<html>
<body>
<font size=3>GREAT analysis, Mark! Thanks...obviously, I
agree!<br><br>
At 03:05 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_99B8EFCA36A5724F87FF3C71B431D872183386A841PEVM01paragon_"<br>
<br>
All of this seems very reminiscent of CD’s first coming to the
market.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Yeah, there will always be those that purchase on the technical
superiority of a product, but practically speaking, they’ll be
equals. <br>
<br>
Ok, that’s my $0.02<br>
<br>
I think I’ll go play an album…<br>
<br>
<b>Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc.</b> <b>|</b> President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 <br>
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 <b>|</b> Fax: 440.684.3102<br>
<a href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">
mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> <b>|</b>
<a href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.paragon-inc.com</a><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>Bill's Email<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] curious<br>
<br>
Andrew Jesky wrote: <br>
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. <br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br><br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
Like I said, a couple of years ago nobody even heard of latency, now it
is the Holy Grail.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<b><i>--></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3 color="#800000">
There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.<br><br>
</i></b></font><font size=3>Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio
Control Society, Inc.<br>
URL:
<a href="http://www.kcrctn.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.kcrctn.com<br>
</a>AMA--1294, Scientific Leader Member SPA--177, Board
Member<br>
My URL:
<a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/" eudora="autourl">
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/<br>
</a> (865) 435-1476 v (865) 604-0541
c </font></body>
</html>