Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Science and Technology thread

So because I got a cheap newfangled record player, it turns out the easiest way for me to get decent sound is going to be pairing it with a bluetooth speaker. My question for you guys is this:

What's the deal with bluetooth speakers and stereo? I refuse to listen to all my music in mono. So are there stereo pairs of bluetooth speakers? Also, what's a good option for $300 or less?
 
I'm not really happy about the lack of connection options on my turntable and wish I'd done more research back when I bought it, but now that I have it I want to make use of it.

Are there any bluetooth options that are actually going to satisfy me as a semi-audiophile?
 
It has a single 1/8" inch. But the cable that came with it is 1/8" to dual RCA. So in theory I should be able to hook into the back of my stereo receiver and use the speakers I have connected to there. However, either something is broken on my stereo receiver or there's an impedance mismatch. Because when I hooked the stereo up to it, I got very low volume and a lot of hum. I even had it set to bypass the phono player's built-in amplifier.

I was hoping to be able to connect it to my studio monitors. But in order to do that, I'd have to figure out how to go from the single unbalanced 1/8" to two balanced 1/4" inputs. I've tried various splitters and adapters but it doesn't seem to work. I know there's nothing wrong with the phono player itself because I managed to get it hooked up to a pair of cheap computer speakers and it worked fine. But I don't want to listen to music on 3" computer speakers.



Tl;dr - it doesn't work with my stereo receiver and I can't figure out how to adapt the connection work with my studio monitors. So I felt like just using the built-in Bluetooth would be the best solution.
 
It probably needs a phono preamp to send a proper signal to your stereo. That's what I was going to recommend.

I have a turntable with a preamp which I send to a Bluos component which sends the signal to speakers all over my house. But this set up isn't cheap.

However, you can set up with stereo pairs, home theater, mono, whatever your heart (and wallet) desires.
 
rhfarmer said:
It probably needs a phono preamp to send a proper signal to your stereo. That's what I was going to recommend.

I have a turntable with a preamp which I send to a Bluos component which sends the signal to speakers all over my house. But this set up isn't cheap.

However, you can set up with stereo pairs, home theater, mono, whatever your heart (and wallet) desires.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll have to look into that. I didn't think I needed either a preamp or amp with these new turntables, but clearly there's some issue with signal level.
 
Having grown up in the CD era, and having not gotten into buying vinyl until 2017, I don't know much about the setups. When I lived with my ex, she had a nice stereo that had belonged to her deceased husband, so I just played my vinyl on that and didn't question it. I bought this phono player in 2019 but left it in California when I moved in 2020. I'm just now getting it back (along with all my vinyl).
 
I got a "nice" keyboard today after I accidentally spilled my drink on my old keyboard on Wednesday night. I got the Steelseries Apex 7 keyboard. It feels very durable, lights up (always a positive) and came with a palm rest which I didn't think I'd use but I actually like it quite a bit. I've never had a "nice" keyboard so it's definitely weird to actually feel like I'm typing instead of hoping that I typed something correctly.
 
Yeah. The ability to break public key encryption would doom modern society as we know it. At this point, I don't think quantum computing is truly anything more than in it's infancy, and requires a large state/massive corporation given the technology required and so can be curtailed to an extent. Cryptologists have been working on countermeasures for some time, but who knows if they come up with the next iteration of the 'product of massive primes' answer.

I'd put it behind Trump, dumb AI, worse version of 'rona, and Putin pushing the button and just in front of asteroid/supervolcano, Taiwan invasion, smart AI and UNC '23 NC in my fears for the future. Unfortunately, half those things will happen this decade, so drink up.
 
In particular, the adoption of Unrestricted Warfare as both philosophy and policy by some individuals in the Chinese government is of particular concern when it comes to the potentially malevolent use of quantum computing against the United States. There is little way of knowing definitively how advanced various elements of quantum computing are in China but I'd bet almost everything I own they're ahead of us in most of those elements.

For the record, I'd be happy if anyone can elaborate--with as many specifics as possible--upon why I may be off base with such concerns.
 
That article was bad. Kept reading against my better judgement after the un-ironic Musk references which had nothing to do with the topic, but the authors don’t seem to understand how encryption or quantum computing work. The former would evolve away from prime factoring problems. If not, the latter still won’t be able to solve those problems fast enough for the original key to still be valid, even with a superpolynomial advantage, and even if the system doesn’t decohere in that time (which it likely will). The real applications come from solving intractable combinatorial optimization problems which would help us discover new chemical compounds, new materials, etc.

China is almost definitely not ahead in the space, despite claims. Just general fear mongering.
 
Thanks for the response bf. That certainly makes me feel a bit better.

I'm a bit surprised the author would be so off because he's pretty well-respected. We worked with him on some economic development-related issues when I was working in the governor's office (NC) at the time, and he was a fairly well known writer/thought leader/whatever in the tech space even back then.

Obviously doesn't make him infallible.
 
Probably was a bit harsh on the authors, but I think in general it's just a topic that's not well understood from the physics side and people get way too focused on the theory. The practical side of building a computer that can do those calculations, at that scale, has so many obstacles that change the discussion. And on top of that there are still many unresolved paradoxes in quantum mechanics already. Article would have been better with less alarmism (particularly the laughable title) and more disclaimers, but that's the world we live in.
 
You certainly know better, but in my admittedly limited reading/understanding of encryption, I was under the impression that even standard advances in computing was going to start putting pressure on asymmetric systems. Is there a practical/theoretical limit to the size of primes involved that would limit the continued use of the practice?

Also, are there newer strategies that are starting to be used? It's been a while, but the books I've read on the subject all tend to stop around RSA and the like.
 
Last edited:
Mostly I think we would see things shift more toward symmetric, public keys, which would probably just be a soft fork of their existing schemes away from RSA. Quantum approaches don't reduce the attack time in AES-256. There are really not that many classes of problems where quantum provides a real advantage, especially after all the overhead needed for error correction and readout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Chat users

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Chat rooms

  • General chit-chat 0

Forum statistics

Threads
1,065
Messages
423,899
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom