Re: [ARSCLIST] Memorex CDs

[Jerome Hartke <jhartke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of steven c
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:05 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Memorex CDs
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerome Hartke" <jhartke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > After building crystal radio sets in the 1940's, with "Quaker Oats"
> > inductive slide tuners, I found that tubes, resistors, and capacitors
> were
> > quite sophisticated. All joking aside, we pay the price today for cheap,
> > reliable, and high performance electronic devices. This is mostly
> achieved
> > through the use of complex LSI chips with multilayer PC boards and tiny,
> > surface mount components.
> >
> > Returning to the "repairable" days would result in much higher cost,
> bigger,
> > less reliable devices having very limited capabilities. Which do we
> prefer?
> > I remember working in a radio repair shop in the 1950's where I
> identified
> > and replaced many faulty components, usually tubes and high voltage
> > electrolytic capacitors (vibrators and 0Z4 rectifiers in car radio power
> > supplies), and would not wish to return to those days.
> >
> Agreed...but I wonder if there might not be a better solution than
> building unserviceable devices, which wind up jamming our landfills!
> One thought...I have a c. 1970 Sony TV which has a number of replaceable
> plug-in modules (probably all long since out of production by now).
> If our devices were built this way...and if there was any standardization
> of modules like there was with tubes...things could be repaired rather
> than discarded...
> 
> ...stevenc
> http://users.interlinks.net/stevenc/

Replaceable modules require connectors, which increase cost and lower
reliability.

Jerry