PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE REPLYING.I directed you to what takato14 has explained in two separate posts. You are doing an absurdly good job of dismissing the fact that this will not bring higher audio quality and just decide that it's my own opinion. Please don't hurt my feelings with your harsh realities technomaster, but developing new stuff that's not any better is not innovation.
Except it will
become better. Tell me, do you think that single-seater cars were "better" than a good old fashion horse back in the late 1800s? Or what about some of Thomas Edisons early versions of the lightbulb? Were they better than a candle at the time?
The simple answer is this: NO.
However, because they kept building upon what they had learned by trying new things, cars now greatly out-perform horses, and lightbulbs are TONS better than a candle.
Once again, big picture.
Think of this highly realistic scenario (realistic because it happens in the real world today):
Apple or Google or some other large company adds a new port or functionality or whatever to their product. People call it useless and unnecessary. They may be right (notice how I haven't said that what you're saying is completely untrue, simply that we don't know yet). However, because this company holds so much power is widely used, other people start building upon what that company started. And often it's the little guys who make the big innovations. But it is often jump-started by something like this. Then, as more and more people innovate and find new ways to make this feature actually useful, it's no longer "extra fluff". Suddenly, it's an innovation.
I get that advancing tech can take a long time. The same goes for innovation. But my main point is still this, and I will stress it this time:
NONE OF US KNOW ENOUGH YET TO MAKE ANY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS ABOUT THIS PRODUCT THAT MAY NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.are you just ignoring me or what
this is NOT higher audio quality we are talking about here
changing LPs and 8-tracks to CDs was a better way because it allows better control of the signal that is being sent to the amplification circuitry
changing CDs to solid state was a better way because it maintained said control of the signal while improving general usability
cramming EMI-sensitive chips into a tiny enclosure right next to each other is not a better way because it's relieving the very slight inconvenience of having more than one cable at the cost of literally EVERYTHING else
it would be different if they were cutting the brown townog stage out entirely but that has been tried before, a large audio company tried designing a fully digital transducer that functioned by moving a series of extremely small diapgragms from two binary positions to create sound
unfortunately it sounded absolutely loving atrocious no matter what they did and cost a metric forgetton of money and engineering to create
and this was a gigantic loving speaker, not a headphone, trying to get it to fit over your ears (or worse -- in them) would be nothing short of loving nanotechnology
Once again, you can look at our past and say all this and it's all true, BUT!
You are missing one very important point. Nobody knows yet where and when (if ever) technological advancement will stop. You just gave very valid reasons as to why we switched things in the past - but neither you nor I can legitimately say we know
without a doubt that something better won't come along later to replace what we have now. You won't know until you've tried? Not good enough when it comes to technology. You won't know until you've exhausted every single possibility and then some? That's more like it.
It's the inventor's job to think outside the box. It's the scientist's job to observe why the stuff that the inventor accidentally stumbled upon works. It's the engineer's job to improve upon it and make it nearly flawless, based on what he now knows from the inventor and scientist. Did you know that's there's still a TON of stuff we don't know about physics. Much of this stuff could potentially be used to make enormous advancements in technology in the future. But how will we know if we don't discover it? And how will we make it if we don't know how it works? And how will we advance it if we don't engineer it.
This is the innovative process. I've undergone it many time myself, and while I've been working with known sciences, I myself didn't neccesarily know them, so it was basically the same process. And this is simply how it works. You can talk about how it may not at the moment be better than what we currently have, and you may be 100% correct, but you cannot know that it will never be better.
