NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/arch/8435

Text File | 1992-07-29 | 4.0 KB | 97 lines

Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!white!sapphire.rtsg.mot.com!declrckd
From: [e-mail] (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: marble
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:46:53 GMT
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iain McVey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>>As for CD players, there are oodles of technical advances over CD's
>>that make them far superior to records. Also note that all the
>>companies got together behind a single standard for the new format.
>
>technical advances?  far superior?  ( wrong group, but here goes )
>
>The only thing CD's have done for sound reproduction is removed media
>noise.
>
>brick wall filtering introduces annoying harmonics, and your ear does
>hear quantization noise.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I own a CD player and love the crisp sound you get
>every time, and the fact that I don't have to wipe down the discs each
>time I play them.  I also realize that a $200 CD player will definitely
>out perform a $200 turntable.
>
>But if you have a decent turntable and haven't used it in a while, dig
>it out and play some of your records.  You will be surprised at how good
>they do sound.  There is a warmth that comes from vinyl that is very
>difficult to produce from a CD player.

Bob Carver (Mr Sonic Holography) introduced a CD player with a feature
to make your CD's sound like vinyl Albums. The product lasted 6 months.
There isn't any recordings I'd rather listen on vinyl....

The point is, after technology is old, it is only used by the nostalgics,
or the niche players.


>
>Let's face it, cd's are so popular because of their ease of use and
>lack of background noise, not because the sound they do produce is of
>any superior quality.

I disagree, see above.

>
>To tie this in with the comp.arch discussion, a computer system is far
>more than its cpu.  How well the cpu fits into the rest of the system,
>the quality of the overall systems architecture, and the quality of the
>other components have more to do with the quality of the overall system.
>
>CD players tend to have very poor supporting components, such as the
>preamps on the outputs of the D/A.  This does more to contribute to
>distortion and anomolies than the actual D/A converter and filters.
>
>Similarly it tends to be the bus on a DOS box that is the limiting
>factor to its performance, expandibility and flexibility.

No it's the limited address space brought on by an antique
operating system (if you call DOS and operating system).
Also, it is living with compatibility (mostly segments) back to the 8080
that haunts most application developers (mxing pointer types, mostly)

The bus is the most standardized and expanded device on the planet
(short of, maybe the screwdriver and ratchet wrench).


>
>People tend to attack the cpu in DOS boxes, and worry over backwards
>compatiblity.  Perhaps we should look to improve the rest of the system
>as well.
>

The first thing, is to drop the OS, whilst giving some form of
compatibility. OS/2 should have done this, and it would have
if it were priced at less than $150, and not been so piggy with
resources (It is simple, OS/2's marketing approach from initial
design to implementation sucked!). If IBM gave it away with
PS/2's, made it less encompassing (less features, smaller), they
would have sold a LOT of hardware. But, hindsight is always 20/20..

-Dan



--
=> Dan DeClerck                      |  EMAIL: [e-mail]<=
=> Motorola Intl Subscriber Group    |                                    <=
=>                                   |  Phone: [phone]             <=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------