The diary entries of a little girl who is now 30! ~ Part 2 - Page 178

I know what you mean lol I thought the same :P. I'm very tempted to get this little combo but I don't think it will be an upgrade and maybe a slight downgrade from my current desktop rig.... :( I wish they had an upgraded version of a stand alone DAC with 24/192 support....
 

Thank you for this response.

However, I trust innferfidelitys' measurements more:

Look at stax09s' impulse response:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/StaxSR009SZ91278.pdf

And look at lcd2s impulse response:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2.pdf
or this
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2SN5312123.pdf

The amplifier you choose to make the measurements of orthos is very important indeed.

THe lcd2 has bass from 10Hz and under 1% distortion in the bass area.

Lcd2s bass is one of the best i have heard. With the treble i can give you that it is not one of the best, but the bass is excellent
Edited by dan.gheorghe - 11/19/12 at 4:37am

 

Dear Dan,

 

please stop defending yourself, the heartfelt joy and enthusiasm that carried your review has been so much more convincing than any expert's graph you'll ever come up with.

 

Ever so often we get caught in a discussion, that turns into an argument, that turns into a pissing match. Take my advice, you need to stop right here and go back to what brought you to head-fi in the first place, the love for your hobby.

Wow. If I'm not lazy I would surely read that to improve my reading at the very least.

 

What are you studying in Russia, BTW? I've always been curious; I knew a Malaysian girl who considered going to Russia for music school, but what're you doing there? Just curious.

Aviation engineering, but more on control systems. There's quite some things that overlaps with the electronics side of audiophilia I found.

Going to Russia to study music? Interesting.

Thanks James444. You are right

I am not defending myself, or anything else, cause I don't need to, just cannot help myself on answering with logical arguments , but you are right, I already said 2 times i am getting out of this conversation and couldn't help myself.

Another thing I cannot help is trying to get straight some information brought into the discussion which i find misleading or incorrect. ( i am an engineer and I cannot help myself )

If somebody wants to continue this discussion let us continue it on private.
Edited by dan.gheorghe - 11/19/12 at 9:23am

If you want to continue the discussion here, feel free.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/600088/an-audiophile-and-petrolheads-musings-a-bloggish-kind-of-thing

I'm not going to pursue it any further in this thread.

Nice!

 

A lot of work in that area! The only "bad" thing is that when you get in, that's basically your whole job. Here we don't have aviation engineering, just electrical, computer, etc. So if you have a computer engineering background, kiss your programming goodbye cause you probably wont use the "usual" languages in an aerospace company, at least not in the highest level... unless you practice at home. So keep that in mind... ;-)

I see. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to remember that.

Wait - wut? Where's "here?" If it is the US, it is not usually called "aviation engineering", but there is aeronautical engineering & aerospace engineering. A lot of guys doing flight controls are aero or electrical engineers - it usually depends if you are more focused on control of the flight dynamics (aero) or in the design of the avionics boxes themselves (electrical) or in the programming of those boxes (aero or electrical or computer engineering). Then there are the folks that are involved with the actual mechanics of moving the control surfaces (electrical or mechanical or hydraulic engineering) or of the forces, vibrations & material composition of the control surfaces (mechanical or materials or aero), or a dozen other disciplines involved.

As far as the languages & "high level" of the programming used in aircraft - what you are saying is true of the actual avionics boxes, which tend (but not always) to use specialized embedded real-time languages, but there are TONS of other places where coding is done using the latest and greatest of whiz-bang technology - for example, multi-million dollar simulators using banks of CPUs & GPUs to create fluffy clouds and missile vapor trails inside 40 foot domes, or aerodynamic flow visualization models running on hyper-cubed linux clusters. Back in the dark ages (~1998), I was playing with C++, enterprise Java beans, CORBA (precursor to SOA & web services) and some other "new" technology - all while working in the aerospace industry.

I'm not saying there isn't also PLENTY of old tech still running in aerospace - my point is that there is also plenty of new tech too.

When you work in the aerospace industry are you doing sexy web development? No. Are you doing sexy game development? Sort of, but it's just a much bigger game platform and you don't win gold coins and health points...

 

I meant in the Country I'm from (U.S. Commonwealth). Aerospace engineering is still not a major/big study branch here.

 

And agree with everything that you are saying regarding the areas and the type of engineers usually employed, but I meant that most of the programming for the engines, control systems, etc. is embedded stuff... (and I doubt we will ever see something different for now...) Since jgray91 mentioned that he is looking into "Control Systems", most of that is low-level, embedded stuff, and Not the latest and greatest. But as you mentioned, yep, there's definitely opportunities in other areas, but if you are going for the control system, you are going to be stuck in the stone age...

 

:-p

The actual flight control system engineers typically work with software modeling & simulation applications - they aren't doing the embedded coding. The programmers are coding from the design documents created by the flight control system engineers.

 

I take it that the modeling and simulation apps are also "proprietary" software with their own guidelines and requirements and possibly using interfaces (ala IDE's) not really letting you get to the underlying code? (don't know about those ... just wondering.)