>On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:01:19 UTC, "jjs" wrote:
>

>>
>> "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote in message
>> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-05Pjo1GDvnvu@m...
>>

>>> One of my most disappointing experiences came when I addressed a note to
>>> large general-interest (i.e., time-wasting) mail list at work where this
>>> had come up, commenting on the fact that testing a reducion of error rates
>>> on a *digital* medium needn't be done by "hey, it sounds better" but by
>>> actua *digital* instrumentation, and getting blank stares and stupid
>>> answers -- in a technoid company, digital category. And not from dumb
>>> sales and management people.

>>
>> Am I understanding properly that you suggested that they use an analog
>> instrument to test error rates of a digital instrument?

>
>Sorry, my rant was much too condensed to be intelligible.
>
>No, THEY thought that by gum, it DID sound better if you coated it with
>green marking pen, and there was mumbling about reducing errors. I
>suggested that if youreally were interested in error rates on a digital
>medium, you could instrment the digital circuitry to count the errors;
>that's when I got uncomprehending nonsense. (And I had not been so terse
>on that occasion. Quite uncharacterustic, in fact.)