home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!insti!jeff
- From: jeff@max.physics.sunysb.edu (Jeff Althoff)
- Subject: Re: "you never listen to my advice - READ THIS FOLKS"
- Message-ID: <BzMq0r.85s@max.physics.sunysb.edu>
- Organization: Institute for the Theoretical Physics
- References: <1992Dec18.185456.10120@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU> <1992Dec21.032703.19160@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:50:51 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- Ofer said:
- >After telling Steve I'd like to run analog tree off his 12.12 and 12.13
- >seed if he supplies me with the 4 analog tapes (and I never once, even remotely
- >"told" him what to do),
-
- I don't understand. Why can't you set up a DAT and analog tree? Steve
- could have sent a DAT seed to one person who could seed that DAT portion
- and then you just need some folks to do DAT-> analog and you have
- a nice tree. Saves some gens too because all the dat branches have analogs
- downstream, so people getting analogs don't have as many analog
- gens. With a pure analog tree, there's only one analog that came
- straight from dat, namely yours, with a tree that has DAT branches,
- many folks get analogs straight from dat. Better for everyone. I ran a
- tree for 9/10/91 this way, and I can tell you, nobody complains
- whan you put yourself right below the DAT-trunk of the tree (basically
- because of the work involved). A number of people get analogs straight
- from DAT and the overall quality of the tapes sent down the tree improves.
-
- DAT-trunk trees are the way to go! And Steve, I'm not suggesting you do
- anything here, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals and might have beens..
-
- Jeff
- >
- --
- --------------------------------------------
- Jeff Althoff jeff@max.physics.sunysb.edu
-