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

Tue Mar 23 12:08:54 AKDT 2010

Interesting, Bob.  My "little" brother is 'Ultra 
Fidelis' in Milwaukee, WI, and I remember 
discussing with him about CDs and LPs, many years 
ago.  He argued, at the time, that ANY TIME you 
convert from one system to another 
(live-->analog-->HiFi-->ear, or 
live-->analog-->digital-->analog-->HiFi-->ear) 
you lose some information, so the final product 
will NEVER be as good as the original, and will 
be worse with digital recording.  He also said 
that, because of the mechanical components, a CD 
player would NEVER cost less than about 
$350.00.  Well, he still sells vacuum tubes and 
vinyl, but HE listens to CDs and DVDs...go 
figure!!!  Any of you guys with deep pockets who 
love great music, Jon travels around the country 
installing top-line audio and visual equipment -- 
http://www.ultrafi.com/  a shameless plug. :-)

At 03:38 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
>I still play LP's . . . . . . none of that 
>chopped-up digital for me, analog forever !!!!!
>
>Bob Kane
>getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>--- On Tue, 3/23/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious - Transmitter Specs...
>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 3:05 PM
>
>All of this seems very reminiscent of CDâ€™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 thatâ€™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.    Thatâ€™s good 
>news.   Just like with CDâ€™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 
>â€œslowâ€ ones to market and gave us a starting point.
>
>
>
>But weâ€™re quickly approaching the point where 
>IMHO, latency will be just as irrelevant as 
>resolution in that all the systems will be 
>faster than weâ€™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, theyâ€™ll be equals.
>
>
>
>Ok, thatâ€™s my $0.02
>
>
>
>I think Iâ€™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
>
>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:
>
>Iâ€™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 â€œfeelâ€ 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20100323/84de02fa/attachment.html>