Technology should have progressed faster...

[El Greco]

...in batteries. We should have better batteries by now.

...in loudspeakers. Those made 20 years ago pretty much sound as well as those made today.

...in printers and home publishing. I still find the printers to be very slow, of bad quality and with expensive replaceables.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by El Greco
...in batteries. We should have better batteries by now.

I don't really see why people think batteries should have advanced significantly. We don't complain that gasoline hasn't advanced significantly. It burns cleaner now, but it really doesn't contain more energy to any significant degree. But nobody complains about that. In comparison, batteries have advanced quite a bit, but people complain, because the uses of batteries have grown so quickly in recent years. But energy storage will always be a fundamentally difficult problem, and there's no reason to think progress is ever going to be rapid. There are physical limits to energy density you can store in chemical bonds.

...in loudspeakers. Those made 20 years ago pretty much sound as well as those made today.

Because they sound about as good as you can make them. And there isn't any possible way to make speakers significantly better without also fundamentally changing the way you record sound as well.

...in printers and home publishing. I still find the printers to be very slow, of bad quality and with expensive replaceables.

I disagree. Ink jets are crap, but you can buy a black and white laser printer for under $200, they're fairly fast (mine has basically no warmup time and starts printing within a few seconds of sending the print command), and they work reliably and with cheap replacement ink (at least, cheap for how much printing you can do with a toner cartrige). In contrast, when I was growing up, we had a dot matrix printer. It was loud, slow, expensive, and needed that special paper with the perforated strips on the sides with holes to feed through the thing. Quite a difference.

[Red Siegfried]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I disagree. Ink jets are crap, but you can buy a black and white laser printer for under $200, they're fairly fast (mine has basically no warmup time and starts printing within a few seconds of sending the print command), and they work reliably and with cheap replacement ink (at least, cheap for how much printing you can do with a toner cartrige). In contrast, when I was growing up, we had a dot matrix printer. It was loud, slow, expensive, and needed that special paper with the perforated strips on the sides with holes to feed through the thing. Quite a difference.

Have you seen color inkjet photo printers lately? Most of them are under $450 and the quality is amazing! Speed leaves a lot to be desired, though, so IMHO a b/w laser printer still takes the cake any day for printing text. Next step up would be dye sublimation printers but they are still fairly pricey unless you are seriously into digital photography or are a professional photographer, in which case you probably have better equipment for making prints anyway.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Have you seen color inkjet photo printers lately? Most of them are under $450 and the quality is amazing! Speed leaves a lot to be desired, though, so IMHO a b/w laser printer still takes the cake any day for printing text. Next step up would be dye sublimation printers but they are still fairly pricey unless you are seriously into digital photography or are a professional photographer, in which case you probably have better equipment for making prints anyway.

You can get a color laser printer with a 1200 dpi resolution for $499.

He's right about inkjets...the vast majority of them are throwaway junk. For the price you'd pay for a good-quality inkjet, you can purchase a similarly priced laser that gives similar quality and longer life, faster printing, as well as a lower TKO. If you want to sacrifice speed, quality, color, print size, or other factors, then inkjets will be cheaper.

[Red Siegfried]

For everyday printing, yes, I agree with you. If you are talking photos however, keep in mind that most of the latest generation of home-use photo printers do somewhere in the area of 4800 dpi. If you want a 4800 dpi laser printer you can definitely get them, and from what I know after they warm up they are faster than inkjets but they are more than most people want to pay.

As for myself, I have both. I have a b/w hp laserjet 1300 for text, which chugs out pages really quickly and I have the photo printer for photos.

But I tend to agree somewhat that you'd think that printing would have come further in the time we had with it.

On a side note, I've been hearing a lot about those "thing maker" machines aka rapid prototypers that work on inkjet printer technology. I think that's a field that has a lot of potential, given time to refine.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...in loudspeakers. Those made 20 years ago pretty much sound as well as those made today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Because they sound about as good as you can make them. And there isn't any possible way to make speakers significantly better without also fundamentally changing the way you record sound as well.



I don't really agree with this.

Speakers are a difficult proposition, and they are unquestionably the weakest link in the mechanical chain from recorded material to playback (Notice, I did not say "recording" but rather "recorded material", and, yes, that is important.)

Speakers, however, have improved in the last 20 years, due to people finally applying the same analysis to them that was applied nearly 100 years earlier to circuits. (i.e. Theil-Small and followup work for bass radiators, for instance.)

Speakers can, and hopefully will, improve more due to the use of more signal processing.

Finally, more enlightened (and more channel) capture of audio signals may eventually lead to better reproduction as well. Very often, loudspeakers are called upon to reproduce things like direct/reverberant ratio that are not captured inthe original recording.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
...in batteries. We should have better batteries by now.


considering how far ahead of the rest of solid sate chemistry batteries already are why?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by El Greco
...in printers and home publishing. I still find the printers to be very slow, of bad quality and with expensive replaceables.

Printers have made huge advances in the past 10 years, and momumental advances in the past 20. Can anybody say, dot matrix?

BTW, if you are looking for a high quality inkjet, get an HP, preferably commercial grade. The printheads are part of the print cardridge. These printers last for many, many years. Heck, my printer is an HP600 I bought at a garage sale.

[Red Siegfried]

Originally posted by RussDill
Printers have made huge advances in the past 10 years, and momumental advances in the past 20. Can anybody say, dot matrix?

BTW, if you are looking for a high quality inkjet, get an HP, preferably commercial grade. The printheads are part of the print cardridge. These printers last for many, many years. Heck, my printer is an HP600 I bought at a garage sale.

This message brought to you by an HP stockholder! Just kidding ... :)

I also own an HP 600C inkjet that still works. As a matter of fact, my wife just used it the other day. Slow as the dickens, but still works and frankly, I'm amazed that we got that much use out of it. I think I bought it in 1996 or 97, if I remember right.

But today's inkjets beat the pants off the old ones, no question.

[Robin]

Originally posted by jj
Speakers, however, have improved in the last 20 years, due to people finally applying the same analysis to them that was applied nearly 100 years earlier to circuits. (i.e. Theil-Small and followup work for bass radiators, for instance.)
So do we have this to thank for that farting sound that passes for bass these days?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
For everyday printing, yes, I agree with you. If you are talking photos however, keep in mind that most of the latest generation of home-use photo printers do somewhere in the area of 4800 dpi. If you want a 4800 dpi laser printer you can definitely get them, and from what I know after they warm up they are faster than inkjets but they are more than most people want to pay.

Be very very careful when reading the dpi declarations, especially on inkjets.

While many inkjets offer 4800dpi, they do it by using offset color dots and other "extrapolation" methods. The 4800 dpi those inkjets offer is about a 1200dpi true quality.

I used to print my photos on a 600 dpi color laser in our office, rather than the 2400 dpi photo inkjet I had on my desk. The quality was better, regardless of the dpi setting.

You're going to get what you pay for, and a $150 or $200 inkjet won't compare in quality with a $500 color laser. A $400 professional inkjet is comparable, but the cost will catch up with you when you're on your 10th ink cartridge at about the time the laser needs it's second.

The only advantage the inkjets have is a low buy-in cost. You're actually better off purchasing a laser for double the price on a payment plan...you'll spend less in the long run.

I do have to agree that the HPs are a better buy, if you really want an inkjet. Having the heads as part of the cartridge increases the cartridge cost, yes, but I've seen many inkjet printers, especially with users who don't print often, with heads so clogged up it's actually cheaper to purchase a new printer than pay to have it serviced.

I worked for a professional printing company for a while, and we used to go over many of these same issues. We used color lasers for almost everything...the quality was far better than inkjet and after a year or so the costs swung in favor of the laser. The only exception was an electrostatic we used for transparencies, posters, and vinyl banners.

I've has serious issues with inkjet printers, ever since my first one. With all the money I've spent on inkjets, I could've bought a nice laser printer with better quality, and probably still only be on my second or thrid set of toner :) Of course, now I have bought a laser (little bw Samsung with scanning and copying, $150) and am looking at an HP color laser soon (got a bonus coming from work).

[SezMe]

Originally posted by El Greco
...in batteries. We should have better batteries by now.

...in loudspeakers. Those made 20 years ago pretty much sound as well as those made today.

...in printers and home publishing. I still find the printers to be very slow, of bad quality and with expensive replaceables.
I don't want to quibble individual technologies but with the question itself. Why should any of these, or any other, technologies have progressed faster. How much faster?

It just seems to me to be asking "how many hamburgers run five cows in under Jupiter"

[EdipisReks]

i think most color laser output looks like garbage, but i'm not a fan of obvious dithering so there you are.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by SezMe
t just seems to me to be asking "how many hamburgers run five cows in under Jupiter"
6.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
6.

You're just trying to get Jambo into this thread. Shame on you. As Interesting Ian will confirm, the answer is 7, you skpetic. :) :)

[SezMe]

Duh, hit the wrong button. :(

[El Greco]

By "should" I mean that these technologies have advanced much more slowly than what people (and even experts) were expecting 20 years ago.

Batteries: We've had two batteries threads IIRC, I think that what has been mentioned over there about the expected breakthroughs in battery technology rather supports my current disappointment.

Loudspeakers: I don't think anyone really disagrees with me. There is a list of advances (crossover materials, ribbon and plasma tweeters, etc) but their contribution to the final result is rather questionable. Many audiophiles are still looking for 20 year old Spendor speakers...

Printers: I would expect more people would agree with me on that one. I'm not talking about printing your resume, I'm talking about printing photographs really fast and making your own business cards and glossy leaflets with speed and quality comparable to printing houses. That day will certainly come, some have been expecting it much earlier.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by El Greco
By "should" I mean that these technologies have advanced much more slowly than what people (and even experts) were expecting 20 years ago.
So, people "(and even experts)" were wrong 20 years ago! And? Did you expect them to garner the Randi $1 mil when their "expectations" were wrong?

In the commercial sphere, technological innovation is not driven so much by capability as by demand. If I can produce a new printer that can print at 10^6 dpi but will cost a gadzillion dollars, that innovation will not progress at all.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by SezMe
So, people "(and even experts)" were wrong 20 years ago! And? Did you expect them to garner the Randi $1 mil when their "expectations" were wrong?

No, I'm just pointing that out. Sue me. I don't understand what your problem is. Do you think that technology always progresses at an optimal rate ? Or maybe that we don't have the right to be disappointed because we expected more ?

Originally posted by SezMe
In the commercial sphere, technological innovation is not driven so much by capability as by demand. If I can produce a new printer that can print at 10^6 dpi but will cost a gadzillion dollars, that innovation will not progress at all.

Yes, so ? There is a demand for better and affordable products like the ones I mentioned. They just can't make them yet, at least not affordable. Did I say anything different ?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by El Greco
No, I'm just pointing that out. Sue me. I don't understand what your problem is. Do you think that technology always progresses at an optimal rate ? Or maybe that we don't have the right to be disappointed because we expected more ?

Yes, so ? There is a demand for better and affordable products like the ones I mentioned. They just can't make them yet, at least not affordable. Did I say anything different ?
Let's not get nasty. If I came off hostile or sarcastic, sorry. My problem is I don't understand your OP. You mentioned how technical progress "should" be. Here you talk about an "optimal" rate of progress. I just don't think technical progress "should" be anything. It just is. And certainly the concept of "optimal" technical progress is undefinable.

But if your point is you are disappointed because we don't have fancier, cheaper toys, that is fine. But it is a totally different discussion.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by SezMe
But if your point is you are disappointed because we don't have fancier, cheaper toys, that is fine. But it is a totally different discussion.

It's not a different discussion, because that's exactly the meaning of "should" in this case. "Should" like "we expected them to but they didn't" or "we need them badly". How else can anyone interpret it ? Like we "should" put a gun on scientists' face ? What is different if we say "Microsoft shouldn't have released Windows Me" ?

What struck me is that you clinged to semantics when the meaning is more than obvious.

[jj]

Originally posted by Robin
So do we have this to thank for that farting sound that passes for bass these days?

You must then listen to speakers that are very different than I do, in specific, it sounds like you're listening to something wherein a port is way too small, ill-designed, or both.

Perhaps if you were more specific, one could address any given specific case, but it seems quite clear to me that you're talking about the classical audio problem, the use of theory by somebody who doesn't understand the practice.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by El Greco
It's not a different discussion, because that's exactly the meaning of "should" in this case. "Should" like "we expected them to but they didn't" or "we need them badly". How else can anyone interpret it ? Like we "should" put a gun on scientists' face ? What is different if we say "Microsoft shouldn't have released Windows Me" ?

What struck me is that you clinged to semantics when the meaning is more than obvious.
No, the meaning was not obvious. If it was, I would not have pursued what you meant.

Aha, now I know that what "should" be is what you want it to be. Forget the "we". That is what you are saying in your first sentence. Fair enough.

I'm not particularly interested in talking about what you want so I'll bow out.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by SezMe
You're just trying to get Jambo into this thread. Shame on you. As Interesting Ian will confirm, the answer is 7, you skpetic. :) :)

:D

[davefoc]

Batteries:

When I was designing battery powered equipment about ten years ago nicad AA batteries had a capacity of about 800 mah. Today 2200 mah nimh AA batteries are available and rechargeable lithium batteries are available that have even high energy densities (by weight) than the best nimh batteries and rechargeable lithium batteries were not even available much farther back than 10 years ago.

This sounds like a substantial improvement to me.

The big failure for battery technology improvement was in cheap, large capacities like are required for car applications. I don't know of any substantial improvement in lead acid technology and no other technology that has been developed has been cheap enough to compete with lead acid in the car markets. I think a lot of the electric car development money was spent on the idea that somebody would invent a cheap high capacity battery and nobody did.

Printers:
When I started designing computers 25 years ago or so the state of the art printers were crappy dot matrix or really expensive daisy wheel printers. If you wanted color you could change the ribbon.

Today, for less than 100 bucks you can buy an inkjet printer that turns out very good text and nice color photos. For a little bit more you can buy a nice laser printer.

This sounds like substantial improvement to me.

Speakers:
The dirty little secret in the audio business is that it doesn't matter. Speakers got to the point of creating sounds that approach a quality that is indistinguishable from the original sounds a long time ago. That doesn't leave much room for actual speaker technology to improve. Of course, it leaves lots of room for audio marketeers to BS about it forever.

So there probably wasn't much speaker improvement in the last 20 years, but it doesn't seem like there's much room for improvement anyway.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i think most color laser output looks like garbage, but i'm not a fan of obvious dithering so there you are.

Just out of curiousity, what was tha past color laser output you looked at?

Like I stated, we used them for color proofs of our pages, precisely because the color was much better than the inkjets we had (without obvious dithering). If you print at a low resolution them yeah, you'll have it. But I've not seen it at anything from about 600dpi and up.

Not to say inkjets can't print a good picture, but I still think buying a laser is going to be cheaper in the long run and better quality over all. I've certainly seen that in the tests I've run so far.

[Red Siegfried]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Be very very careful when reading the dpi declarations, especially on inkjets.

While many inkjets offer 4800dpi, they do it by using offset color dots and other "extrapolation" methods. The 4800 dpi those inkjets offer is about a 1200dpi true quality.

I did not know that. Thanks for the info! See, skeptics really CAN be taught new things!

[Art Vandelay]

Printers: I would expect more people would agree with me on that one. I'm not talking about printing your resume, I'm talking about printing photographs really fast and making your own business cards and glossy leaflets with speed and quality comparable to printing houses.Well, that's kind of a moving target, isn't it? Surely any progress in home printing will be accompanied by progression in professional printing, making it difficult for the former to ever catch up with the latter. Today's home printing is certainly better than professional printing of a few decades ago; a few decades, there wasn't really any homecolor printers. And typewriters were a viable alternative to computers because typing up a paper took less time than printing it out (plus you had to type it into the computer to begin with).

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i think most color laser output looks like garbage, but i'm not a fan of obvious dithering so there you are. On the other hand, not enough dithering is very annoying. DVDs really need some dithering; thin, oblique lines come out looking much worse on DVD than VHS.