Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
"the Wrap 310 also features true 16x9 widescreen, twin high resolution displays"
HOW high resolution?
"428 x 240"
EDIT: apparently they're 640x480. it's still:
a bunch of horse shit.
i've mentioned it before, i've got prototype glasses by inviso (formerly siliscape) from 2001 running 800 x 600 that were set to retail for $250. in 2002. 1024x768 was a mere 6 months to a year of R&D away. you can guess why the money got pulled out. 2001. ahem. you can run Windows through them and not have any problems seeing what you're doing. colors are great, no flicker, great contrast.
so why? why, 8 years later, why the f*$% hasn't the technology been matched? what's the holdup?
"The Wrap 310 will feature twin high-resolution video displays, project a 55-inch screen and include removable noise isolating earphones."
Obviously it doesn't "project" anything and the display isn't "55-inch". I'm not sure why they can get away with saying that when what they mean is just that the display is equivalent in size or angular extent to a 55 inch display viewed at a distance of... what exactly? 55 inches at ten feet would not be very impressive.
@jdale: So say you are sitting on an airplane. Pull out these glasses and start watching a movie from your ipod whatever. The screen appears equivalent to a 55" screen from ten feet away. So its not impressive to get that experience sitting on a plane of all places? Now replace that with sitting in a car, or train, or where ever. Sure it may not seem that impressive if you are sitting at home, but for a personal viewing in places that it is not logical to have a 55" screen... its pretty damn impressive to me.
@Forsakenchild: My point is really that it is a meaningless measurement. If it feels better imagine I said 55" at 100 feet. Would you pay for that? No, it would be worthless. You'd be better off watching video on the tiny screen of your iPod Nano. But since they haven't specified a distance in their press release who knows?
55" at 10' is about 22 degrees of view. At 5' it would be 43 degrees of awesome, at 15' it would be 15 degrees of lame.
@anoteoftruth: Exactly Gizmodo. WTF? Which audiophiles are you referring to? LAst I checked everyone on head-fi was laughing their asses off at anyone who spent money on these pieces of crap.
I can't in any way trust electronic equipment with Dr. Dre. Last time I saw him, I was DJing at a pretty high-brow party, and outa nowhere, dude comes up, moves me out of the way, and puts a cold Dr. Pepper can on my turn-table. Got condensation all over it and shorted it out.
Scotland promoted this comment
Edited by Sean Fallon at 09/08/09 2:45 PM Sean Fallon approved this comment
SEDAGIVE?! was starred
SEDAGIVE?! was unstarred
I had thought the consensus was that the Dr Dre headphones were a complete ripoff and that no one was raving anything about that. Regardless, who wants to give a company like Monster any of their money, even if Dr Dre is involved?
My first player was a Creative MuVo, which I still have. It's got a good FM radio in it. I've never bought a new iPod--my 1st gen nano was refurbished and the others I bought "broken" on eBay and fixed.
I had the two iPods I've ever owned stolen. I had a shitty RCA Lyra years back, it developed a bug where it can't switch off of radio mode back to MP3 mode. My Sansa e260 is hands down the best player I've ever owned.
09/15/09
HOW high resolution?
"428 x 240"
EDIT: apparently they're 640x480. it's still:
a bunch of horse shit.
i've mentioned it before, i've got prototype glasses by inviso (formerly siliscape) from 2001 running 800 x 600 that were set to retail for $250. in 2002. 1024x768 was a mere 6 months to a year of R&D away. you can guess why the money got pulled out. 2001. ahem. you can run Windows through them and not have any problems seeing what you're doing. colors are great, no flicker, great contrast.
so why? why, 8 years later, why the f*$% hasn't the technology been matched? what's the holdup?
09/15/09
Obviously it doesn't "project" anything and the display isn't "55-inch". I'm not sure why they can get away with saying that when what they mean is just that the display is equivalent in size or angular extent to a 55 inch display viewed at a distance of... what exactly? 55 inches at ten feet would not be very impressive.
09/15/09
09/15/09
55" at 10' is about 22 degrees of view. At 5' it would be 43 degrees of awesome, at 15' it would be 15 degrees of lame.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
I'd be interested in something like this if they could get the resolution up to at least 720p, though.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
Indeed. These pieces of shit have nothing on my AKG K701's.
09/08/09
The same kind that buys monster cables.
09/08/09
Precisely. Monster is a scam... I wouldn't expect these to be much better than Skullcandy.
09/08/09
Bastard.
09/08/09
Scotland: "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,
he didn't do what you say he did, did he?"
And Dr. Dre said?
SEDAGIVE: Nothing you idiot!
Dr. Dre's dead, he's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
[*vocal turntable: chigga chigga chigga*]
09/08/09
*watches the suckers line up*
09/08/09
09/08/09
- dr. p
09/08/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
My very first MP3 player was a... Diammond Rio/Nike mix up... 16Mb MMC card or something included. It's previous to the iPod.
It was one of the first versions of the one pictured above. Pretty nice actually.
But after I bought my first Sony Ericsson phone, I never had to buy mp3 players again...
08/21/09