| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... With a CD, the pits should be visible with a microscope. Yep. Now, at this point you have a big stream of bits, so how do you decode it? You think books on the subject won't last 300 years either? Can you tell us why we have books from a thousand years ago then? But youre right. Wouldn't take long to work it out. Or maybe there will just not be anybody left to care anyway. I'm sure I won't! MrT. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: To me, this is somewhat about perspective. I think it's easy to make sense of a stream of bits because I have a computer science degree. Someone who designs and works with analog electronics probably thinks it's easier to build a machine to read reel-to-reel tapes. My guess is that in the future, there will be no shortage of people who know about computers, but there probably also won't be a shortage of people who know about electronics and magnetism either. One never knows. Far enough in the future and we may not have a clue as to what these objects are. And computers will probably take some other form that's different enough than how we process bits today that it may not occur to someone how to do it. Certainly things will change. But there are already some universal mathematical truths known about information theory. Shannon's Theorem, Nyquist's Theorem, Turing Machines, finite state automata, Mealy and Moore machines, Boolean algebra, binary numbers, etc. will not change. The great thing about compact discs is that they are essentially just big blocks of samples. The information is dressed up some (with interleaving and error correction and subcode data), but fundamentally they are just PCM. And the great thing about PCM is that it's not a complex thing: it's just a binary number that represents the voltage level. It's like looking at a chart of historical temperature readings taken every hour for the last 50 years. You don't have to think too hard to understand what they mean because you know something about the data: you know the temperature goes up and down daily, and that it also goes up and down seasonally. It's the same way with the audio data. It's just a bunch of binary numbers, and you know what an audio signal looks like, so you know what pattern you're looking for. Hmm, it just occurs to me that if CDs survive but working CD players and documentation how to make one aren't available, then there is going to be one thing that will be tricky to reverse engineer: the sampling rate! You can make a good guess based on how the voices sound, and if you have some classical music knowledge (assuming this also survives), you can probably get a good idea, but how will they know to play back those samples at 44100 Hz? If civilization collapses and is rebuilt, they could be listening to our compact discs at 50000 Hz or something! - Logan |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... Mike Rivers wrote: One never knows. Far enough in the future and we may not have a clue as to what these objects are. And computers will probably take some other form that's different enough than how we process bits today that it may not occur to someone how to do it. And magnetic tapes will change to sticky goo eventually. If civilization collapses and is rebuilt, they could be listening to our compact discs at 50000 Hz or something! And it would sound a lot better than could be possibly obtained from a reel of sticky goo :-) Of course Any decent musician could adjust the sample rate by ear to give proper musical scale intervals, if that was the only problem. MrT. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. T wrote:
"Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... If civilization collapses and is rebuilt, they could be listening to our compact discs at 50000 Hz or something! Of course Any decent musician could adjust the sample rate by ear to give proper musical scale intervals, if that was the only problem. But the proper intervals will be retained even if the sample rate is wrong. Think about it this way: two notes that are an octave apart have the relationship that the higher one has the double the frequency of the lower. For example, A 440 is (obviously) at 440 Hz, and the A an octave above that is at 880 Hz. If you got that wrong and had them 50% too high, then what should be A 440 would come out at 660 Hz, and then what should be at 880 Hz would come out at 1320 Hz. But, 660 * 2 = 1320, so they're still an octave apart. The same thing holds for all intervals, not just octaves. The reason is, intervals are defined by the ratio of the frequencies. A major third has a ratio of 2^(4/12), a minor seventh 2^(10/12), etc. Changing the sample rate is equivalent to just multiplying both (all) frequencies by a constant, and if you have two numbers A and B and you multiply them by a constant K, then their ratios will stay the same. (If that isn't immediately clear, think of reducing fractions -- if you start with KA/KB, you can easily reduce this to A/B. Well, as long as K isn't 0...) - Logan |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play on" wrote in message
It still seems like a silly argument to me... are you anticipating some kind of armageddon where no digital technology will survive, but analog tech will? You mean some sort of disaster that leaves us with victrolas but no laptops? How can that be? dtk |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:07:30 GMT, james of tucson
wrote: Now, there are people who argue that digital systems don't render sufficient quality to justify switching from analog. There are others who claim that's a load of crap. I really don't see how anyone can argue that analog tape sounds more true and accurate to the source than good digital. Someone may like the "sound" of analog tape better, but that's a separate issue. Most of us grew up hearing analog recordings and so that has been our point of reference for recorded music to date, however that certainly does not make it objectively "better". Al |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play on" wrote in message ... It still seems like a silly argument to me... are you anticipating some kind of armageddon where no digital technology will survive, but analog tech will? No, he's just trying to justify a fixation on tape over digital. He personally *PREFERS* it, doesn't seem to be adequate for some reason. MrT. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:35:28 GMT, Logan Shaw
wrote: Hmm, it just occurs to me that if CDs survive but working CD players and documentation how to make one aren't available, then there is going to be one thing that will be tricky to reverse engineer: the sampling rate! IIRC, the last time this came up, I brought up the V'ger gold music disc, and wondered how a time base was included. Paul Stamler, again IIRC, said it was based on a/some universal constant like the hydrogen atom wavelength. Guess we need to start including a conversion factor in the headers. Ya just never can tell. Then, very, very deep, bury a representation of a circle in the number pi. That'll get 'em. Miss you Carl. Chris Hornbeck "Happiness isn't something you experience; it's something you remember." -Oscar Levant |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:20:37 -0800, play on
wrote: ... glad I got to live near the top of the curve. Just this past week was talking to a guy I've known casually/biz for a few years, and had a few spare moments. He talked about getting out and riding on his Harley post-crash and some fender-straightening for both of them, and then he volunteered how lucky he felt to have been born and lived in exactly the right time. We dickered a while until throwing down that we were both born in 1950. It's the magic number, and if I ever forget it, just make sure the med school kids have use of my carcass. And that disposal's on their dime. I've lived in the best of times, and my generation ate the seed corn. But I ain't dead yet. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... I've lived in the best of times, and my generation ate the seed corn. Maybe, and you also ate all the crop. I'm sure there are plenty of Biafrans, Somali's, Ugandan's, Sudanese, etc. etc, born in 1950, that may not think they lived in "the best of times". (certainly not in the best of places at the time) I'm sure there are plenty of Kings, Queens, Phaeroes, rich *******s of old, that didn't live too badly either. Taking all the available wealth, and keeping it for the priveledged few, goes back many millenia in fact. As long as you belong to the priveledged few, it's always good times. MrT. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:40:23 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message .. . I've lived in the best of times, and my generation ate the seed corn. Maybe, and you also ate all the crop. Yeah I'd say we ate the fruits, not the seeds. I'm sure there are plenty of Biafrans, Somali's, Ugandan's, Sudanese, etc. etc, born in 1950, that may not think they lived in "the best of times". (certainly not in the best of places at the time) I'm sure there are plenty of Kings, Queens, Phaeroes, rich *******s of old, that didn't live too badly either. That's true, but millions of modern middle class people live better than most kings and emperors of old did... except maybe for the slaves & personal servants. Taking all the available wealth, and keeping it for the priveledged few, goes back many millenia in fact. As long as you belong to the priveledged few, it's always good times. But the number and percentage of people who have relatively little real hardship nowadays is pretty significant. Ak |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:40:23 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message .. . I've lived in the best of times, and my generation ate the seed corn. Maybe, and you also ate all the crop. I'm sure there are plenty of Biafrans, Somali's, Ugandan's, Sudanese, etc. etc, born in 1950, that may not think they lived in "the best of times". (certainly not in the best of places at the time) I'm sure there are plenty of Kings, Queens, Phaeroes, rich *******s of old, that didn't live too badly either. Taking all the available wealth, and keeping it for the priveledged few, goes back many millenia in fact. As long as you belong to the priveledged few, it's always good times. Exactly. Sorry it wasn't clearer. OTOH, a heads-up to future generations seems wasted. Oh, well. I'm all yelled out. I feel that we post-war pre-collapse Americans had the best. Just dumb blind ****-house luck, but I'll take it over smart anytime. I'm still working to leave the best world I can for later generations. Sometimes it's just acknowledgling my own good fortune. Sometimes it's yelling about my generation's failures. When you get to being the same generation as the President's, you may have yer own doubts. So, in reposte, what do you suggest? From your privileged position of virtuous anonymity? Chris Hornbeck |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play on" wrote in message ... That's true, but millions of modern middle class people live better than most kings and emperors of old did... except maybe for the slaves & personal servants. It's all relative. But the number and percentage of people who have relatively little real hardship nowadays is pretty significant. Numbers yes. We now have hundreds of times more people than we did a 1000 years ago. Percentage, perhaps. But there are also FAR more people starving as well. Far more dieing of disease every day. Just be glad you're not one of them. MrT. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... So, in reposte, what do you suggest? From your privileged position of virtuous anonymity? Priveledged :-) Well yes, compared to half the worlds population. I have no solution to the problem of universal greed. Those in favour of it far outweigh those against. Even poor people often vote to maintain the imbalance in the vain hope that they can switch sides one day. (A version of greed for people who have nothing) MrT. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:35:28 GMT, Logan Shaw wrote: Hmm, it just occurs to me that if CDs survive but working CD players and documentation how to make one aren't available, then there is going to be one thing that will be tricky to reverse engineer: the sampling rate! IIRC, the last time this came up, I brought up the V'ger gold music disc, and wondered how a time base was included. Paul Stamler, again IIRC, said it was based on a/some universal constant like the hydrogen atom wavelength. You recall correctly; it was the transition frequency of neutral hydrogen, 1.420 GHz, the so-called "song of hydrogen". Its wavelength was used as a length standard too. Peace, Paul |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play on" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:07:30 GMT, james of tucson wrote: Now, there are people who argue that digital systems don't render sufficient quality to justify switching from analog. There are others who claim that's a load of crap. I really don't see how anyone can argue that analog tape sounds more true and accurate to the source than good digital. Someone may like the "sound" of analog tape better, but that's a separate issue. Most of us grew up hearing analog recordings and so that has been our point of reference for recorded music to date, however that certainly does not make it objectively "better". Okay, here goes. This will sound obvious to many of you, and like total subjective horse**** to the rest. So be it; to paraphrase Colin Fletcher, I am pleased to be able to bring such happiness into the world. If you've spent any time at all working with good professional gear, up there on at least the U87/Great River level, in decent rooms, listening to good musicians through good quality monitors, you'll know what I mean when I talk about a signal monifored from a mike feed that has IT. What is IT? Something audio writers have been struggling to express for decades; some names that have been tried include warmth, liquid sound, effortlessness, sweetness, musicality. None of those really gets there; all are gropings in the dark, but like the Supreme Court justice (Potter Stewart?) said about obscenity, he couldn't define it, but he knew it when he saw it. This thing I'm talking about, you all have heard it if you've been around pro studio audio for a while. IT's magical, and IT's one of the things that keeps us in this meshugieh business -- the chance to hear sounds like that, and sometimes get paid for it. For want of better words, I'll keep using the word IT. Note that this has nothing to do with recordings yet; it's only a mike feed. What Scott said about crappy equipment a couple of weeks ago is pertinent here -- one piece of crappy gear in the recording chain is enough to damage a recording, and you'll never undo the damage. (He said it better, and Hank made it a .sig file. But I digress.) Now, let's talk about analog gear. Good analog tape gear, on the level of at least an Ampex AG440 in good repair, properly calibrated on good tape at 15 or 30 ips, manages to preserve the magical stuff we're calling IT. The tape machine adds some hiss, bass bumps, and other maddening annoyances, but still preserves IT. The magic is still there. Never mind the business of "euphonic distortion" or "tape sound" or any other stuff like that; we're talking about *preserving* a sound. Good analog tape gear can do it. Whereas, for most audiophiles and a helluva lot of recording engineers, the first few generations of digital did not. That magical IT which comes pouring out of our monitors on a good day...went away when it was recorded on digital tape. Why? It took a long, long time and a lot of poking at the supposedly perfect medium to uncover some of the causes, but to this day most of the 16 bit 44.1kHz-sampling recordings I hear fail to preserve that magical whatever-the-hell-it-is, to my ears, and to the ears of many recording engineers and producers. Hence the conitnuing attachment to analog tape. Let me repeat, for the second, but not the last time: this has *nothing* to do with euphonic distortion, or anything else that analog tape supposedly adds. And this is despite an intimate knowledge of tape's problems. Believe me, we know. Noise. Distortion. Bass woodles at random moments. Wow. Flutter. All that stuff, we know. Back to digital for the most part. Digital has gotten better, lots better. For me, the transition point was when we went from 16 bits to 24; I hear improvements at higher sample rates, yes, but they're pretty minor to my ears. The change from 16 to 24 bits was not minor. I didn't hear less noise. How the hell could I, when I wasn't hearing the noise from 16-bit systems? But what happened was that I was beginning to hear IT again. Why? From a measurement point of view, there should be little audible difference between 16 and 24 bit systems; as has been correctly pointed out, there's no possible way to use the dynamic range of a 24 bit recording with real-world sources. But the difference is there, and it's all about IT. These days, good high-bit, high-sample-rate recordings are getting closer to that holy grail of ceasing to interfere with the magic of the mike feed. The few times I've heard SACD, it delivered the magic as well. In fact, it sounded like a clean Ampex recorder, with no hiss, wow or flutter. Once more, and the last time, this is not about analog tape adding some kind of euphonic magic to a signal. It's about analog tape's ability, despite all its faults, to preserve magic that's already there. And it's about the failure of early digital to preserve that magic. And the hope that recent digital gear will do better, maybe to the point where it's no longer subtracting any of the magic, but letting it through. At which point, analog diehards will happily switch to digital-only studios, except for special effects, because they know analog's defects better than anyone. Okay, it's time for bed. Like I said at the beginning, for some of you this will make sense and be obvious, for others it will sound like the rantings of an old fart. (I should add, by the way, that I quit using analog several years ago for entirely unrelated reasons; I do remote recording for the most part, and I can no longer carry my analog recorders, not if I want to keep on playing guitar. At that time, I knew I was taking a step backward in sound, but I had no choice; these days, digital's quality has improved so much that I'm a lot less concerned.) In the end, it's about that thing we can't put into words, and *preserving* IT for others to hear. Peace, Paul |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ... In the end, it's about that thing we can't put into words, and *preserving* IT for others to hear. Which unfortunately they will never hear because they do not have the same speakers in the same room as you heard IT. And that will make **FARRR** more difference to IT than going from 16 bits to 24 bits. Oh well, it does no harm, only to the wallet :-) MrT. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. T mrt@home wrote:
"Logan Shaw" wrote in message ... Mike Rivers wrote: One never knows. Far enough in the future and we may not have a clue as to what these objects are. And computers will probably take some other form that's different enough than how we process bits today that it may not occur to someone how to do it. And magnetic tapes will change to sticky goo eventually. Well, eventually we encounter the heat death of the universe. But I have some BASF tape here from 1936 that is just fine. It sheds a lot, though. If civilization collapses and is rebuilt, they could be listening to our compact discs at 50000 Hz or something! And it would sound a lot better than could be possibly obtained from a reel of sticky goo :-) I bet a nickel that red oxide tapes outlast CD pressings by a good bit. You could (a week ago anyway) buy Quantegy 641, which is basically known to last fifty years since the formulation hasn't changed in fifty years and none of the tapes stored properly have had problems. It's what the LoC was mandating for audio archives. And I already have some CD pressings from the 1980s which are failing, although mostly due to manufacturing defects. Of course Any decent musician could adjust the sample rate by ear to give proper musical scale intervals, if that was the only problem. I thought the intervals stayed the same, that just the base tone changed? So if you run a 7.5 ips tape at 15, everything was just pitched up by an octave but the harmonic relationships remained the same. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
play on wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 13:27:41 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: james of tucson wrote: On 2005-01-13, Mike Rivers wrote: They have the equipment, they have the money, all they need is the tape. They didn't expect that to be yanked away from them suddenly. Suddenly? The demise of vinyl might have been sudden, but the writing's been on the wall about the coming of digital for a couple of decades. What demise of vinyl? I have cutting jobs booked up about three weeks in advance right now. But is that anything more than a niche market? It's actually two niche markets that don't overlap. But I don't see either one going away soon. The audio field is -all about- niche markets. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
but to this day
most of the 16 bit 44.1kHz-sampling recordings I hear fail to preserve that magical whatever-the-hell-it-is, to my ears, and to the ears of many recording engineers and producers. Hence the conitnuing attachment to analog tape. BRBR So what? People are listening to MP3s on their ipods. I agree it is a shame that cheap mediocre digital beat out expensive, good analog, but it's a fact regardless. If you have a home project studio and the personal finances to keep up a nice old Neve and a tweaked out Ampex or Studer, I say do it. Keep the art alive. I have to feed my kids with the money my studio earns. For me, Pro Tools is the only option. For better or worse it is the standard. I have a good signal chain both to and from my Pro Tools rig, and I know my recordings will sound better in the studio than they will once they've been optimized for streaming over the Internet. But I'm in this for the money. I do care about fidelity and I do try within reason to use the best equipment I can get. I drew the line at analog tape a year or so ago because it was a money-losing proposition. My house and family mean more to me than "Analog tape warmth". Plus I just got this new 16:9 projector and the ProTools mix window looks really cool 7' wide. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"james of tucson" wrote in message
atory.com... ..the continuity inherent in an analog singal path is not really available in digital. Each magnetic particle can only be magnitized in one direction at a time! It's a random sample rate rather than a fixed one but analog tape has no inherent continuity and produces plenty of ugly distortion unless you mix in a high frequency bias signal which is very much like dithering a digital recording. There are many reasons digital gear often doesn't sound as good as analog gear but an "infinate sample-rate" is not one of them. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article mrt@home writes: You think books on the subject won't last 300 years either? Can you tell us why we have books from a thousand years ago then? We have some great historical documents, but try to find a manual for DOS 1.0 today, 20 years later. You'll have to go to a collector, and how many generations of his ancestors will think it's worth keeping? -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article mrt@home writes: No, he's just trying to justify a fixation on tape over digital. He personally *PREFERS* it, doesn't seem to be adequate for some reason. I never said that I prefer it, I just thing that as an archive medium, it has a better chance of being recoverable than a digital medium. As I said, there's no big trick to playing an analog tape (the trick is to make it sound really good) because basically there's only one way to do it. But how many digital data format, as well as media formats, and hardware interfaces for that media have we had? Those are the parts that will require either documentation or reverse engineering in order to get the first byte off the media. Then you have the problem (which everyone seems to think is no problem) of turning those bytes into listenable audio. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but somehow I think that the big grant money is will still go toward reading some 5,000 year old religious doctrine than to listen to Britney Spears sing "Oops I Did It Again." I could be wrong about that, but I'm glad I won't be around to find out if I am. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article mrt@home writes: "Paul Stamler" wrote in message In the end, it's about that thing we can't put into words, and *preserving* IT for others to hear. Which unfortunately they will never hear because they do not have the same speakers in the same room as you heard IT. And that will make **FARRR** more difference to IT than going from 16 bits to 24 bits. Obviously you're not a serious recording engineer, just a ****** who likes to argue. Otherwise you wouldn't say that like you mean it. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
EganMedia wrote:
So what? People are listening to MP3s on their ipods. I agree it is a shame that cheap mediocre digital beat out expensive, good analog, but it's a fact regardless. I disagree completely. High grade digital might very well beat out good analogue, but high grade digital isn't cheap either. Analogue recording is a useful tool to have in the bag of tricks, and it's one that people will miss a lot. But I'm in this for the money. I do care about fidelity and I do try within reason to use the best equipment I can get. I drew the line at analog tape a year or so ago because it was a money-losing proposition. My house and family mean more to me than "Analog tape warmth". Hmm... the reason I keep analogue gear around is because I find it a lot more profitable. Customers will pay a lot more for it per hour, and it brings a lot of new people in that otherwise wouldn't look twice at the place. If it weren't profitable, I'd probably not be using it either. And I will say that in some market sectors it's absolutely essential to have if you want to market yourself, while in others the customers don't even know what it is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play on" wrote in message
... It still seems like a silly argument to me... are you anticipating some kind of armageddon where no digital technology will survive, but analog tech will? In fact digital technology already has a horrendous track record of early digital recordings becoming impossible to play. Analog technology is many orders of magnitude simpler and is not dependent on massively expensive technology to build its component parts. You can't just go down to the store and buy a replacement chip for anything digital that wasn't manufactured within the past ten years. In fact nobody can afford to make critical replacement parts for a lot of solid state audio gear that was made in the '70s and '80s while a 1940s radio isn't much of a problem. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EganMedia" wrote in message
... So what? People are listening to MP3s on their ipods. And those very same people are constantly bitching about how "overpriced" music is which suggests they aren't REALLY all that happy with or satisfied by what they are hearing! -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Olhsson" wrote in message In fact digital technology already has a horrendous track record of early digital recordings becoming impossible to play. Analog technology is many orders of magnitude simpler and is not dependent on massively expensive technology to build its component parts. You can't just go down to the store and buy a replacement chip for anything digital that wasn't manufactured within the past ten years. Obsolete Technology survives in many ways. Many of my trurly Geek Friends (and I say that in a good way!) still have computers that work with 5" floppies readres, old chips, etc... A lot of them really liked the first Tandy and/or Atari computers and still maintain them. There are others in the more high end techno land that are now producing digital bit scanning technology that is not dependant on the media used. The scanners read whatever is present on whatever media is there. Kind a little like a data Xray that can read anything via imaging. After that it would be a simple matter of writing emulation software to decode Dos or Windows or DASH or whatever data is used. So there is hope I think. afford to make critical replacement parts for a lot of solid state audio gear that was made in the '70s and '80s while a 1940s radio isn't much of a problem. But wouldn't this be comparable to pre-40's car parts? People still craft parts in there garages for them, I imagine chip manufacturing technology will eventually end up in peoples garages too. In minature perhaps, with small clean rooms...but I still think people are facsinated enough with old technology that it will happen. -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Olhsson wrote:
"play on" wrote in message .. . It still seems like a silly argument to me... are you anticipating some kind of armageddon where no digital technology will survive, but analog tech will? In fact digital technology already has a horrendous track record of early digital recordings becoming impossible to play. Well, I tried to sell most of a Colossus on Ebay and didn't get a single bid. I've got a laserdisc recorder up there too for the third time. Nobody even seems to be trying to preserve this technology. And that is what is most scary. But I want it out of my house because I really do not have room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nathan West" wrote in message
m... .... I imagine chip manufacturing technology will eventually end up in peoples garages too. Maybe you need to learn a bit more about chip manufacturing technology! -- Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined! 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
What demise of vinyl? I have cutting jobs booked up about three weeks in advance right now. Groovy!! -- ha |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS Reel To Reel parts | Marketplace | |||
| FS: Otari Reel to Reel 2" inch MTR 90 tape recorder | Marketplace | |||
| FS: Otari Reel to Reel 2" inch MTR 90 tape recorder | Pro Audio | |||
| Reel to reel plays backwards | Pro Audio | |||
| FA: 3 Rare Reel to Reel Music Tapes, Vintage | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
