Simulation Vs Real Things

[Eric Barbour]

Benjamin Robbins wrote:

>   This seems to be pretty common attitude of all you elitest analog
> enthusiest and I agree with you. Everyone wants the real thing, why
> recreate it when you can have the REAL thing. The question I pose to all
> of you out there is how many of you own some sort of surround sound
> system. Or how many of you are interested in ambisonic or other forms of
> 3-D sound. Those systems too are nothing more than attempts to recreate
> an acoutical environment. 

Don't look at me, man....I do most of my work in (heh, heh) mono........

> I would hope that we are not hypocrites here!

I'm not against any technology that has musical validity. The best
system
would be all technologies, wrapped up into one (bulky) cabinet. Throw it
all in--
granular, modeling, FM, additive, subtractive....analog and digital.

What I object to is the near-hysterical worship of digital technology
so prevalent today. The same kind of thing is going on in broadcasting
now--the U.S. government is planning to mandate digital TV broadcasting
by
2006 (I think that's the year). Thus, all Americans will be forced to
discard their old TVs and buy expensive new digital sets (or adapter
boxes
for the old set). This in spite of the proven fact that fringe reception
of
digital signals is inferior to conventionl analog AM/FM. 

Of course, the manufacturers of TV sets are pushing this as hard as
possible.
The broadcasters are more reluctant, yet for years they've been reading
these
shallow articles in industry journals, about how "groovy" digital is.
How it
is INEVITABLY going to replace analog TV. It is INEVITABLE!!! Sieg
heil!!

And the radio industry is in the same condition. The simple fact is, all
the
DAB schemes presented to the FCC to date have been inferior to plain AM
or FM
in weak-signal performance (in a tunnel or building, or fringe
reception).

Add the squabbling among industry giants, each with its own
standard (Eureka-147, BBC, etc. etc.) incompatible with the others.

Add the battle over bandspace with Teledesic, little LEO companies, the
military, etc etc...... 

for example, did you know that the little LEO companies want to take the
440-MHz, 220-MHz and 2-meter bands away from radio amateurs? Now, this
is
akin to heresy, since the hams perform valuable public services in
emergencies,
and they have a very strong lobby to boot. Still, the little-LEO outfits
are
fighting hard and passing out re-election money in Congress as fast as
they can.

(Little LEO is supposed to be a digital service, like PCS--digital
phones,
pagers etc. that work anywhere on earth. They are trying to get VHF/UHF
bandspace because the devices would be cheaper than microwave-frequency
receivers required by other services.)

These things are always INEVITABLE. An occasional voice of dissent is 
usually ignored. The lemmings of the industry go happily marching off
the
digital cliff, right behind their greedy CEOs. It has nothing to do with
"superior technology"--it has to do with marketing.

(a little too garish...sorry)

-- 
Eric Barbour
Svetlana Electron Devices
Portola Valley CA USA