<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: 1982: The Age Of Digital Audio Begins (REVISED)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.preservationsound.com/1982-the-age-of-digital-audio-begins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/1982-the-age-of-digital-audio-begins/</link>
	<description>information and ideas about audio history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:53:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Bafflegab		</title>
		<link>https://www.preservationsound.com/1982-the-age-of-digital-audio-begins/#comment-130077</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bafflegab]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=6190#comment-130077</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Futurologists are almost always wrong, because they are not paid to accurately predict the future, but to say what the people paying them want saying. And there is no feedback mechanism to reward accuracy or punish inaccuracy. There is, however, a powerful mechanism to punish Incorrectness, whether political or technical. 

 The very first commercial digital recordings were in fact  a lot better than those to come for the next many years, because the proprietary machines were not cost-engineered. They didn&#039;t know how to build them except to do everything as well as they could and pass the cost on. Then a consensus developed as to where cost cutting could be undertaken and things like Alesis ADAT were the result. They were a  step down from the Otari and Tascam analog machines and a bigger step from the Ampex AG440, but they were affordable. 

 This cycle is a constant. The first one works, succeeds, more profits are &quot;needed&quot;, cost cutting is implemented, quality tanks, sales drop, and there is a corporate come-to-Jesus meeting where a top exec and a few MBAs are purged, quality goes up for a whlle, then the cycle restarts. 

 The best digital is now where the best analog was in the sixties, but there is a lot of bad digital, because it&#039;s cheap.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Futurologists are almost always wrong, because they are not paid to accurately predict the future, but to say what the people paying them want saying. And there is no feedback mechanism to reward accuracy or punish inaccuracy. There is, however, a powerful mechanism to punish Incorrectness, whether political or technical. </p>
<p> The very first commercial digital recordings were in fact  a lot better than those to come for the next many years, because the proprietary machines were not cost-engineered. They didn&#8217;t know how to build them except to do everything as well as they could and pass the cost on. Then a consensus developed as to where cost cutting could be undertaken and things like Alesis ADAT were the result. They were a  step down from the Otari and Tascam analog machines and a bigger step from the Ampex AG440, but they were affordable. </p>
<p> This cycle is a constant. The first one works, succeeds, more profits are &#8220;needed&#8221;, cost cutting is implemented, quality tanks, sales drop, and there is a corporate come-to-Jesus meeting where a top exec and a few MBAs are purged, quality goes up for a whlle, then the cycle restarts. </p>
<p> The best digital is now where the best analog was in the sixties, but there is a lot of bad digital, because it&#8217;s cheap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
