[NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...

[Phil Spelt]

GREAT analysis, Mark!  Thanks...obviously, I agree!

At 03:05 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841PEVM01paragon_"
>
>All of this seems very reminiscent of CD’s first coming to the market.
>
>New technology invariably brings a shift in the 
>metrics and specs that we use to evaluate 
>it.  So yes, Latency is the new holy grail, but that’s probably accurate.
>
>Quick rewind.  Prior to CDs, shopping for stereo 
>equipment was all about reading the specs, Total 
>harmonic distortion, Signal to Noise ratios, 
>blah blah.  Good specs (for the most part) meant 
>good sound.  And as with all multi component 
>systems, quality depended on the lowest quality 
>component in the system.  A great amp was only 
>as good as the speakers it was driving
and so forth.
>
>Then came Compact Discs, and initially, people 
>were still looking at Signal to Noise ratios on 
>CD players.  It took a few years before it set 
>in that the signal to noise ratio was SO high 
>(unlike a phono or tape deck) that even the 
>crappiest CD players had Signal to Noise ratios 
>that were far superior to anything the human ear 
>could hear and THD that was for all purposes, 
>zero.   On the other hand, new specs DID add 
>value.  Sampling rate, digital to analog 
>conversion rates, etc, became the new measures 
>by which to purchase.    As these have evolved, 
>even those became meaningless to all but the 
>extreme audiophile as again, even the cheapest 
>players had specs that exceeded our ability to hear the difference.
>
>We have the same phenomenon occurring in our 
>hobby.    Latency is a new measure for all 
>intents and purposes, since in there was little 
>variability in the PPM and AM days.
>
>I would argue to all that resolutions above 512, 
>and certainly above 1024, are no longer the 
>weakest component in the system.  Slop in our 
>servo gears and  control linkages, even the best 
>ball bearing ones, still exceed that of a single 
>point of resolution at 1024.    That’s good 
>news.   Just like with CD’s, it means even the 
>less expensive radios now have resolution that exceeds our needs.
>
>Latency has become a concern only because the 
>early versions of 2.4 had some high latency.  I 
>can NOT knock pioneers who pave the way for the 
>rest to follow and improve on.   We only have 
>faster systems because they brought the first 
>“slow” ones to market and gave us a starting point.
>
>But we’re quickly approaching the point where 
>IMHO, latency will be just as irrelevant as 
>resolution in that all the systems will be 
>faster than we’re able to perceive and discern any difference.
>
>Yeah, there will always be those that purchase 
>on the technical superiority of a product, but 
>practically speaking, they’ll be equals.
>
>Ok, that’s my $0.02
>
>I think I’ll go play an album

>
>Mark Atwood
>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com 
>|  www.paragon-inc.com
>
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM
>To: General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious
>
>Andrew Jesky wrote:
>I’m with you on this one Mark, I could notice 
>the latency a little bit in some systems but the 
>servo grouping is nothing that I can tell. I 
>think the guys that really see this are the heli 
>guys. I have talked to many of them and they do 
>tend to tell me they can “feel” the difference. 
>They are using much more servo throw all the 
>time between positive and negative collective as well as cyclic.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>Andrew is right, this all got started with the 
>heli guys who flew CCPM. On a big plane grouping 
>is noce just to minimize servo stress and 
>current draw, but it is not something you are 
>going to feel while flying. And in a glider the 
>only thing I ever work hard on matching is that 
>the flap throw is matched through the entire range of movement.
>
>Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even 
>heard of latency, now it is the Holy Grail.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100323/10d7dfd8/attachment.html>