than basic adjustments like volume or compensating for speakers that don't have a very good low or high end, I don't want my stereo coloring the sound for me.

            If we are talking about playing music rather than mere playback, then tube amps have considerably more merit to them. A guitar player may intentionally choose to overdrive his amp or preamp as a way of altering timbre. Tube guitar amps are even set up to allow control over when and how this overdrive occurs. Typically, this will done in a preamp rather than the final amps as any device in the overdrive state is running very hot and using more power. For that matter, even solid state guitar amps can be intentionally overdriven although the idea is to intentionally introduce harshness rather than warmth.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:45AM (#13750467)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Caveats (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Halfbaked Plan ( 769830 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:33AM (#13750675)
        It's fairly important to acknowledge that there are actual audiophiles out there who do know what they're talking about.

        The fact that there are charlatans, too, shouldn't come as a surprise. I've hated 'stereo store salesmen' since back in my youth when those smug f*cks always had an attitude to cop when I came in the store needing audio connectors.

        To write off the whole 'audiophile' community is to buy into the shit that certain sales-types want us to believe. In fact there IS such a thing as High Fidelity, and it isn't just sales numbers and/or a table printed in the manual that comes with junk components from Japan.

        • Are junk components from other countries better?

        • Re:Caveats (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @06:23PM (#13753120) Homepage
          The Audiophile appreciates how music sounds on a high-watt system that's driven purely in the linear response region, has inperceptable distortion, crosstalk and noise, has a frequency reponse from 15Hz-22kHz that need not be flat, but must be pleasing to his ear.

          The Audiophile understands that a great system starts with the speakers and works back to the source.

          The Audiophile understands that spending time moving his speakers and furniture around the room will give you the best bang-for-buck improvement in sound.

          The Audiophile understands that the difference between a CD player worth $200 and one worth $2000 is not as important as the difference between a set of speakers worth $200 and that worth $2000 - doubly so if you are keeping it digital until the tuner.

          The Audiophile knows that the person who spend $1000 on each speaker cable is a wanker, while he calculates the per meter-resistance of his quality OFC cables and ensures that the paths to the drivers are as close as possible.

          The Audiophile understands that a sub-woofer should not felt not heard. If its not SUBsonic, its just a woofer.

          The Audiophile looks at the BOSE Lifestyle system with the contempt it deserves.

          The Audiophile doesn't claim that the response of vinyl records is superior, but can appreciate the imperfections of the recording media as an important part of the whole listening experience.

          The Audiophile doesn't store his CDs in the freezer, nor drawn on them with green texta.

    • Re:Caveats (Score:2, Informative)

      by sribe ( 304414 )
      Also, IP isn't my favored priority stream transport. I'd recommend a separate network for sound and I'd be weary of any delays incorporated in the IP transport. Think ping times! Also, encoding with the ADC does not include encapsulation into an IP packet, which can lead to worse lip-sync problems. Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame).

      What are you babbling about? Ping times on my home network run about 50 microseconds, 1/400th the length of time that would make you crazy.

      • Re:Caveats (Score:3, Interesting)

        by starman97 ( 29863 )
        Netstreams is not just sending the music data down the wire like a Telnet session,
        they're doing a lot of time management and synchronization as well.
        http://www.netstreams.com/Documents/StreamNet%20Te chnology.pdf [netstreams.com]
        Note that this is room-room delay, not stereo left-right jitter,
        1ms there would be intolerable. Anything more than 50uS is probably discernable
        by a trained listener with an audio test program. The average listener
        might be able to hear 500uS phase shift L-R, but I think it'd only
        show up in headphone

    • Nothing special (Score:5, Interesting)

      by commanderfoxtrot ( 115784 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:49AM (#13750490) Homepage
      I built a networked DAC a few years ago at university. Not too hard- the complex bit is making the timing and sync accurate, with the limitations of tiny chip controllers and rather unaccurate ethernet chip documentation!

      Due to TCP/IP delays e.g. switching, you need some sort of buffering, which ends up meaning expensive memory on small chips. Once you have buffering e.g. 0.2 seconds, you should be fine. I ended up using a couple of little Burr-Brown PCM54 DACs, but the system was designed to feed digital into a decent professional DAC.

      Disneyland Japan has had audio over ethernet for years as well; the setup there is huge, with hundreds of speakers over a large area.
      • California Adventure (the LA-based Disneyland-next-to-Disneyland) also streams their entire park's audio over gigabit ethernet.

        And if you go there the audio sounds terrible. Everything sounds like it is being played through a sheet of plywood. It sounds a lot like, well, most amusement park audio systems. All-weather outdoor speakers are not notoriously clean. Some of the indoor stuff isn't bad, though it isn't great... For some reason everything sounds a bit downsampled. I wonder if they're using dig

        • And if you go there the audio sounds terrible

          Well, you hinted at this, but I'll be more explicit -- I suspect the reason that it sounds terrible has nothing to do with TCP/IP or ethernet, and everything to do with poor sound quality speakers and location, and there's probably some problems with the digitation of the sounds as well. Perhaps it's all based on some old cassette tapes somebody had lying around? (And really, `It's a Small World' sounds terrible no matter how perfect the sound system is :)

    • Re:Caveats (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:49AM (#13750492)
      It allready exists people. Nothing new.
      It's called PeakAudio (or Cobranet)

      Upto 96KHZ audio streaming over ethernet. Integrated handling of delays caused by the network so every speaker device is able to produce the output at the same time, thus preventing echo-ing problems.

      It's mainly used in very big spaces, like stadiums or trade-show halls.

    • Re:Caveats (Score:4, Informative)

      by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:04AM (#13750550) Homepage
      Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing, additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution, increase the noise floor and change the sound.

      That may be the perception, but in many cases (but not all), it's wrong. Integrated amps allow the manufacturer to to cutomize the amp for the specific driver which can greatly improve the performance of the overall speaker. for example:

      • the amp in the Sunfire sub [sunfire.com] (which is rated for 2kW, but doesn't actually deliver that kind of power to the speaker because of the back EMF [hometheaterhifi.com] properties of the speaker magnet - any other amp would be eaten alive), and
      • the BeoLab 5 [bang-olufsen.com] integrated amp (I've written [cross-spectrum.com] about the BeoLab 5 before).
      • Heck, even if you hate Bose speakers, try listening to externally-amplified Acoustimass-series speakers, and compare them to the internally-amp'd models - the self-amplified models sound much better.
    • MaGIC is a protocol introduced by Gibson (the guitar guys) to move audio/video over Cat 5 back in 1999. I don't know much about it, but I think it was designed precisely to address some of the concerns you mention, such as latency. It's also supposed to allow plug-and-play and some other features, to make interconnections easy. Supposedly. IANAM (I Am Not A Musician)

      Gibson MaGIC
      http://www.gibsonmagic.com/ [gibsonmagic.com]

    • Re:Caveats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:23AM (#13750626)
      Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame).

      To put it another way. 20ms is about the same as moving a speaker about 20 feet. That should be pretty clear to anybody how significant that is.
      • Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame).
        To put it another way. 20ms is about the same as moving a speaker about 20 feet. That should be pretty clear to anybody how significant that is.
        Real audiophiles listen to their music underwater.
    • Lets start out with THE most important issue. Latency, as you pointed out. The sound will have to be reproduced with almost 0 delay. Or at the least the delay will have to be coordinated between speakers in order to get the stereo effect. Let alone surround sound. However, for a home network system there is really no reason for delay. Well unless you are using VOIP and playing games etc. on the network at the same time. You will get a chance to see if you are really getting max throughput. That is t
    • What delays are incorporated in the IP transport? And why are you even talking about IP as a stream transport? IP isn't a transport at all, it's a network layer, and its performance is pretty much dominated by the underlying media layer. If you had an IP speaker and a PC transmitter on two opposite ends of a crossover ethernet cable, there would be no switching delays, and wire propagation speed is the same as for analog cable. In fact you can deliver the data several times faster than realtime and let the
    • Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing,

      Presumably, one could either modify the signal at the source prior to sending it down the TCP/IP stack (which - I guess, would mean either a D->A->C conversion? - or some kind of digital trickery I'm not aware of) or maybe configuration info for the Amp could be sent to the remote amplifiers over TCP/IP as well. I assume someone at Polk is working this, because if you're running CAT5 to ceiling mounted speakers, you don't want to have to get on a ladder
    • "Also, IP isn't my favored priority stream transport. I'd recommend a separate network for sound and I'd be weary of any delays incorporated in the IP transport. Think ping times! Also, encoding with the ADC does not include encapsulation into an IP packet, which can lead to worse lip-sync problems. Even 20ms delay makes me crazy (~1 frame). Of course, if its digital all-the-way, things can look brighter."

      Worse than that, you're relying on the overall system to be synchronized. The enthusiasts that would ca
    • Integrated amplifiers greatly reduce customizing, additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution, increase the noise floor and change the sound.

      If most people are using this to say listen to audio CD's (or ever worse, 128kbps mp3's) then there really shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure how these speakers work, but if they are IP based, in theory you should be able to have the stream perfectly digital until they reach the speakers. At which point, you only have a single DAC, which in theory should reduce noise

    • The perfect speakers (Score:3, Interesting)

      by egarland ( 120202 )
      additional ADCs and DACs reduce resolution

      Who said anything about additional conversions. You can pull music directly off of CD in digital format and send it that way to speakers. One DAC, in the speaker, directly attached to the amp which is tuned exactly to the speakers and directly attached with no noise or tranmission loss. This setup by its very nature is the ultimate in audio quality. Sure analog heads who think that vinal sounds better than CD won't like it but they're all insane anyway. The los

  • Apple Airport Express (Score:5, Informative)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:31AM (#13750411) Homepage Journal
    Although not quite the same thing, I use an Apple Airport Express to stream music from my computer to my stereo system. It works pretty well and the sound quality is great. I'm not a hi-fi freak or anything, so I'm sure these speakers would be a lot better quality. However, for me the $120 for the Airport Express (which can also be used as a router, wireless access point, and USB print server) is a pretty good deal.
    • However, on second look, it appears that these speakers require a separate NIC and that NIC is not wireless. I'm not sure about this, but it appears it's only wired. A wireless option would be cool.

    • Re:Apple Airport Express (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Assuming you have a decent amp, the airport is high quality if you use the optical connectors. The DAC in the airport won't be great, but according to reviews it's not garbage either, considering its cost. Stick to optical connectors and let the amplifier do the work if you can afford it.

      One really annoying thing with itunes is its inability to stream more than one song. There's no reason why it can't control multiple airports, each receiving different music. E.g. my wife likes her music in the kitchen, I l
    • Or you could a squeezebox (http://www.slimdevices.com/index.html [slimdevices.com]) and keep the HiFi g
    • I use a $100 iPaq running madplay/uCLinux to tune in a 320Kbps MP3 stream from my shoutcast server to my stereo. Maybe sometime next year I'll be able to hack a used $100 iPod with TCP over FireWire to run Linux, and get the super little DACs upgraded. But it's nice to have components that I can mix and match, rather than just Polk's all-in-one beast. Although the convenience of dropping their ethernet speakers anywhere there's AC power, then remotely administering all their hifi features, is an attractive
  • Now when the guy three doors down blasts bad hip-hop that can be heard throughout the entire floor, he can do it more clearly!

  • DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fiver ( 9307 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:38AM (#13750438)
    An interesting development and one that brings us closer to the time when even your speakers can check if you have a license for content....

  • IP will give these no advantage at all. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fishnuts ( 414425 ) <fishnuts@arpa.org> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:41AM (#13750448) Homepage
    They'll be heavier than non-powered speakers because they'll need to contain an integrated power supply, an amplifier, and a microcontroller to do the interfacing. It's completely useless to bring up the "lossy speaker cable" argument, because if you were going to spend the extra money and waste an extra power cable for powered speakers, you might as well just use standard analog speakers with XLR cables (which have been VERY well established as nearly noiseless and lossless for point to point audio distribution). You can reliably have a couple double-shielded XLR cables ran from your pre-amp to your self-powered speakers for less than having speakers that speak IP.

    having multiple IP speakers on a network in the same room may also introduce phase offsets, since there's ALWAYS an inherent delay between receiving the network packets, decoding them, and sending the data off to DACs before the signal gets to the amplifier. Even a 2ms difference difference in delay/phase between two speakers in the same room is noticeable, and WILL screw up accurate stereo imaging. 2ms is not uncommon as a delay on an ethernet network.

    Of course, mixing analog and IP speakers in the same room is right out.

    Want the best audio quality, distance, noise-resistance for your speakers? fiber optic digital audio paths. end of story.

    • Re:IP will give these no advantage at all. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by carlislematthew ( 726846 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:05AM (#13750552)
      You're right that XLR and existing technologies would be better for *highly* accurate stereo imaging. However, this is an in-ceiling speaker designed for rich geeks and their in-home audio systems. Stereo imaging does not work in these environments and they are often wired in mono. Imagine listening to The Beatles and their insane stereo imaging in your kitchen! Drums near the stove, and the guitar over by the fridge - doesn't work.

      Mono is also how 99.9% of retail/hospitality locations are wired, even the high end ones where they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the installations.

      Also, forget about audiophiles and whether they would like these speakers. Audiophiles will never install in-ceiling speakers, and if they do it's purely for "background music" purposes around the house.

      I believe that this product is for the rich geek that wants to be able to utilize his already-CAT5-wired home and be able to show off to their other rich geek friends.

    • I thought XLR was used for low level, balanced, audio signals.
      For less loss on long speaker runs, I would use 600 ohm audio transformers.
    • they'll need to contain an integrated power supply

      The power supplies are external and sold separately for $800 MSRP and can power 2 of the linked speakers or 4 of the lower end speakers here [polkaudio.com].

      The XLR point is very valid. I don't understand why all of this "audiophile" high dollar equipment uses the lowest common denominator cabling is beyond me. The best analog speaker inputs are those "5 way binding posts" and the best analog intercomponent interconnect are those cheesy RCA cables. Real audiophiles (prof
    • I've tried to wire up a house to have multiple rooms served by a single audio source. It is really a pain. Basically all high-end amps assume that you have some variant on a 4:1, 5:1, 7:1, etc setup. None of them expect that you want a 4:1 for the dining room + a mono for your bedroom and a Stereo for your kitchen. Split the wires? Introduces audible distortion. Multiple Amps? Again, distortion.

      The wires also went literally everywhere, and were snaking around the apartment like an overgrown fern mons
    • fiber optic digital audio paths. end of story

      So, just what difference does fiber have over digital on coax or UTP or shielded twisted pair? Digital is digital with all else being equal, fiber doesn't gain much for short runs except some common mode noise reduction. An opto isolator can do the same without the handeling, cost and interface problems of fiber.

      It is much cheaper to run the fiber signal over copper on short runs.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:42AM (#13750455)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Latency? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:34AM (#13750681) Homepage Journal
      Ethernet-level would have better latency than an IP stack, sure, but ties to back a platform-dependent transmission medium---you may as well use a speaker wire. And you have to write your own underlying network layer. If each speaker is running the same stack, it's going to have pretty much the same latency anyway---the worst problems arise combining digital and analog speakers.

      The advantage of TCP/UDP/Music-Transport-Protocol is that the medium suddenly becomes less relevant. Take wireless, for example. Imagine being able to cart your Big Speakers outside for a patio party without running a single audio wire. Or just to install speakers on the other side of your house (or in your shed) without having to grovel through the attic or crawlspace.

      Imagine how useful this could be for concerts: the sound board now has one wire running to it---the power line. Likewise with your front, middle and back stacks, and your monitors.

      Another plus is that we have a nice bidirectional protocol, as well as a chance for side-channel data: speakers can report their health back to the control panel, or to other speakers in the same stack. And since each speaker is doing its own DSP anyway, getting the equalization right for a given speaker is a matter of sending it a message.

      You know what? Forget the speaker---sell compact, portable, one-speaker wireless-enabled amplifiers and let people convert their existing speakers into packet-switched audio devices.

  • WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HappyClown ( 668699 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:43AM (#13750458)
    Shame they didn't go one step further and make them wireless. It would be quite nice to move speakers between rooms on occasion without having to fight with the speaker cable (or coax in this case).

    • Re:WiFi (Score:5, Funny)

      by JediTrainer ( 314273 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:05AM (#13750555)
      Shame they didn't go one step further and make them wireless.

      I heard of this great new technology, something about Frequency Modulation or whatever. Apparently some genius figured out how to transmit sound *wirelessly* (no shit!) for miles, even without line of sight!

      I'm sure we'll read about that in Slashdot sooner or later. If you don't catch the first article, you'll be sure to see the dupe.
    • Two words:

      Airport Express.

      I know... it probably doesn't use TCP/IP, but it _is_ wireless...

      • Now we just need someone to write an "Audio Hijack Pro Airport Edition" so it can be used outside of iTunes...

  • End point Digital (Score:4, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:45AM (#13750473) Homepage Journal
    The dream of the RIAA/MPAA.. So they can restrict what you can hear.

  • what about h4x0rz? (Score:5, Funny)

    by catdevnull ( 531283 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @09:51AM (#13750499)
    ....when you're 0wn3d: all your bass are belong to us!
  • but the only IP address it would let me use was the broadcast address!

    Thank you, thank you, and be sure to try the veal.
  • The damn power supplies alone cost $800. How much does a pair of speakers cost?

  • Will it trickle down to the low end? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ahg ( 134088 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:23AM (#13750624)
    I have three computers in my office, three different OS's etc. If I could have one pair of speakers that I can plug into my switch and have all systems share would be really nice. (Assuming they opened the spec so someone would write linux drives for them)

    Right now, the only solution I've seen, has been to buy a mixer, but that would be more cables to string around. so I use three sets of $20 speakers...

  • Next innovation (Score:3, Funny)

    by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @10:41AM (#13750720)
    Wireless audio.

    No, wait, that's not new.
  • The catalog listings are a bit vague on what's running in the "speakers". Can I configure these to connect across the Internet to my Shoutcast server, then ship them to anywhere in the world with broadband, expecting them to just pipe in my audio? That makes overseas deployment and maintenance seem a lot more feasible for small companies who just need remote audio installers, rather than remote IT pros.
  • ... "sounds" like VoIP if you ask me. ;-)

  • You will need this first... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sponge Bath ( 413667 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @11:23AM (#13750906)
    iptables -A OUTPUT -i eth0 --artist brittney.spears -j DENY
  • One question in my mind is how they get the delay to work...

    I can imagine mixing normal speakers and tcp/ip speakers and
    ending up with out-of-phase or echo problems if there are unequal
    delays. I could also imagine tv pictures out-of-sync with speakers.

    Anyone have any idea/experience with this?
  • *cough* Asterisk *cough*
  • So `cat /boot/vmlinuz >/dev/audio` is obsoleted ?

    I sometimes do that on my wife's laptop if she does not pay attention, or I am in the creepy mood ...

    ahm yes :) she refused winXP when I offered to put the original hdd with the stock XP on it back into the laptop :)

    more on the topic: somehow i do not see myself turning to networked speakers .... maybe my audio cables are just fine for my office/video room (6x7 meters) and my low-end sony DTS amp

    ps: some people say catting the kernel into the audio
  • This means that the music will be encrypted/DRM'd at the microphone and then routed to your speaker, but only if you've paid the RIAA thier extortion. Circumventing it will fall under DMCA as a felony. And don't give me the hacker crap of "The speakers will be analogue, so we can tap the signal there" - sure - You Can Do That, and fuck up a really expensive set of speakers AND set yourself up for a felony under DMCA. If Polk/Bose/B&W/Dynaudio/Infinity/Sony/Panasonic/et c . all get on board with this, it

  • On the internet... (Score:4, Funny)

    by hachete ( 473378 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:23PM (#13752081) Homepage Journal
    ...no one can hear you scream. Hang on.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close