Minute vibrations are keeping you from enjoying your home audio at its full potential. That lost fidelity can be reclaimed, however, with some help from the visionaries at Moon Audio. By using high powered magnets to float your stereo on a thin bed of air, their Zero Gravity shelf will "improve the sound of almost any component." Except for maybe VCRs.

The price tag on the Zero Gravity is $500, which, Moon Audio will have you know, is quite cheap for this sort of thing. So if in a moment of weakness you actually buy this shelf, at least you can take solace in the fact that someone else out there spent more for their levitating stereo contraption. [Moon Audio]

The winter months are the hardest time to not want new stuff. We're inundated with sales, and in a few short weeks we'll be ogling next year's tech at CES. As the resident Gizmodo "no I won't upgrade my PowerBook" curmudgeon, I'm here for support. Take a look at the gear I use, and how despite its age, all (well, most of) it has plenty of life left.

I Call Him FrankenPod

No, you're not seeing things. The image above is indeed a picture of my primary media player, and yes, it is an iPod mini.

Go ahead, get the Borat jokes out of your system.

Done? Okay, now hear me out. Don't judge a book by its cover. As far as I'm concerned, this little guy can blow away nearly any other MP3 player on the market.

Under the hood, I swapped the 6GB microdrive with a 16GB Compact Flash card. I can easily change it out for a 32 or a 64GB card once prices come down. It's also running what I consider to be the most feature-rich firmware around, Rockbox. What looks like a beat-up iPod mini is actually a robust, nearly indestructible flash-based portable audio player, all built for a fraction of what a new one costs.

The mini isn't the only old iPod that's easily moddable. Considering about 118% of the United States' population has an old iPod lying around somewhere by now, chances are you've got what you need for a fun weekend project. Even if your heart's set on the Zune HD's OLED display or the Touch's app catalog, some love and a little elbow grease can breathe old life into that old iPod, and give you a great secondary PMP.

The Little Computer that Could

When I walked into Gizmodo HQ on my first day, I was nervous. Some of that anxiety was the new job jitters, but I was mostly afraid that my 12" PowerBook wouldn't cut it. Gizmodo moves fast, and my aging machine certainly doesn't. I was on the verge of upgrading, but decided to see how my old hardware fared before taking the plunge.

Long story short: It did the job. Barely. But through compromise, I made it work. I love Firefox and all of its extensions, but Safari runs at half the resource load. Photoshop Elements does what I need without the huge footprint of CS. With a little thought as to what applications I was running, which ones I didn't need, and where I was willing to compromise, my plucky PowerBook and I made it through the summer.

As much as I love the little guy, it's not like I haven't thought about replacing him. I almost pulled the trigger on a new MacBook last month. At the last minute I decided that instead of buying a computer that would last me 2-3 years, I wanted another that could feasibly last for 4+. Whenever that computer comes out, I'll probably bite, but until then I'm happy squeezing a little extra life out of my aging hardware.

Look at how you use your computer. If you're rendering all day, never leave Photoshop, or doing any other heavy computing and you need the speed, then upgrade. But the rest of us can probably hold off a little longer, even tech-obsessed gadget bloggers.

Nice Peeling Chrome Paint, Dude

I'm fairly certain I'm the only writer at Gizmodo without a smartphone. Yes, dumbphones must die, and someday I will upgrade this one. But for now, it makes calls, texts, and even has an almost acceptable music player built in that works in a pinch. Google services run surprisingly well in a WAP browser, too, so I can get email and read my RSS feeds when necessary.

Would I love to have a smartphone? Sure. (Hey Brian Lam and Jason Chen, skip down a few sentences) But it's also really nice to be disconnected sometimes. My Gizmodo email account receives a very steady stream of emails, to say the least. I like being able to walk away from the computer and cut myself off every once in a while, without my phone constantly reminding me that there's work to be done (Okay overlords, you can read on from here).

Just Because it's Old Doesn't Mean it Sounds Worse

No, this stereo doesn't do DTS-HD Master Audio. It has zero HDMI ports. But it still does 2-channel audio pretty well, more than well enough for what I need it to do.

Repurposing old stereo equipment is one of the best ways to build a great system on the cheap. The turntable and receiver are my dad's old gear, coupled with a pair of speakers I yanked off of a CD player I've had since I was 14. The setup won't win me any audiophile cred, but it definitely does a much-better-than-OK job at playing music.

Not to mention that it's pretty cool to listen on the same equipment my dad once used. When I was 17, I found his old record collection in the basement and immediately started spinning it on his long-forgotten turntable. Call me corny, but I think it's pretty awesome to know that 30-some years ago he was listening to the same records on the same deck.

If you aren't lucky enough to have access to your parents' old stereo equipment, it's not uncommon to find some real gems at your local thrift shop on the cheap, tossed away by someone who thought McIntosh is a cheap Apple knock-off.

Okay, so Maybe I Want to Upgrade Some of It

I do have one thing that I desperately want, and will upgrade to soon: an HDTV. I've never owned anything besides tube TVs under 20 inches. The fact that flat-panel prices are finally reasonable, combined with the digital switchover makes it prime time for me to jump the CRT ship.

I want to say that it always makes sense to hold onto your old TV after you upgrade, but in this case it might not. Television sets were at their saturation point well before HDTVs came along. In 2009 there were more TVs per household than people. By now it's likely that you just don't have room for a fourth or twelfth tube anywhere.

If you find yourself needing to dispose of an aging TV, please do so properly. Donate it. Sell it on Craigslist. Or look into electronics recycling centers in your area. An old TV may not have a place in your house or apartment, but it might find a place in someone else's home. It certainly doesn't belong in a landfill.

See? I'm Not a Total Luddite

I might roll with old stuff, but I'm not some sort of quasi-neo-luddite. Plenty of other gadgets in my arsenal are much more recent than what you see here. I have a PS3, my music gets fed to my stereo through a Squeezebox, and I do have another receiver that handles multichannel audio, albeit a relatively cheap and older one (and in case you're wondering, I did take these pictures with a DSLR, but it's not mine).

So yes, even I don't always live by the "never upgrade" mentality. Planned obsolescence and the industry's fast pace make it impossible to live by that creed. But I also think that a lot of the time we feel "forced" to upgrade we're really being driven by gadget lust, that powerful desire which makes us overlook the benefits of using old stuff.

Here's what I always think about when that ol' familiar "gotta have it" feeling hits. The biggest and most obvious perk: buy new stuff less often, save money. I don't know about you, but if I walk away from a big purchase, I feel like I've won. It's like trapping money that was trying to escape from my bank account. And if you've got a bit of the tree-hugging hippy spirit in you, you'll feel good about cutting down on your e-waste output, even if only by a little bit.

Not to mention the freedom old gear provides. I imagine it's similar to the feeling of operating the Mars rovers. I know that my gadgets have gone far beyond their planned mission length, so I throw them around without caring if they get damaged. And once that old gear inevitably goes belly up, I'll feel no remorse upgrading something that lasted for so long.

But that doesn't mean I won't be sad to lose my gadgets. I've heard other tech junkies say that we should never fall in love with technology, because we'll just end up heartbroken when it's time to say goodbye. In my opinion, that emotional connection is exactly what we need nowadays. If we all try to love our gadgets, to start treating them more like companions than disposable tools, a lot more perfectly good gear could be saved from an untimely retirement.

I know more than a few of you out there are eyeing some new toys for the holidays. I am too. But before we let upgraditis get the best of us, let's consider what we already have. Maybe it's still good enough. Maybe there's a new part that could make our gadgets better and provide a fun modding project to boot. Take it from me: There's almost always some way to squeeze extra life out of old gear.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there's an old Dell tower around here somewhere that's begging to become a NAS.

The design is basically one sealed sound chamber filled with enough speakers for an authentic surround sound experience: four, 2.6-inch flat speakers and two, 4.5-inch passive radiator speakers. You'll find a 2x10W Class D amplifier squeezed in that shell as well.

Plugging in or operating off a built-in lithium polymer battery, the i24R3 has no inputs, instead receiving signals over 2.4GHz wireless USB or A2DP Bluetooth—yes, from software like iTunes and devices like iPhones.

And while we have no idea how it actually sounds or how much it actually costs, we have too many regularly-intoxicated friends with too good of access to aerodynamic implements to ever invest in one of our own. [Michael Young via The Design Blog]

Back in April, I got great vinyl rips of the major original mono albums, as mixed by the fab four and George Martin. The difference from my stereo CDs—which come from copies mixed in no time by audio engineers to eager to play with stereo panning effects—was beyond belief:

Beatles' record producer and arranger George Martin—the Fifth Beatle—once said: "You've never really heard Sgt Pepper until you've heard it in mono." As it turned out after hours of listening tests, it's completely true.

The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn't very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn't have much access to it. It wasn't until the next year that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was all about the Beatles—and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles' records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.

I couldn't stop listening to Sgt Pepper. Non stop, I played it and played it until my ears bleed and then I played it some more. It was the stereo version, not the mono mix, and it has lived with me ever since. Then, a few months ago I read in The Word—a very good British music magazine—that the Beatles in mono are—like George Martin implied—better than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building.

So I started looking for them. Finding the actual mono mix in the market was impossible. Not to talk about the fact that I don't have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn't have the mono mixes of the Beatles' albums available either—they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered—so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn't find them in the first try. I found a couple of MP3 rips, but I wanted to have FLAC rips of the original vinyls. After some time I gave up, forgetting about the mono Beatles until the Gizmodo's audio week.

I thought trying it would be interesting for a feature, so I started looking for them again and got 192kbps MP3s, which I compared to the stereo version at the same bit rate. Since Sgt Pepper was my album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.

I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs do sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. "What? What? How? What the fuck?" was in my mind all the time.

When Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A lot more thump, for a lack of a better word. It was like someone was beating me with a hammer. It was kind of noisy, but it filled my head and pushed me in a way the stereo version didn't.

Then good old Ringo—my favorite Beatle—came up singing With A Little Help From My Friends. Same effect. It felt weird, but so much better. I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial." Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the "new thing." As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it, like when 3D cinema came out and everything was an excuse to fire arrows and rocks and monsters at the public.

I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded—a lot more, even while I knew the stereo version till the last beat and note. LSD came up: same result. The sound is crisper and nearer. The bass a lot better. Again that special thump, even while this is such a delicate song. Getting Better gets better, and so does the rest, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite... I just couldn't have enough.

But that wasn't all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is not in the stereo version. And not just bits, but quite a lot of things. Instruments, notes, even lyrics. Take the reprise version of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting—Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning—that is not in the stereo mix.

Maybe it's the novelty of listening to a "new" take on something that I know by heart, but I doubt it. As an experience, I like it a lot better. So much that I'm dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips—or the remastered mono versions, as soon as they come out. And while your taste may be different, from now on this is the version I'm keeping in my iPod.

So yes, I'm excited about tomorrow. To hear how the new mixes are. I'm sure the clean mono set will be fantastic, but I'm really curious about how they managed the stereo remixes. Hopefully, they have added a new dimension, overriding the artificial panning effects, and creating a stereo mix that could live up to the original Beatles' sound. [Gizmodo]

Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

They hate it so much that residents of Tuscarora, Nevada, fight this pest with a perimeter of—get this—boom boxes and stereos playing hard rock, tuning to local radio station KHIX. They don't want to kill them, but not because they are a bunch of tree-huggin green commie hippies, but because when you kill them they smell horrible, according to them.

The plague of the two-inch-long walking Mormon cricket—who are born in April in northern Nevada and western Utah—comes every year, devastating crops and anything green, and even causing car accidents. Their two by one miles marching columns are so dense that, when passed over on roads, they form slippery blood and guts spills that may cause automobiles to lose grip and crash. In 2008 they had to call snowplows to clean the highway that goes through Elko County in Nevada.

So people in Tuscarora use the only tool they know to convince them to take another path without killing them: Hard rock and heavy metal during the day, since at night the critters sleep—while they are not eating the fellow crickets that die during the march. And while there's no scientific evidence that strong sound waves like those produced by the likes of Kiss and Metallica, the thing is that it works for them. [WSJ]

My objective in experiencing a full-bore audiophile's listening room was not to try to call him on whether or not he or I could hear the difference in speaker cables composed of wire hangers or braided unicorn mane—no, it was to listen to music on a $350,000 stereo. But while I was there, how could I not try to experience a few before-and-after tests to see if I could spot the harmonic differences that are the audiophile's raison d'etre?

The differences we are talking about here are, of course, of the most incredible subtlety. But to many critics of audiophiles, a subtle change is quickly reduced to and equated with zero change, whereupon the screams of hysterics and rage against the immense stupidity and utter inanity of the audiophile life begins.

I didn't think I had to say this, but I guess I do: Anyone who spends $20,000 on speaker cables is fucking crazy. In fact, anyone who spends $200 on cable is crazy, in my opinion. But that's just not the point.

If I was drinking wine with a sommelier or wine critic, I wouldn't find it irrational to taste subtleties that I might have glossed over when drinking in the presence of normals. In these cases, it's not about the power of suggestion, it's about the power of context, and like it or not, there's context at the heart of all the world's manias, anything to which we attach the suffix "phile."

With audiophiles, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist. I believe that these differences, however miniscule, are, to those who have spent their life studying them, based on something real, not invented. Can I hear them? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean I write them off completely. My belief here is based not on decades of listening on high-end gear, but on a day I spent listening to a $350,000 system with someone who's been doing this for forty-some years.

It's a fact: I was led into hearing things I might not have without guidance. While some look to this possibility as evidence that the whole thing is a sham, I don't. I would need a lot more time to build up the necessary context to even be near a place where I could pretend to listen critically for such minutiae, but I heard something different than I would hear listening to my own sound system, and that's also a fact.

With that out of the way, here are three wholly unscientific but incredibly interesting listening tests we did in Fremer's audiocave. They were a blast.

Power Cable Swap
Test Song: "Avalon" by Roxy Music
Surprisingly not the fishiest test we ran, at play here is the purity and frequency range of the raw AC power that gets fed to the speaker amps. Fremer had two cables laying around that he was reviewing—one from Power Snakes Shunyata Research at a cost of $4,000 and one from Wireworld, whose $1,200 cable's selling point is that it filters out all but the 60Hz frequency of pure, unadulterated US alternating current.

Here's Wireworld's filtering claim, from their website:

An ideal audio or video cable would pass the entire frequency range without alteration. However, an ideal power cord would pass only the 50Hz or 60Hz AC power, while blocking all other frequencies, to prevent power line noise and harmonics from degrading the sound and imaging quality of the system.

Not entirely sure how those two are related, but a claim is a claim.

The result: I heard a difference here, but whether or not it was a direct result of AC filtering, who knows. The filtering cables (the cheaper ones) seemed to sound a bit more reserved, but in some ways clearer. There might have been a little less harshness in the high frequencies of cymbals, or when Bryan Ferry sang an "S" sound. The more expensive AC cable was different, but it was hard to quantify how or why. Maybe a fuller sound, but not necessary a better one.

With this one, if there's any audible change at all from one to the other, one is still not better than the other. That's an important point to make here—spending more money in the audiophile realm often just means getting something different, not better.

Speaker Cable Swap
Test Song: "Whole Lotta Love" by Led Zeppelin
Let me say now that listening to "Whole Lotta Love" on this system at high volume was transcendent each and every time, no matter what gear was involved. You may want to put a knife in any audiophile you see, but if you heard that song like I did once, and realize that these guys get to listen to it that way every time, you'd be doing it out of jealousy, not contempt.

That said, speaker cable is the most sensitive area to prod on both audiophiles and audiophile reactionaries alike, because it is home to some of the most dramatic swings in price for things that, fundamentally, are doing the exact same thing: carrying an electrical current from amp to speakers. That said, as Wilson explained on Tuesday, it's the one thing in these tests that may have the most merit. Genuine differences in electrical properties (wire thickness, manufacturing process, and the materials of the wire and its coatings all contribute to differences in capacitance, inductance and resistance) mean that cables are liable to sound different, given speakers with enough resolution to show those differences.

At play in our test was a set of $200 cables from Monster (here, playing the unfamiliar role of bargain choice) and a pair from Tara Labs that costs a deeply stupid $22,000, which Fremer had for review purposes.

The result: I strained to hear a difference, but did. Like I said, I was pretty busy trying to keep from shitting myself during both playbacks, but I did identify a change. And again, it was detectable most for me in the high-frequency zone: With the high-end cables, cymbals, tambourines, the high frequency bits of that crazy swirling tape-effects breakdown, all sounded perfectly isolated in the 3D space of the song and came through with crazy clarity. On the Monsters, anything in the high-end tended to blend together into a single entity that was slightly less pleasing perhaps, but still amazing.

Was the difference worth $21,800 to me—or even Fremer? Of course not. But it's there.

De-Magnetizer
Test Song: "Oh! Darling" by The Beatles, and others
And if you thought the other stuff was ridiculous, maybe turn away your gaze now. This is a $1,600 platter that, once activated, neutralizes the magnetism that allegedly develops over time in the metallic impurities found in vinyl's black dye. Since the record cartridge operates with magnets, this allegedly translates to less unintended futzing with the cartridge and therefore purer sound. I say allegedly because there's nothing in the way of firm scientific evidence that such magnetic impurities are enough to tamper with the cartridge's signal in a meaningful way. (It should also be noted that the Furutech product in testing here is no longer to be found on Furutech's website.)

The result: I swear to Lucifer, when listening to "Oh! Darling," I thought I heard Paul's voice move back a good foot or two in the soundscape once that record was de-juju'd. "Back" in a way that added clarity. Beyond that, I can't say I heard much else.

We tried the trick on several other records, and I got nothing. Fremer claims he and his audio buddies can usually tell a difference, which is sometimes drastic, sometimes not.

You can even try for yourself if you want to. Here are two AIFF files of Tom Waits' "Step Right Up" (download: File 1, File 2)—both encoded directly from vinyl by Fremer on his system. (Yeah, that process alone seems enough to dispel this myth all by itself, but again, it's a shaky claim to begin with.) One is pre-demagnetizing, another is post. Can you hear a difference? I can't. But if you have crazy gear at home, give it a try.

So as you can see, there was no hosanna moment in any of these tests, whereupon I drank any snake oil or took receipt of any ear honey. Far from it. My particular experience did not convince me to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars chasing the minute gains that can be made in an audio system with ridiculously expensive gear. But I did hear something. By experiencing those differences first hand, I acknowledge their existence, and thus, acknowledge that people who have been listening to music at the highest possible level of quality for decades may know more than I do about the comparative sonics involved.

And the point remains, as clear as ever: Those who are listening to music at the highest level of fidelity and can discern the tiny differences at play here are doing a service—in both music production and music reproduction—to everyone who loves music everywhere.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn't very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn't have much access to it. It wasn't until the next year that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was all about the Beatles—and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles' records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.

I couldn't stop listening to Sgt Pepper. Non stop, I played it and played it until my ears bleed and then I played it some more. It was the stereo version, not the mono mix, and it has lived with me ever since. Then, a few months ago I read in The Word—a very good British music magazine—that the Beatles in mono are—like George Martin implied—better than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building.

So I started looking for them. Finding the actual mono mix in the market was impossible. Not to talk about the fact that I don't have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn't have the mono mixes of the Beatles' albums available either—they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered—so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn't find them in the first try. I found a couple of MP3 rips, but I wanted to have FLAC rips of the original vinyls. After some time I gave up, forgetting about the mono Beatles until the Gizmodo's audio week.

I thought trying it would be interesting for a feature, so I started looking for them again and got 192kbps MP3s, which I compared to the stereo version at the same bit rate. Since Sgt Pepper was my album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.

I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs do sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. "What? What? How? What the fuck?" was in my mind all the time.

When Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A lot more thump, for a lack of a better word. It was like someone was beating me with a hammer. It was kind of noisy, but it filled my head and pushed me in a way the stereo version didn't.

Then good old Ringo—my favorite Beatle—came up singing With A Little Help From My Friends. Same effect. It felt weird, but so much better. I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial." Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the "new thing." As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it, like when 3D cinema came out and everything was an excuse to fire arrows and rocks and monsters at the public.

I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded—a lot more, even while I knew the stereo version till the last beat and note. LSD came up: same result. The sound is crisper and nearer. The bass a lot better. Again that special thump, even while this is such a delicate song. Getting Better gets better, and so does the rest, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite... I just couldn't have enough.

But that wasn't all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is not in the stereo version. And not just bits, but quite a lot of things. Instruments, notes, even lyrics. Take the reprise version of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting—Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning—that is not in the stereo mix.

Maybe it's the novelty of listening to a "new" take on something that I know by heart, but I doubt it. As an experience, I like it a lot better. So much that I'm dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips—or the remastered mono versions, as soon as they come out. And while your taste may be different, from now on this is the version I'm keeping in my iPod.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

I worked 30 hours a week during college and more during the summer. I worked at some computer help desk in Boston, but I spent a great deal of spare time hanging out in a local car-stereo installer's garage, talking to them about what exact set up I should install. They weren't the cleanest or best installers, looking back, but they did recommend some kick-ass gear.

Two giant Phoenix Gold amps, I forget the designation, painted white with clear windows for viewing the ICs. One was attached to a three-way system for everything above bass; 5-inch drivers in the door, and the tweeters and mids in the side foot panels, aimed through the dash to bounce off the windshield of my shitty little Acura Integra, lowered and ricey before that shit was played out. (It was also white.)

The car-stereo guys let me cut the wooden mounts which would give the deep speaker in the narrow door frame. I actually remember the amp names now. That was a ZX450 and it was pushing 450 watts through four channels, two to the midbass drivers, and two to the high/mids. I ran the 8-gauge wires myself, too. The other amp was the more interesting story, a ZX500, run in mono for I think close to 1000 watts, driving an 18-inch across, 9-inch deep JL Audio 18W6 (which was discontinued, presumably, because it was insane). The sub was mounted where the spare tire should have been, in a custom-built fiberglass tub, which raised the floor of my trunk so that it would barely hold a suitcase, on top of the sub's grill and half an inch of MDF fiberboard.

The system was played through an Eclipse CD head unit without MP3 capability (this was 1997 or something) which was made by Fujitsu and was very clean. It had an anti-theft system which consisted of a 1-800 number that tricked thieves into calling it to reactivate once they'd tried to get in a few times, which would instead summon the police to your door if you were calling about a reportedly stolen unit.

The first time I powered it up, the car shook so violently the clip on wide angle rear view mirror fell off, and I had to close my eyes because my eyeballs were itching from the vibration. I could also feel the sub pulling the moving the air in and out of my lungs.

I played lots of Biggie Smalls through it, and some Tupac and Mary J Blige when no one was around, and it was pretty gross. I mean, I didn't have to ring the doorbell when I visited friends, they could hear it a block away.

It forever changed the way I listen to music, because I am definitely unable to hear music with the same nuance that I did before the car stereo. The car was so loud, so notorious on campus, I am surprised it took so long for the setup to get stolen. But it did.

I fell asleep on my couch with my car outside my parking lot, on the street, and when I woke up to go drive home for Thanksgiving, it was gone. I called my mom to say I would miss dinner, and two days later, the insurance company wrote me a check when the car showed up, stripped, in Newton, Massachusetts. I used that money to move to California and to buy a motorcycle, which would eventually snap my leg in three places.

Somehow, this post turned into a note about how stupid of a 20-something I was.

It occurred to me, yesterday, on a long drive, beating on my steering while like a snare drum and my dead pedal as a bass, how much faster I drive as I listen to music. (Even if now I drive a boring station wagon with a stock stereo.) I'm not a music nut, but who can deny how much better our lives when there is song in it?

Music is arguably the most powerful medium, despite its often subtle delivery. Perhaps its power comes from how it can be enjoyed passively, while enhancing the things you're focusing on. Things from work, to running, to sex, to sleep, to skiing, driving, or just spending time with friends. Video, words, pictures require your focus, but you stand attention to these things. Audio and music go with along with anything well. A soundtrack.

Over the last few decades, since the birth of recording, technology's changed how we relate to music. In ways that go beyond the white earbuds. Everything in the last twenty years has changed, from how we discover new songs, to how we buy (or steal) it, to how we carry or trade it, to the very fidelity of the recording (which seems not to matter too much to anyone except audiophiles—a dying breed).

The only thing that hasn't changed is how the music makes us feel, no matter what the volume.

So, this week's Gizmodo is dedicated to music and the technology that helps us enjoy it. Let us know what you think of the stories, and let us know if there's anything we should post.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

Listening Test: It's music tech week at Gizmodo.

The Alpine headunit I tested was plugged into a iPod nano instead of an iPhone but an Alpine representative assured me it has the same functionality when connected to an iPhone.

Alpine's has had iPod compatibility for a few years and the iXA-W404's menu navigation for the iPod and iPhone is nothing new. There has always been touchscreen navigation based off your iPods media folders and this works the same with the iXA-W404's 4.3-inch touchscreen.

The only notable feature is Alpine's attempt at mimicking Apple's Coverflow. The album cover browser is like a very basic Coverflow and only allow you to select full albums rather than specific tracks within an album like the real Coverflow.

Yea, this imitation Coverflow is a cool idea but using it on a small 4.3-inch screen is stupid because there is not enough screen real-estate to browse through a ton of albums, especially when trying to drive a car. This issue made me question why Alpine chose a 4.3-inch touchscreen form factor over their popular 7-inch touchscreen media loving IVA-W505 unit which would have made finger navigation of music by album cover a valuable feature.

Preloaded with a worldwide database of genre-sorted channels, the R227 can also be programmed with any stations it may be missing. And if you find that internet radio isn't your thing, the R227 is still equipped with a digital FM tuner for OTA music and a line-in for your MP3 player of choice. The system will go on sale this January for $170, otherwise you can make the trek up to Canada to score one now. [Electronista]

The satellite speakers are gesture-controlled too... which inescapably brings to mind a passage from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy about motion-control, which saves "a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same" thing.

There is a full-function RF-remote control as an alternative though. Plus there's a wireless dongle to let you stream music from a Mac or PC. Here's designer Michael Young demonstrating the unit:It's due on the shelves in early 2009, but with all that 2.4GHz wirelessness and sleek design, don't expect the price to be cheap. [EOpstech via Core77]

The Anytime dock (pictured above) has probably the worst speakers of the three, but comes with an integrated alarm clock which uses motion-sensing to light itself up or hit the Snooze button at the wave of a hand. The Express Dock features omnidirectional acoustics to transmit sound evenly in all directions, a remote control, and can run on either AC or battery power.

The Z-5 is more of a portable laptop speaker and can be powered completely through USB. It also boasts omnidirectional sound and comes with a remote control.

The Next Evolution of PC-Speaker Acoustics: Logitech Introduces Omnidirectional Speakers for PC, Mac Computers

Logitech Z-5 Omnidirectional Stereo Speakers

Deliver Great Sound Throughout Your Room

FREMONT, Calif. – Sept. 16, 2008 — Attaching speakers to a PC has always improved on the sound quality of built-in PC speakers. But now, Logitech (SWX: LOGN) (NASDAQ: LOGI) introduces the next evolution in PC-speaker acoustics, unveiling the Logitech® Z-5 omnidirectional stereo speakers – for PC and Mac® computers – which deliver great sound throughout your room.

Unlike standard PC speakers that focus sound in one direction, the Logitech Z-5 speakers use omnidirectional acoustics that create a substantially wider sweet spot – an especially helpful feature if you often move your laptop around your home or office. An innovative speaker technology previously found only in expensive home-theater systems, omnidirectional acoustics on the Logitech Z-5 speakers use forward- and backward-firing drivers to transmit sound evenly in all directions. Whether you’re listening to your favorite song or watching a video on YouTube™, you’ll enjoy rich, articulate sound and minimal distortion – from every corner of your room.

“We’re truly excited to offer omnidirectional speakers for the PC and the Mac,” said Mark Schneider, vice president and general manager of Logitech’s audio business unit. “We’re confident that the Z-5 speakers will provide a noticeable improvement to the PC-entertainment experience whether you’re listening to music or watching a movie. With omnidirectional acoustics, the sound is all around you no matter where you have your desktop or laptop computer.”

Delivering pure digital audio that’s easily moved with your laptop, the Z-5 omnidirectional speakers can be quickly connected to any PC or Mac via USB. There’s no need for an external power adaptor or batteries. And to let you wirelessly navigate and enjoy all your entertainment options, Logitech’s newest speaker system comes with a sleek remote control. Launch your favorite entertainment application, adjust the volume and change your selection from across the room.

Pricing and Availability

The Logitech Z-5 omnidirectional stereo speakers are expected to be available in the U.S. and Europe beginning this month for a suggested retail price of $99.99 (U.S.).

and

Dock, Rock and Roll (or Snooze): Logitech Introduces Two Speaker Docks for iPods or iPhones

Pure-Fi Express Plus Offers Omnidirectional Acoustics, Pure-Fi Anytime Makes the Perfect Nightstand Companion

FREMONT, Calif. – Sept. 16, 2008 — Whether you dock your iPod®, or your iPhone™, in the bedroom or crank up your favorite playlist in the living room, Logitech (SWX: LOGN) (NASDAQ: LOGI) has a speaker dock for you. The Logitech® Pure-Fi Express Plus omnidirectional speaker for iPod or iPhone delivers great sound throughout your room, while the Logitech® Pure-Fi Anytime™ premium alarm clock for iPod or iPhone is the perfect nightstand companion. Both speakers are compatible with the first generation iPhone as well as the new 3G iPhone.

“Our research revealed that as digital music players, and especially the iPod, become more integral to our lives, we look for accessories to optimize the experience,” said Mark Schneider, vice president and general manager of Logitech’s audio business unit. “Our latest iPod speaker docks are designed to suit each person according to their individual needs, whether what’s wanted is enhanced audio and portability or an alarm clock with innovative features such as motion sensing.”

Logitech Pure-Fi Express Plus Featuring Omnidirectional Acoustics

A first for iPod or iPhone speaker docks, Pure-Fi Express Plus offers omnidirectional acoustics. An innovative speaker technology previously found only in expensive home-theater systems, omnidirectional acoustics transmit sound evenly in all directions. If you love to dock, charge and listen to your iPod or iPhone when you’re at home, at work, or even in your backyard, now you can enjoy rich, articulate sound and minimal distortion – from every corner of your room.

Pure-Fi Express Plus provides more than just great sound. For added portability, Pure-Fi Express Plus can run on AC or battery power and includes an integrated handle, making it easy to take your music from room to room. The new Logitech dock also features a wireless remote. With a range of up to 30 feet (10 meters), the remote lets you instantly adjust volume, play, pause, fast forward, rewind, as well as offering Shuffle and Repeat buttons – all from the comfort of your couch or favorite chair.

Logitech Pure-Fi Anytime: The Perfect Nightstand Companion

If you commonly dock your iPod or iPhone in the bedroom, Pure-Fi Anytime offers a full set of features, such as advanced motion-sensing technology, that make it perfect for your bedside table – and ensure that you’ll have a fully charged iPod or iPhone when you wake in the morning. To avoid the inconvenience of waking a sleeping partner, the motion-sensing backlight makes it easy to set your alarm without having to turn on the lights. The alarm clock’s controls light up when you wave your hand over the speakers and the buttons automatically dim when you’re done using it. And when you want to get a few minutes of extra sleep when your alarm goes off in the morning, you can simply wave your hand over the speakers and the motion-sensing technology will activate Snooze.

Pure-Fi Anytime also features an easy-to-read display that is clearly visible during the day and night. A recessed dock helps prevent you from accidentally knocking over your iPod or iPhone. Plus, Pure-Fi Anytime offers a digital AM/FM radio for those times when you want to give your iPod a break and enjoy live music, news and sports.

Pricing and Availability

The Logitech® Pure-Fi Express Plus omnidirectional speaker for iPod or iPhone is expected to be available in the U.S. and Europe in October for a suggested retail price of $99.99 (U.S.). The Logitech® Pure-Fi Anytime™ premium alarm clock for iPod or iPhone is expected to be available in the U.S. and Europe beginning in October for a suggested retail price of $99.99 (U.S.).

There are actually open source versions of this I-Doser app (which they might have even taken a few assets from), so you can try it out before you sink some cash into this. Their shady looking site also has a disclaimer that says "I-Doser makes no medical, psychological, physical or otherwise, claims to the effectiveness of the I-Doser application, Simulation CDs, and MP3s," which leads us to believe that it's quite bogus and most likely does nothing. Don't you think that if you could get high from a SOUND, kids would have been all over this years ago? These kids sniff cat pee! [I-Doser via JPostvia T3]