|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.169.46.143
In Reply to: RE: Definitions are arbitrary. Also, a case of function vs mechanism posted by Tony Lauck on October 12, 2014 at 10:42:48
good definitions are less arbitrary.
Agree with you about hacking, it's scary.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Follow Ups:
"good definitions are less arbitrary."
Absolutely. There are good definitions and bad definitions, but there are also different purposes. A definition may be good for one purpose and bad for another. If you are a audio consumer you are likely to care about function. If you are an audio designer (or even an advanced audio tweaker) you need knowledge of mechanisms to speed progress to your goal. The definition accorded to "computer" is likely to depend on whether your primariy concern is with function or with mechanism.
In the computer industry there is established terminology. There are many terms to describe computer systems, such as general purpose computers, servers, terminals, thin clients, personal computers, embedded systems, micro controllers, etc... Computer engineers talk in terms of processors and memory. Theoretical computer scientists talk in terms of universal Turing machines, ... You are free to make up whatever terms you want, but if you want to be widely understood, it's probably best to stick with established usage. These "streamers" most likely fall into the category of embedded systems, so long as they are running official firmware.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks....
Do you think of the squeezebox as a computer or as an embedded system?
Largely, - it is my opinion, based on the most often used definitions: when we say "computer" we mean a multifaceted commercial "personal computer" that has HIDs, & does many things: purpose, AND mechanism.
I contend that it is a very small minority who would want to call a streamer a computer, - lest they confuse their audience. We just don't interact with websites, check Email, write letters, book airplane tickets on our Squeezeboxes.
Thanks again for your well reasoned post.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
The users of a squeezebox think of it as a streamer. Those modifying it or integrating it into a network think of it as an embedded system. Here the functions of a computer transport have been divided into two boxes, the squeezebox and the NAS. The NAS (which can be a general purpose PC or an embedded system) stores the files, but it also provides library functions.
Another way to partition into multiple boxes is the approach Miksa has taken with HQPlayer and the Networked Audio Adapater. The player does all the functions required except the actual transport functions of starting and stopping playback and timing the signals sent to the DAC. The networked audio adapter gets a "stream" from the player and times it and sends it on to the DAC. This allows a very low powered device to be located in the audio stack, and isolating the audio stack from ugly noise created by possibly extensive DSP being done in the computer, acoustic noise, etc...
By the way, technically, neither the squeeze box nor the networked audio adapter are really "streamers" because they work on a "pull" basis, requesting blocks of audio as required. This is even true when playing many Internet services which are customized to particular users. Internet radio is a true stream because as a broadcast service it continues at its own pace, regardless of what the listeners are doing. This type of true stream is also needed for interactive voice and video.
To make a concrete discussion, a year ago I got a Raspberry Pi, which consisted of a circuit board, a micro SC card, a small wall wart power supply, a pillbox sized plastic case and some cables. This was not yet a personal computer because it lacked a human interface. However, it came with a two USB ports and an HDMI port. I connected one of the USB ports to a USB keyboard and the HDMI port to my TV set. Now I had a "complete" computer. However, I soon moved the Raspberry Pi to a different room and connected it to my network via its Ethernet connector. This enabled me to log into the command line prompt of the Linux operating system, using my main computer's keyboard and display and the SSH protocol. This enabled me to do software development on this machine to act as an embedded system. Now this device sits on my network running some equipment and I can control and monitor this equipment using a web browser on any of my personal computers. Now the same hardware is obviously an "embedded system" and not a personal computer.
If this sounds confusing, it's because the subject is complicated and difficult for me to explain simply.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"good definitions are less arbitrary."
But nonsense is still nonsense. Why do you keep trying to conflate the two?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: