P3-600E or P3-533EB?
ax...@best.com
to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can live
with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD movies.
Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM?
I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need one
ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better performance?
axis
Martin Atkinson-Barr
ax...@best.com
I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and customer
service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway, between
the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one would
give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
axis
Joe
isn't here yet, the technology needs work!
Athlon is a good chip, but the Coppermine is matching and beating them at
the same clock. Sorry AMD, maybe the next round!
Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38232414...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> ax...@best.com wrote:
>
> > I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
need
> > to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can live
> > with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> > internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD movies.
> > Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
RDRAM?
> > I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need one
> > ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better performance?
> >
> > axis
quasi
boost in the bus speed ( 100 to 133 ). Internet bottlenecks at the modem so
any power increase beyond a 166mhz Pentium is pointless, for 56K modems at
least, xDSL or Cable is a different story. DVD would benefit from the 133mhz
bus but won't suffer at the 100mhz bus. My suggestion would be to actually
get 128M RAM however you choose.
Steve
Thomas Womack
> I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
> care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and customer
> service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then?
Compaq aren't bad, and have Athlons in their Presario range.
For photoshop, memory is absolutely the most important thing to have: get the
128M SDRAM box, and I suggest you ask Dell to put an extra 128M in it.
Tom
Jeffrey J. Potoff
Joe wrote:
>
> Get a PIII450/500....its not cutting edge but is at a great price. RDRAM
> isn't here yet, the technology needs work!
> Athlon is a good chip, but the Coppermine is matching and beating them at
> the same clock. Sorry AMD, maybe the next round!
You can buy an Athlon today. Where is Coppermine ? It doesn't matter
what the mythical performance is if you can't get the product
(Merced, Merced ? Where is Merced ?).
Jeff
>
> Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:38232414...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > ax...@best.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
> need
> > > to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can live
> > > with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > > Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> > > internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD movies.
> > > Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
> RDRAM?
> > > I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need one
> > > ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better performance?
> > >
> > > axis
> >
Jeffrey J. Potoff
ax...@best.com wrote:
>
> Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I need
> >> to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can live
> >> with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> >> Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> >> internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD movies.
> >> Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM?
> >> I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need one
> >> ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better performance?
> >
> > Why not get the best - an Athlon.
>
> I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
> care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and customer
> service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway, between
> the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one would
> give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
My experience with Dell's tech support was more like
1-800-fix-it-yourself.
They suck.
As for Athlons, I believe Compaq sells a machine based on them (and if
you
were going to buy a Dell, Compaq isn't much of a stretch).
Jeff
David T. Wang
: ax...@best.com wrote:
: >
: > I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
: > care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and customer
: > service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway, between
: > the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one would
: > give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
: My experience with Dell's tech support was more like
: 1-800-fix-it-yourself.
: They suck.
: As for Athlons, I believe Compaq sells a machine based on them (and if
: you were going to buy a Dell, Compaq isn't much of a stretch).
Dell seems to be selling a 700 MHz P III box, that has to be a Coppermine.
The question is, what the delivery schedule look like.
--
Military Vehicles for rent. http://www.armytrucks.com
Disclaimer: Not affiliated with David Wang Enterprises.
David Z
Anyone who buys those pre-built computers should be shot.
Jeffrey J. Potoff <pot...@chem.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3824529E...@chem.umn.edu...
>
>
> ax...@best.com wrote:
> >
> > Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >> I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
need
> > >> to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can
live
> > >> with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > >> Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> > >> internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD
movies.
> > >> Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
RDRAM?
> > >> I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need
one
> > >> ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better
performance?
> > >
> > > Why not get the best - an Athlon.
> >
> > I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
> > care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and
customer
> > service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway,
between
> > the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one
would
> > give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
>
> My experience with Dell's tech support was more like
> 1-800-fix-it-yourself.
> They suck.
>
> As for Athlons, I believe Compaq sells a machine based on them (and if
> you
> were going to buy a Dell, Compaq isn't much of a stretch).
>
> Jeff
>
David Z
its just aimed at servers, it'll be like $5,000 when it comes out.
Jeffrey J. Potoff <pot...@chem.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:38244E72...@chem.umn.edu...
>
>
> Joe wrote:
> >
> > Get a PIII450/500....its not cutting edge but is at a great price. RDRAM
> > isn't here yet, the technology needs work!
> > Athlon is a good chip, but the Coppermine is matching and beating them
at
> > the same clock. Sorry AMD, maybe the next round!
>
> You can buy an Athlon today. Where is Coppermine ? It doesn't matter
> what the mythical performance is if you can't get the product
> (Merced, Merced ? Where is Merced ?).
>
> Jeff
>
> >
> > Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:38232414...@worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > ax...@best.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
> > need
> > > > to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can
live
> > > > with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > > > Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly
for
> > > > internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD
movies.
> > > > Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
> > RDRAM?
> > > > I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need
one
> > > > ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better
performance?
> > > >
> > > > axis
Erik Corry
> I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
> care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and customer
> service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway, between
> the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one would
> give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
Unless you are editing really small Photoshop pictures, go for the
one with 128Mbyte SDRAM. Large amounts of RAM are very important
for Photoshop, overshadowing everything else in my experience.
--
Erik Corry er...@arbat.com Ceterum censeo, Microsoftem esse delendam!
Jeffrey J. Potoff
David Z wrote:
>
> Compaq????? please tell me your joking.
> Anyone who buys those pre-built computers should be shot.
Talk about taking something out of context. Maybe next time
you'll read the posts you're replying to instead of spouting
off. Not everyone is Joe computer builder. For those people
you have Dell, Compaq, Micron, etc. If you're going to plunk
down green for a Dell, a Compaq isn't much different, which
was my point.
Jeff
> Jeffrey J. Potoff <pot...@chem.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:3824529E...@chem.umn.edu...
> >
> >
> > ax...@best.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >> I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
> need
> > > >> to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can
> live
> > > >> with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > > >> Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> > > >> internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD
> movies.
> > > >> Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
> RDRAM?
> > > >> I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need
> one
> > > >> ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better
> performance?
> > > >
> > > > Why not get the best - an Athlon.
> > >
> > > I plan to order from Dell and they don't have the Athlon. Don't really
> > > care who made the processor as long as the system is reliable and
> customer
> > > service is good. Who would you recommend beside Dell then? Anyway,
> between
> > > the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB with 64MB RDRAM, which one
> would
> > > give better performance for scanning and graphic editing like photoshop?
> >
Jeffrey J. Potoff
David Z wrote:
>
> who cares about merced?
> its just aimed at servers, it'll be like $5,000 when it comes out.
>
Your post would have been more convincing had you added "dood" to
it.
For example, "it'll be like $5,000, dOoD".
Fearless
been excellent (when I've needed it). They've
lived up to their next business day service both
times I've needed it. They've FedEx'd upgrade
parts quickly, and their online as well as live
telephone tech support has been helpful and
reasonably prompt. (Yes, I have had to wait on
hold for a long time on several occasions).
They build fine machines at reasonable prices and
offer excellent support.
I have a 700E machine on order right now. They
are claiming that it will ship on or before
11/24/99.
--
Marc Feldesman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I loathe and despise spam. Remove
"hormel" from the return address.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Math is hard. Let's go to the mall" Barbie
David T. Wang
<dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote
in message news:800c81$c37$1...@hecate.umd.edu...
: Jeffrey J. Potoff (pot...@chem.umn.edu) wrote:
: : ax...@best.com wrote:
: : >
: : > I plan to order from Dell and they don't
have the Athlon. Don't really
: : > care who made the processor as long as the
system is reliable and customer
: : > service is good. Who would you recommend
beside Dell then? Anyway, between
: : > the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM and P3-533EB
with 64MB RDRAM, which one would
: : > give better performance for scanning and
graphic editing like photoshop?
:
: : My experience with Dell's tech support was
more like
: : 1-800-fix-it-yourself.
: : They suck.
:
: : As for Athlons, I believe Compaq sells a
machine based on them (and if
: : you were going to buy a Dell, Compaq isn't
much of a stretch).
:
: Dell seems to be selling a 700 MHz P III box,
TTK Ciar
David Z <bz...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>who cares about merced?
>its just aimed at servers, it'll be like $5,000 when it comes out.
The 200MHz PentiumPro cost $860 in December of 1996. It, too, was
"just aimed at servers". Eight months later its price had dropped
to only $480. Today you can't even buy anything that slow -- the 400
MHz Pentium-II, which uses the same i686 core as the PentiumPro but
has larger caches (L1, L2, TLB, et al), a faster external memory bus,
and other performance tweaks, goes for a paltry $145.
Either IA64 will tank or it won't. Either way, three years from now
the cheap microprocessors we slap into our desktop systems will be much
more powerful than Itanium is today, unless consumers suddenly stop
demanding faster processors.
-- TTK
News
Western digital Hard Drive and if your into graphics, I suggest 128Mb RAM,
Memorex 6X/32X MultiRead DVD ROM and a Diamond V770 Ultra, Sound Blaster
Live
Martin Atkinson-Barr <mc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38232414...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> ax...@best.com wrote:
>
> > I'm currently using a 486 DX66MHz computer with 16MB of memory and I
need
> > to get a new computer so I can use a USB scanner for my work. I can live
> > with the speed, but not with the memory and hard-drive I using now.
> > Instead of upgrading I will buy a new one. I will use this mostly for
> > internet, graphic editing( photoshop), and maybe play some DVD movies.
> > Should I go for the P3-600E with 128MB SDRAM, or P3-533EB with 64MB
RDRAM?
> > I think both are pretty good upgrade from before and I kind of need one
> > ASAP. Should I buy one now or wait? Which one have better performance?
> >
> > axis
Sundown
same clock. And the Athlon still destroys coppermine in FPU.
- Jacob Fuller
- http://sundown.8m.com
- Ultima Online Player
- The Illustrious Sundown, Grandmaster Mage, Atlantic
Joe wrote in message <7vvqa1$r5l$1...@news.igs.net>...
>Get a PIII450/500....its not cutting edge but is at a great price. RDRAM
>isn't here yet, the technology needs work!
>Athlon is a good chip, but the Coppermine is matching and beating them at
>the same clock. Sorry AMD, maybe the next round!
>
chrisv
<pot...@chem.umn.edu> wrote:
>My experience with Dell's tech support was more like
>1-800-fix-it-yourself.
>They suck.
>
>As for Athlons, I believe Compaq sells a machine based on them (and if
>you were going to buy a Dell, Compaq isn't much of a stretch).
Compaq sucks. There one notch up from the deceased Packard Bell.
Dell is better.
David Z
point?
Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
digital speakers are the future.
News <Hand...@freewwweb.com> wrote in message
news:802u21$r3f$1...@news.smartworld.net...
> Save Your money the best buy is a P-3 450Mhz on a Abit BE6-2 Mainboard,
13Gb
> Western digital Hard Drive and if your into graphics, I suggest 128Mb RAM,
> Memorex 6X/32X MultiRead DVD ROM and a Diamond V770 Ultra, Sound Blaster
> Live
>
>
chrisv
wrote:
>Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
>digital speakers are the future.
You -> don't know what you are talking about. There's no big
advantage to using USB for your speakers.
quasi
> DVD-ROM -> waste of money. there are no dvd games out yet, so whats the
> point?
> Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
> digital speakers are the future.
Digital is not restricted to USB so this point is irrelevant. DVD is within $20
on the average of a CD-ROM product so this point is also irrelevant.
Steve
David Z
signal in its digital form until inside the speaker itself.
on the other hand, a sound card converts the signal to analog. I've heard
the difference. You don't know what your missing.
"chrisv" <chr...@dgii.com> wrote in message
news:wpMpOKiHElHWNc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:45:26 GMT, "David Z" <bz...@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
> >digital speakers are the future.
>
David Z
6x DVD-ROM - $188
(prices taken from http://www.fortecomputers.com.au)
Sorry but i'm not paying $100 extra for a DVD-ROM drive. $20 extra MY ASS.
And the point IS relevant. USB is a UNIVERSAL standard. Every new computer
has this port. Therefore, it is the PERFECT method for connecting speakers.
Any other digital connection is some lame and expensive proprietry
connection. So buying any kind of sound card is pointless, when you can
simply buy USB digital speakers.
"quasi" <qu...@cusave.com> wrote in message
news:382A4BE2...@cusave.com...
> David Z wrote:
>
> > DVD-ROM -> waste of money. there are no dvd games out yet, so whats
the
> > point?
> > Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
> > digital speakers are the future.
>
Michiel Denie
David Z <bz...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:53U%3.7315$VA6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 40x CD-ROM - $89
> 6x DVD-ROM - $188
>
> (prices taken from http://www.fortecomputers.com.au)
>
> Sorry but i'm not paying $100 extra for a DVD-ROM drive. $20 extra MY
ASS.
>
> And the point IS relevant. USB is a UNIVERSAL standard. Every new
computer
> has this port. Therefore, it is the PERFECT method for connecting
speakers.
> Any other digital connection is some lame and expensive proprietry
> connection. So buying any kind of sound card is pointless, when you can
> simply buy USB digital speakers.
Hey do you market USB professionally or something?
There are many reasons why USB sound currently
sucks. Most importantly, you can only use it with
Win9x. Not NT, not Linux, not Beos, not MSDOS,
nothing. Also, USB is a bus, and not one with a
heck of a lot of bandwith. Better not waste it on
audio if you intend to use it for other things.
Perfect method? Now it's my time to say MY ASS.
>
>
> "quasi" <qu...@cusave.com> wrote in message
> news:382A4BE2...@cusave.com...
> > David Z wrote:
> >
> > > DVD-ROM -> waste of money. there are no dvd games out yet, so whats
> the
> > > point?
> > > Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers?
USB
> > > digital speakers are the future.
> >
> > Digital is not restricted to USB so this point is irrelevant. DVD is
> within $20
> > on the average of a CD-ROM product so this point is also irrelevant.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
>
Michiel Denie
David Wragg
> Hey do you market USB professionally or something?
> There are many reasons why USB sound currently
> sucks. Most importantly, you can only use it with
> Win9x. Not NT, not Linux, not Beos, not MSDOS,
> nothing.
The latest Linux development kernels have had preliminary USB audio
support for a while, so the next stable kernel release will support
USB audio. Win2000 seems to have thorough USB support; have they
really left out USB audio?
> Also, USB is a bus, and not one with a
> heck of a lot of bandwith.
Uh... CD players only have 144 kilobytes/s, and I've heard some pretty
good sounding CD players. USB has almost ten times that. I don't think
bandwidth will be the limiting factor to quality.
> Better not waste it on
> audio if you intend to use it for other things.
That isn't a very good argument. Why waste it on other things, if you
can use it for audio?
> Perfect method?
I have no idea how well USB audio currently works. I'm sure people
will sell low quality USB speakers, just like they sell low quality
soundcards and low quality analogue speakers. But the idea of getting
the digital data far away from the electrically noisy environment of a
PC before converting to analogue makes a lot of sense.
David Wragg
chrisv
wrote:
>Umm yes there is. USB gives you crisp clear digital sound. It leaves the
>signal in its digital form until inside the speaker itself.
Bzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing, though (idiot).
Sorry, but take your "crisp clear digital sound" BS elsewhere. The
fact that USB speakers convert from digital to analog outside of the
PC instead of on the sound card buys you ZERO in sound quality.
>"chrisv" <chr...@dgii.com> wrote in message
>news:wpMpOKiHElHWNc...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:45:26 GMT, "David Z" <bz...@bigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sound Blaster Live -> why bother with old outdated analog speakers? USB
>> >digital speakers are the future.
>>
Ian Stirling
>On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 16:53:55 GMT, "David Z" <bz...@bigpond.net.au>
>wrote:
>>Umm yes there is. USB gives you crisp clear digital sound. It leaves the
>>signal in its digital form until inside the speaker itself.
>Bzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing, though (idiot).
>Sorry, but take your "crisp clear digital sound" BS elsewhere. The
>fact that USB speakers convert from digital to analog outside of the
>PC instead of on the sound card buys you ZERO in sound quality.
May buy you zero.
It's probably simpler, and hence cheaper, to get very low noise sound,
with the DAC out of the computer.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
'Where subtlety fails, we must simply make do with cream pies' -- David Brin
zo...@upstate.net
USB a standard? Show me the specs. You can't. If you can't define
what it is, then how can it be a standard? I can't write software for
my motherboard's USB port, therefore how can I use it? I have
datasheets for 8250 and 16450 UARTs. I have specs for SoundBlaster (and
a few newer models) cards. I have yet to see a spec on any of the
commonly used USB chipsets. Standard? Bah!
> Every new computer has this port.
Well...
> Therefore, it is the PERFECT method for connecting speakers.
> Any other digital connection is some lame and expensive proprietry
> connection. So buying any kind of sound card is pointless, when you can
> simply buy USB digital speakers.
SoundBlaster cards are more of a standard than USB. SoundBlaster cards
have worked for years. I bought my first in 1990, and I still use it.
Show me a USB system that actually works well, and then I might believe
you...
Zoom
David Wragg
> > And the point IS relevant. USB is a UNIVERSAL standard.
>
> USB a standard? Show me the specs. You can't.
No, but I can tell you that you can download them at
<URL:http://www.usb.org/developers/docs.html>.
> If you can't define
> what it is, then how can it be a standard? I can't write software for
> my motherboard's USB port, therefore how can I use it? I have
> datasheets for 8250 and 16450 UARTs. I have specs for SoundBlaster (and
> a few newer models) cards. I have yet to see a spec on any of the
> commonly used USB chipsets.
You seem to be confusing a USB controller with USB itself.
There seem to be two standards for software to interface with USB
controllers, OHCI and UHCI. The page above has links to the specs for
both. UHCI is from Intel, and implemented in Intel's chipsets (and
other x86 chipsets, I would expect). Intel's chipsets were pretty
common, last time I checked.
> Standard? Bah!
> [snip]
Rob Barris
> > And the point IS relevant. USB is a UNIVERSAL standard.
>
> USB a standard? Show me the specs. You can't. If you can't define
> what it is, then how can it be a standard? I can't write software for
> my motherboard's USB port, therefore how can I use it? I have
> datasheets for 8250 and 16450 UARTs. I have specs for SoundBlaster (and
> a few newer models) cards. I have yet to see a spec on any of the
> commonly used USB chipsets. Standard? Bah!
Then, you need to look around just a *little* bit harder.
Rob
Russet
bz...@bigpond.net.au says...
> Umm yes there is. USB gives you crisp clear digital sound. It leaves the
> signal in its digital form until inside the speaker itself.
>
If you believe digital data is sent to a speaker--answer this one: Is the
most significant bit of the sample sent first or last? Which sounds
better?
There's always a DAC to convert digital to analog. Some are good, some
are bad, and many in between. The DAC is followed by an amplifier, etc.
Ian Stirling
>In article <D0U%3.7314$VA6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>bz...@bigpond.net.au says...
>> Umm yes there is. USB gives you crisp clear digital sound. It leaves the
>> signal in its digital form until inside the speaker itself.
>>
>If you believe digital data is sent to a speaker--answer this one: Is the
>most significant bit of the sample sent first or last? Which sounds
>better?
>There's always a DAC to convert digital to analog. Some are good, some
>are bad, and many in between. The DAC is followed by an amplifier, etc.
I'ts lots easier to make a USB speaker thingy, with decent noise figure,
than it is to make a soundcards inside the PC quiet.
There is lots less interference for example.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Two fish in a tank: one says to the other, you know how to drive this thing??
chrisv
<ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'ts lots easier to make a USB speaker thingy, with decent noise figure,
>than it is to make a soundcards inside the PC quiet.
>There is lots less interference for example.
That's why sound cards are so expensive, right?
Ian Stirling
No, it's why lots of cheap soundcards are noisy.
The design/testing requirements for the USB speaker, to get it right,
are much less stringent.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Q: What do you call a train that doesn't stop at stations?
A: Thomas the Bastard. -- Ben
Ian Stirling
>In article <hsVLOM7mXePEGM...@4ax.com>,
>chrisv <chr...@dgii.com> wrote:
>| On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 21:23:17 GMT, Ian Stirling
>| <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>|
>| >I'ts lots easier to make a USB speaker thingy, with decent noise figure,
>| >than it is to make a soundcards inside the PC quiet.
>| >There is lots less interference for example.
>|
>| That's why sound cards are so expensive, right?
> That's why good sound cards are so expensive. If you don't mind stuff
>which sounds like a $5 radio, you can use a $17 sound card and a pait of
>$12 "genuine amplified speakers."
With real 1000W PMPO, and deep dynamic bass boost.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"The device every conquerer, yes, every altruistic liberator should be required
to wear on his shield... is a little girl and her kitten, at ground zero"
- Sir Dominic Flandry in Poul Andersons 'A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows'
chrisv
> That's why good sound cards are so expensive. If you don't mind stuff
>which sounds like a $5 radio, you can use a $17 sound card and a pait of
>$12 "genuine amplified speakers."
Well, that's kinda my point, actually. To have people rave about the
"crisp clear sound" of USB speakers is pretty ridiculous, when the
speakers themselves are j.u.n.k.
If you want quality sound, get quality speakers and electroinics, not
some crappy plastic USB computer speakers running off a wall-wart
power supply....
Ian Stirling
If, however, you connect the USB speaker headphone output, to the amp,
things can be quite quiet.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------