![]() |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
> p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now > using 3772s with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you! Yeah, well not really. Way, WAY back, when my father was getting his PhD in Physical Chemistry at Columbia, he filed and was granted a patent having to do with epitaxial deposition of compounds on silicon substrates. A year or so after the patent expired, the world decided THE way to make a lot of semiconducting devices was via the epitaxial method. Had he the foresight to wait a few years or to renew the patent with some appropriate variation, and had managed to get people like TI to give him a piddling royalty of something like $0.001 per device*, I'd be a quadrabazillionaire. I'd have the likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it. * Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then, the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip, only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from that point forward. Sigh, missed opportunities... Dick Pierce. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:37:53 PM UTC-4,
>>. I'd have the > likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and > fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it. > > * Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to > charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then, > the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by > the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip, > only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from > that point forward. > > Sigh, missed opportunities... > Snippage Be careful what you wish for - and you are not the first! https://dailyoddsandends.wordpress.c...ied-penniless/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2/10/2017 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
> > 2. Open the newsgroup. > > In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone > can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, > and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear > differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody > can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's > just my opinion.) > At this point usenet is sufficiently depopulated that a couple of spam filters seems to work pretty well. I don't read all that many usenet groups these days, but the few I do are unmoderated and are still usable (with a few entries in the killfile, of course) I can't say I'll be heartbroken if RAHE goes away, but leaving it up and running seems to be the best option. Thanks a bunch to David for moderating all these years; I understand why you are ready to move on. I say set the group free and let it live or die on it's own rather than killing it. -Walt //Walt |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-02-10, RAHE Moderator > wrote:
> Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the > rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. > > We have a few options, and I will lay them out. > > 1. Close the newsgroup. > > 2. Open the newsgroup. > > 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. > > 4. Find a new moderator. > > > Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, > whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the > topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general > purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless > there is an active discussion going on. There is no longer an active discussion on this thread. However, there is substantially more traffic in the newsgroup. Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. 2. The Guidelines are suspended. 3. I shall generally approve any message that is sent, unless it appears to be obviously spam or gratuitously objectionable. In particular, I won't be checking for proper quoting format, or asking people to edit overly-long messages, or calming flames. 4. When I get too tired of it, or someone else wants to do it, we'll talk. Your humble obedient overlord, -dsr- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
thank you for having stuck with this newsgroup as long as you have. I came here to learn from you all and hope that somehow this will continue.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
-dsr- > wrote:
> Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: > > 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. OK, so we should talk about audio again. Whoopee! At the Tate Modern (a major art gallery in London) there's an interesting exhibit. It's a carefully-treated room with a high-end audio system. The idea was that many people have never had the chance to hear recorded music played back in the highest quality: "Wolfgang Tillmans' Playback Room is a space conceived by the artist specifically for listening to recorded music. While museums are dedicated to the contemplation of works of visual art and concert halls allow us to experience live music, no comparable venues exist where visitors can listen to music in its optimum sound quality." There's room for about twenty or thirty people to sit. The system is a pair of B&W 800 D3s and Rotel amplification, and the music is carefully chosen and very well-recorded. And it sounds wonderful. In particular, the soundstage is excellent: very broad and deep, and without any small "sweet spot". I'm guessing that the wide soundstage is as much due to the acoustic treatment as the speakers. http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate...-room-sessions Andrew. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wish they had something like that in my neck of the woods. nearest high-end audio store is half a day's drive from me. and it is oh so snooty in there.
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Once upon a time on usenet -dsr- wrote:
> On 2017-02-10, RAHE Moderator > wrote: >> Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the >> rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. >> >> We have a few options, and I will lay them out. >> >> 1. Close the newsgroup. >> >> 2. Open the newsgroup. >> >> 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. >> >> 4. Find a new moderator. >> >> >> Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, >> theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is >> constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather >> than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close >> April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. > > There is no longer an active discussion on this thread. > > However, there is substantially more traffic in the newsgroup. > > Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: > > 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. > > 2. The Guidelines are suspended. > > 3. I shall generally approve any message that is sent, unless it > appears to be obviously spam or gratuitously objectionable. > In particular, I won't be checking for proper quoting format, > or asking people to edit overly-long messages, or calming > flames. > > 4. When I get too tired of it, or someone else wants to do it, > we'll talk. > > Your humble obedient overlord, > > -dsr- Thanks for the not inconsiderable time that you must spend moderating R.A.H-E. I appreciate it. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|