Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2008)Back to main ARSCLIST pageJoin or leave ARSCLISTReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:22:06 +0200
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Aren't recordings original sources?
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad Hello all, how I hate the subject line even if the content is interesting. Richard wrote: ............................. > I continue to see comments disparaging my use of the phrase "properly > designed". I do think that we need to get after manufacturers to > properly design equipment so that these synergistic cable effects are > minimized. ................................. ----- I would like to draw a parallel. For years it was touted that it should be impossible to hear a difference between CD decks, because it was all digital and hence rock-solid. Some minimized the differences by green-edging the CDs, others tried to get jitter-free clock generators. However, it was only after Cambridge Audio (UK) discovered and demonstrated that actually mechanical vibrations were the cause of the discrepancies that CD decks became "properly designed". It had turned out that of the error correction available, the CD itself took this much, and varying degrees of errors in reading due to simple mechanical took the rest and in many cases even drove the error correction to the very audible interpolation. Another parallel: Otala's discovery of Transient Intermodulation Distortion for transistor amplifiers: the effect of feedback loops that were too long and hence too slow. Beautiful results on stationary signals, but impossible saturation of the first stage on transients. The result was the development of local feedback. So it is a continuum of development, and it is only when a technology is completely discarded (such as coarse-groove 78 rpm) that the foundations that that technology was resting on get forgotten, and later generations will not be an improvement. There has been no fundamental improvement of coarse-groove 78 rpm reproduction since 1948, even though later technology has been tweaked into service. Kind regards, George


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main ARSCLIST page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager