Hope you recover soon, Lynn!
By the way, may I ask you about your experiences on aging suspensions of the P13W in your Ariel? I just read a post from somebody that wrote that the fs of the P13W went up from about 60 Hz to about 150 Hz after being unused for years.
If the drivers really age this way, one is certainly well advised not to build an Ariel with the original (now NOS) parts as performance suffers.
Plain Quantum mechanics are sufficient. But there really is not more to it (basically) as I lined out previously. Writing it down is the easy part.
Have fun, Hannes
By the way, may I ask you about your experiences on aging suspensions of the P13W in your Ariel? I just read a post from somebody that wrote that the fs of the P13W went up from about 60 Hz to about 150 Hz after being unused for years.
If the drivers really age this way, one is certainly well advised not to build an Ariel with the original (now NOS) parts as performance suffers.
Plain Quantum mechanics are sufficient. But there really is not more to it (basically) as I lined out previously. Writing it down is the easy part.
Have fun, Hannes
h_a said:
Huh - that's news to me. I bang on my Ariels pretty regularly, since they are connected to my Denon 2905 home theater receiver most of the time. So whenever a TV show with decent audio is on, or we watch a DVD, they're in use. I replaced all the drivers about 6 years ago - one of the tweeters developed a buzz and one of the Vifa's had the surround come unglued. No point replacing one driver - they won't match the older ones - so I replaced all the drivers at the same time.
I suspect the Vifa was subtly modified over the years - my darkest suspicions is that it was cheapened while nobody was looking. But that's just a feeling. I definitely preferred the older Scan-Speak 9000 to the 9500 I have now - I don't find the dryer sound of the 9500 all that appealing. There was a wonderful "liquid" quality to the 9000 that seems to have disappeared from modern Scan-Speak tweeters.
Since it would be a giant hassle to re-design the crossover to cater to the subtly different drivers, I considered for a while re-vamping the Ariel to a Mark II version using the Audio Technology drivers. That have the same beautiful sonics as the older Scan-Speaks - no surprise, since the designer is the same.
It's the designer, not the name of the company, that is responsible for the sonics of a driver or a complete loudspeaker system. The name of the company means nothing if the original designers have left - in particular, older drivers may have subtle parts and assembly changes that take it well away from the original designer's intent.
Since the "sound" is the result of the designer, not the brand name, it can be difficult to follow as designers move from company to company. The companies usually go out of their way to conceal personnel changes, so it helps to ask around and find out who designed which driver. Those are the people you want to follow, since their "sound" will follow them. The "sound", of course, is a collection of hard-won knowledge by the designer, combined with personal preferences.
My go-to resource on H1N1 is Effect Measure, a science blog. As mentioned in the comments on this posting, "testing is now focusing on those with severe disease, those at high risk due to underlying conditions, and those whose cases might be indicative of the virus moving into new environments. As a result, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. should not be expected to be anything like the true number of cases."
For political and economic reasons, people are not being advised to avoid unnecessary air travel. But I would think twice about being cooped up in a poorly-ventilated tin can for several hours with passengers from all over the world - the same for a cruise ship. The reason I suspect what I had was H1N1 was the unusual variety and fast-moving diversity of the symptoms - every day was different, something I've never experienced before with influenza.
Although H1N1 is now considered "mild" compared to how it looked at first, I can say from experience that is a very relative term. If I had an underlying health condition it would have been very serious, not just unpleasant. As it was, it went after my ears, sinuses, and eyes (in a day-by-day progression), as well as my lungs, and that's when I went to the hospital to get antibiotics. If I had been this sick in a hotel in a foreign country, it would have been quite frightening, and relying on unknown medical system would not have been pleasant. As it was, I had Karna as a 24-hour caretaker, and slept (as well as I could) in my own bed. That, and the availability of medical care, made a big difference.
So keep the soft-pedaling by the authorities in mind. They are trying to protect the airlines and the tourism industries, and as this link discusses, there are pressures on the WHO to not raise the pandemic level to Six - for political reasons. I'm not joking about getting an N95 mask - travelers would be wise to use them, no matter what people think about how they look.
For political and economic reasons, people are not being advised to avoid unnecessary air travel. But I would think twice about being cooped up in a poorly-ventilated tin can for several hours with passengers from all over the world - the same for a cruise ship. The reason I suspect what I had was H1N1 was the unusual variety and fast-moving diversity of the symptoms - every day was different, something I've never experienced before with influenza.
Although H1N1 is now considered "mild" compared to how it looked at first, I can say from experience that is a very relative term. If I had an underlying health condition it would have been very serious, not just unpleasant. As it was, it went after my ears, sinuses, and eyes (in a day-by-day progression), as well as my lungs, and that's when I went to the hospital to get antibiotics. If I had been this sick in a hotel in a foreign country, it would have been quite frightening, and relying on unknown medical system would not have been pleasant. As it was, I had Karna as a 24-hour caretaker, and slept (as well as I could) in my own bed. That, and the availability of medical care, made a big difference.
So keep the soft-pedaling by the authorities in mind. They are trying to protect the airlines and the tourism industries, and as this link discusses, there are pressures on the WHO to not raise the pandemic level to Six - for political reasons. I'm not joking about getting an N95 mask - travelers would be wise to use them, no matter what people think about how they look.
swine flu
Don't give up your day job....
No amount of government intervention is gonna protect anyone from viral illness. Common sense should always be the #1 tenet of interacting with the public (I know this, I deal with sick parents and children EVERY day)
Flu is flu... it's all contagious (as is streptococcal infection, nasopharyngitis, bronchial infections, gastroenteritis, etc.) Testing for H1N1 is pretty useless (except for political reasons), since there's nothing different in the treatment vs. standard flu. Treat it with tammyflu, whatever, you're still sick.
Probably 90% of our office visits are unnecessary overutilization of the medical care system by patients who can't cope with the reality that there is very little in medicine that can't be fixed by "tincture of time"... it's just that most of the public lives on the "sound bite" mentality of "quick fixes", get the doctors reassurance so I don't have to be personally responsible, etc.
Is it any wonder medical care consumes 20% of our GDP??
(getting down from the stump... ;-)
John L
Don't give up your day job....
No amount of government intervention is gonna protect anyone from viral illness. Common sense should always be the #1 tenet of interacting with the public (I know this, I deal with sick parents and children EVERY day)
Flu is flu... it's all contagious (as is streptococcal infection, nasopharyngitis, bronchial infections, gastroenteritis, etc.) Testing for H1N1 is pretty useless (except for political reasons), since there's nothing different in the treatment vs. standard flu. Treat it with tammyflu, whatever, you're still sick.
Probably 90% of our office visits are unnecessary overutilization of the medical care system by patients who can't cope with the reality that there is very little in medicine that can't be fixed by "tincture of time"... it's just that most of the public lives on the "sound bite" mentality of "quick fixes", get the doctors reassurance so I don't have to be personally responsible, etc.
Is it any wonder medical care consumes 20% of our GDP??
(getting down from the stump... ;-)
John L
Lynn Olson said:
There's more interest where that one comes from. Remember the bird flu AKA the bird flu hoax? Tamiflu was also then prescribed. At that time, one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary, and Tamiflu was $old by Roche on license from Gideon, the company that created the drug. Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gideon from 1997-2001.
Re: Uh, what?
While I don't have 20 years of musicianship, I think a distinction may be in order to clarify Xpert's comment and your experience. Typical monitoring during recording sessions seems to be done using a mixture of headphones and cheap basic monitors, such as the oh so famous Yamaha NS-10M. However, mastering, finalizing, etc. is often done separately and seem to use larger better, and often very expensive monitors which seem to often incorporate CD or quasi-CD designs. There are exceptions, even very famous ones (Abbey Road Studio's uses B&W for final mastering), which I suspect is because they realized that most home speakers aren't controlling directivity even remotely, and so mastering on speakers more akin to what people own is more valuable. I forget the name and type now, but I recall seeing a very expensive "radio speaker" monitor in a studio used to ensure that mixes sound decent on the types of speakers most music is listened to (i.e. TV speakers, radio speakers, and car speakers). It was basically a pair of cubes with very inexpensive full range speakers like you might find in a clock radio.
During a tour of one of Sony's recording studio's in NYC almost ten years ago now, the only CD designs I saw were in the mastering rooms. I was told by the mastering engineer that he typically worked in isolation from the rest of the process, and that the artist typically only heard this final mastered version on a cd copy sent to him, not in the mastering room. Why this was done I can't say, I found it strange, but that was their protocol.
With the quality of recordings coming out today, it wouldn't shock me one bit if all of this has fallen to the wayside. It just seems like nobody cares anymore. I keep hearing catch phrases like, aurilazation. I actually was told by an engineer that to save money and time, they stopped using mid and far field monitors for mastering in favor of headphones and aurlization techniques to mimic the effect. He told me that much of this mastering work that was, at one time, done by hand, is now done through software, almost completely hands off by the "engineer", and only a very short 1-2 hours of final mastering is done on the album. This was an engineer working for a major recording label, how had recently opened his own studio in NY because he was fed up with those sorts of cost cutting and thus quality cutting measures. Just sad in my opinion, and explains why I can count the number of recent recordings I have purchased on my fingers.
ion said:
While I don't have 20 years of musicianship, I think a distinction may be in order to clarify Xpert's comment and your experience. Typical monitoring during recording sessions seems to be done using a mixture of headphones and cheap basic monitors, such as the oh so famous Yamaha NS-10M. However, mastering, finalizing, etc. is often done separately and seem to use larger better, and often very expensive monitors which seem to often incorporate CD or quasi-CD designs. There are exceptions, even very famous ones (Abbey Road Studio's uses B&W for final mastering), which I suspect is because they realized that most home speakers aren't controlling directivity even remotely, and so mastering on speakers more akin to what people own is more valuable. I forget the name and type now, but I recall seeing a very expensive "radio speaker" monitor in a studio used to ensure that mixes sound decent on the types of speakers most music is listened to (i.e. TV speakers, radio speakers, and car speakers). It was basically a pair of cubes with very inexpensive full range speakers like you might find in a clock radio.
During a tour of one of Sony's recording studio's in NYC almost ten years ago now, the only CD designs I saw were in the mastering rooms. I was told by the mastering engineer that he typically worked in isolation from the rest of the process, and that the artist typically only heard this final mastered version on a cd copy sent to him, not in the mastering room. Why this was done I can't say, I found it strange, but that was their protocol.
With the quality of recordings coming out today, it wouldn't shock me one bit if all of this has fallen to the wayside. It just seems like nobody cares anymore. I keep hearing catch phrases like, aurilazation. I actually was told by an engineer that to save money and time, they stopped using mid and far field monitors for mastering in favor of headphones and aurlization techniques to mimic the effect. He told me that much of this mastering work that was, at one time, done by hand, is now done through software, almost completely hands off by the "engineer", and only a very short 1-2 hours of final mastering is done on the album. This was an engineer working for a major recording label, how had recently opened his own studio in NY because he was fed up with those sorts of cost cutting and thus quality cutting measures. Just sad in my opinion, and explains why I can count the number of recent recordings I have purchased on my fingers.
Re: Re: Uh, what?
Auratones AKA horrortones. They had them in the first studio I worked in. Their best use was somewhere to put my coffee mug.pjpoes said:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
yes sir, that looks like the ones I saw. I just checked my Full Compass catalog and noticed these:
Anyone explain to me why Studio's wouldn't simply buy a cheap pair of computer speakers for this purpose? Are these some how more reliable? I mean, 235 dollars per pair is a little disturbing when you consider what they are and what they are for. Here is another over priced example:
I understand why these exist, I understand what they are for, I even understand why normal cheap speakers wouldn't necessarily give you the same result. What I don't understand is why these can't be produced for 10 dollars, or why the thousands if not millions of computer speakers, using almost identical designs, can't serve the same purpose.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Anyone explain to me why Studio's wouldn't simply buy a cheap pair of computer speakers for this purpose? Are these some how more reliable? I mean, 235 dollars per pair is a little disturbing when you consider what they are and what they are for. Here is another over priced example:
I understand why these exist, I understand what they are for, I even understand why normal cheap speakers wouldn't necessarily give you the same result. What I don't understand is why these can't be produced for 10 dollars, or why the thousands if not millions of computer speakers, using almost identical designs, can't serve the same purpose.
Re: Re: Uh, what?
Hi,
What kinda recordings are You thinking of? In Germany CD-designs are common at least at radio stations. And, btw doesn't US Genelec sell anything? On the other hand my assumption isn't validated in a statistical sense, correct.
Can it be that You missed my blinking with ConstDir no good lifeless due perfection? I personally don't give to much on "CD". But it is a valid concept that has it's merits. To have an eye on the issue of controlled sound radiation is worth the effort. At least much more than overdoing enclosure death-quiet-non-resonating-things.
An other is level. You can't scale down music to some harmless by-the-way muzak without loosing it all. I experienced that whilst testing the CD thing. The necessary bigger midrange speakers did very well. So it's two for one. Bigger speakers good with level, good for CD.
so long
pjpoes said:
Hi,
What kinda recordings are You thinking of? In Germany CD-designs are common at least at radio stations. And, btw doesn't US Genelec sell anything? On the other hand my assumption isn't validated in a statistical sense, correct.
Can it be that You missed my blinking with ConstDir no good lifeless due perfection? I personally don't give to much on "CD". But it is a valid concept that has it's merits. To have an eye on the issue of controlled sound radiation is worth the effort. At least much more than overdoing enclosure death-quiet-non-resonating-things.
An other is level. You can't scale down music to some harmless by-the-way muzak without loosing it all. I experienced that whilst testing the CD thing. The necessary bigger midrange speakers did very well. So it's two for one. Bigger speakers good with level, good for CD.
so long
Many recording studios in the United States try to do things as cheaply as possible, unfortunately, and it's not uncommon to see the majority of mixing during recordings done on small book shelf sized speakers. I would say that the smaller JBL, Mackie, KRK, and Edirol designs, which I wouldn't really consider CD, are pretty common. Many costing substantially south of 2000 dollars, even in major big studios. While Genelec is a major company, they are Finish, not American, and I have actually never seen them in a studio. I know American studios use them, I just haven't been to one. Not all of there's are CD either, some might argue none of them are. That would add to the confusion of finding CD in studios, you can't always look at a speaker and know if it's CD or not. The last radio station I was in, which was for an advertisement for a program I was involved in, didn't even have monitors, just headphones, so it can really vary.
The merit of controlling directivity in some fashion, be it true CD or not, is something I happen to find very important in a speaker design. While I would be lying if I was to say that Dr. Geddes hadn't heavily influenced that opinion in recent times, I was heading in that direction on my own, which is how I found his speakers in the first place. The implications of a constant and smooth roll off as you get with a good CD is, to me, very important in ensuring a good in room response. To me it's not just the advantage in seat to seat consistency you might get in a theater, it is important for the person in the golden seat as well. While I have no idea what specific attributes contribute to a speakers ability to portray a convincing soundstage with the speakers disappearing, insturments well placed in space, etc., I can say that the Summa Abbey's do a better job than any direct radiator I have heard. A part of me wonders if the CD design has something to do with that, but without broader experience, I can't say. JBL Everests and K2's also seem to do this as well, as do the higher end KEF Reference lines, which also offer superb directivity control, which is why I suspect it. Previously I had thought maybe the phase response of the speaker was a major contributor, but all of those speakers use different crossovers with differing degrees of "linear phase" and, as such, I wouldn't expect all of them to have a good stage if the phae variations are so different between designs.
The merit of controlling directivity in some fashion, be it true CD or not, is something I happen to find very important in a speaker design. While I would be lying if I was to say that Dr. Geddes hadn't heavily influenced that opinion in recent times, I was heading in that direction on my own, which is how I found his speakers in the first place. The implications of a constant and smooth roll off as you get with a good CD is, to me, very important in ensuring a good in room response. To me it's not just the advantage in seat to seat consistency you might get in a theater, it is important for the person in the golden seat as well. While I have no idea what specific attributes contribute to a speakers ability to portray a convincing soundstage with the speakers disappearing, insturments well placed in space, etc., I can say that the Summa Abbey's do a better job than any direct radiator I have heard. A part of me wonders if the CD design has something to do with that, but without broader experience, I can't say. JBL Everests and K2's also seem to do this as well, as do the higher end KEF Reference lines, which also offer superb directivity control, which is why I suspect it. Previously I had thought maybe the phase response of the speaker was a major contributor, but all of those speakers use different crossovers with differing degrees of "linear phase" and, as such, I wouldn't expect all of them to have a good stage if the phae variations are so different between designs.
Re: Re: Uh, what?
Well I'm no professional musician by any means either. I'm a telecom engineer who just happen to like dabbling in sound.
For some reason though I seem to end up in studios here and there, and to say that all mixing is done on CD devices just seemed too big a generalization, at least from my humble experience.
I definitely think you have a point regarding the master mixing, this side (if used) is usually isolated from the rest of the production chain.
I think it is a bit sad that mixing seems to be more and more streamlined, (in a massproduction sense). Your story on software automated mixing (unfortunatly) sounds highly plausible. It makes sense (in a shortterm economical perspective) and it confirmes some of my fears regarding which direction the music industry is heading. It think it's hard to find good dynamic recordnings nowadays, especially for "mainstream" music. Seems like heavvy compression is applied routinely. But, on the other hand, it's not all that strange when you read stuff like this. :-/
Yep, the (in)famous NS-10 Monitor, It's still around. In fact, Last year, I saw it at the Swedish national radio recording studio, and I remember thinking to myself "Eww, hope you guys keep those just for purely nostalgic reasons" ;-)
Btw, a friend of mine is establishing a 5.1 mixing studio here in Montreal, I will check with him next time I see him what monitor he'll be using.
Cheers!
pjpoes said:
Well I'm no professional musician by any means either. I'm a telecom engineer who just happen to like dabbling in sound.
For some reason though I seem to end up in studios here and there, and to say that all mixing is done on CD devices just seemed too big a generalization, at least from my humble experience. I definitely think you have a point regarding the master mixing, this side (if used) is usually isolated from the rest of the production chain.
I think it is a bit sad that mixing seems to be more and more streamlined, (in a massproduction sense). Your story on software automated mixing (unfortunatly) sounds highly plausible. It makes sense (in a shortterm economical perspective) and it confirmes some of my fears regarding which direction the music industry is heading. It think it's hard to find good dynamic recordnings nowadays, especially for "mainstream" music. Seems like heavvy compression is applied routinely. But, on the other hand, it's not all that strange when you read stuff like this. :-/
Yep, the (in)famous NS-10 Monitor, It's still around. In fact, Last year, I saw it at the Swedish national radio recording studio, and I remember thinking to myself "Eww, hope you guys keep those just for purely nostalgic reasons" ;-)
Btw, a friend of mine is establishing a 5.1 mixing studio here in Montreal, I will check with him next time I see him what monitor he'll be using.
Cheers!
I typically don't see CD used in near field monitors, and thus, it's very uncommon in 5.1 mastering studios. What I tend to see are the earlier mentioned speakers, which are all available as THX certified (Genelec could be thrown into the list, but again, I just haven't seen them). They end up being smallish book shelf sized monitors more designed for near field or mid field listening. CD seems a more common trait of the midfield/far field monitors used, as I said, in mastering. Small personal studios or even just small professional studios are all over the place, so I'm sure we can find dozens of examples that don't fit my experience, but I've been to a number of major studios in NYC, and it was pretty common to see large far field or midfield monitors with some form of directivity control (I won't say CD) at these studio's.
I was thinking what it would cost to use the type of speakers the major music studios use, for a full 5.1 setup. I think most people just end up setting up a test theater instead, as this seems to be what Lucas has done, and many have followed suit. None the less, in speakers alone, from a company like equator audio (I think the cheapest option), your looking at around 20,000 dollars in speakers. I think Dr. Geddes speakers, which are very much a CD design, would be a great mid-field/far field monitor, but in a pretty similar range, if not more. Then you have the real big boys, which I rarely if ever see (two in NYC that I visited had something like this) would be something like Westlake or Kinoshita, which would come to a tidy some if between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars. I'm sure more if you got into a more customized setup from either group. I also know a lot of companies, at least used to have custom monitors made for this purpose. A now defunct RCA studio I went to as a kid (It was closed then, but my Grandfather was a lawyer for RCA) had large monitors like this based around Altec Lansing coaxials, which is about as much as I know, since I was about ten at the time. I've never been to a major surround recording studio as most are in California, only seen small semi-pro or small pro studios, and they always used relatively inexpensive setups of near field monitors.
I was thinking what it would cost to use the type of speakers the major music studios use, for a full 5.1 setup. I think most people just end up setting up a test theater instead, as this seems to be what Lucas has done, and many have followed suit. None the less, in speakers alone, from a company like equator audio (I think the cheapest option), your looking at around 20,000 dollars in speakers. I think Dr. Geddes speakers, which are very much a CD design, would be a great mid-field/far field monitor, but in a pretty similar range, if not more. Then you have the real big boys, which I rarely if ever see (two in NYC that I visited had something like this) would be something like Westlake or Kinoshita, which would come to a tidy some if between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars. I'm sure more if you got into a more customized setup from either group. I also know a lot of companies, at least used to have custom monitors made for this purpose. A now defunct RCA studio I went to as a kid (It was closed then, but my Grandfather was a lawyer for RCA) had large monitors like this based around Altec Lansing coaxials, which is about as much as I know, since I was about ten at the time. I've never been to a major surround recording studio as most are in California, only seen small semi-pro or small pro studios, and they always used relatively inexpensive setups of near field monitors.
Charming. Nothing like management changes to slip in tiny cost-savings that look superficially the same and yet result in big changes to the user.
That's why it's a big deal when the original designer leaves - they're usually responsible, at least indirectly, for making sure production drivers don't drift away from the original spec. When the original guy leaves, there's frequently an interval when there's no designer at all on the staff (these are small companies), and the production people are running things. Naturally, they come up with all kinds of clever ideas to reduce labor content and save on material costs. Management loves all kinds of cost savings, that's always welcome, and a great way for the clever assembly and repair staff to get promoted out of boring assembly line work.
By the time a new chief designer is hired, the drivers may have changed quite a lot from the originals, and by then, there's no good way to exactly reproduce the originals, since the assembly sequence and complete list of parts (including glues) may not have been preserved. Sometimes staff changes on the production line results in loss of specialized manufacturing technique.
Much of manufacturing is never written down - it's in the heads of the staff doing it, a complex network of relationships with suppliers, and it's up to the design staff to stay on top of these things. It's not in the job description, but product continuity is an unspoken requirement for an old-line company. If a key component of the product becomes unavailable, it's the responsibility of the engineer to work on it until performance is maintained, or if unavoidable, discontinue the product and replace it with new (which may not in fact be better, just different).
I met NASA engineers during the Seventies (I worked there during the summer of 1969) and they told me when the German Von Braun/Huntsville team that built and designed the Saturn V was disbanded, there was no way to re-build the moon rocket - much of the know-how was in the minds of the team, and when the team was dispersed all across the country, it was lost for good. The old Germans had worked on everything from the V-2 to the Saturn V, and when they retired, that was it. The ones following in their footsteps had to pretty much re-learn everything.
That's why it's a big deal when the original designer leaves - they're usually responsible, at least indirectly, for making sure production drivers don't drift away from the original spec. When the original guy leaves, there's frequently an interval when there's no designer at all on the staff (these are small companies), and the production people are running things. Naturally, they come up with all kinds of clever ideas to reduce labor content and save on material costs. Management loves all kinds of cost savings, that's always welcome, and a great way for the clever assembly and repair staff to get promoted out of boring assembly line work.
By the time a new chief designer is hired, the drivers may have changed quite a lot from the originals, and by then, there's no good way to exactly reproduce the originals, since the assembly sequence and complete list of parts (including glues) may not have been preserved. Sometimes staff changes on the production line results in loss of specialized manufacturing technique.
Much of manufacturing is never written down - it's in the heads of the staff doing it, a complex network of relationships with suppliers, and it's up to the design staff to stay on top of these things. It's not in the job description, but product continuity is an unspoken requirement for an old-line company. If a key component of the product becomes unavailable, it's the responsibility of the engineer to work on it until performance is maintained, or if unavoidable, discontinue the product and replace it with new (which may not in fact be better, just different).
I met NASA engineers during the Seventies (I worked there during the summer of 1969) and they told me when the German Von Braun/Huntsville team that built and designed the Saturn V was disbanded, there was no way to re-build the moon rocket - much of the know-how was in the minds of the team, and when the team was dispersed all across the country, it was lost for good. The old Germans had worked on everything from the V-2 to the Saturn V, and when they retired, that was it. The ones following in their footsteps had to pretty much re-learn everything.
Lynn Olson said:
That's pretty much the way is is with all technology. When we move on the past becomes the past and is forgotten. And it's not just tech. Recall the phrase, "History repeats itself." If we didn't use the wheel it would also soon be forgotten.
[edit] Let me just add that at least today we have Google which can help us "look into the past" and help us find references to yesterdays tech today, provided some one took the time to write it down yesterday.
Also, one other thing. If we do go back to the moon it won't be based on the tech of the Saturn V, just like the new shuttle won't be based on the tech of the existing shuttle.
One of the more astounding things I came across was the loss of pottery technology in distant parts of the Roman Empire (like Britain) when the Empire collapsed. The Romans were making pottery so cheaply, and exporting to every part of the Empire, that locals forgot how to find the right kind of clay, throw pots, and fire them in brick ovens!
There was apparently a 300-year span when the Brits just simply didn't make pots, because they had forgotten how! You'd think, how could anyone slide so far backwards - pottery is many thousands of years old, and independently invented in nearly part of the world. Well, it happened when the transportation system of the Empire broke down and collapsed. Pottery had to be re-invented - but it took hundreds of years .
There was apparently a 300-year span when the Brits just simply didn't make pots, because they had forgotten how! You'd think, how could anyone slide so far backwards - pottery is many thousands of years old, and independently invented in nearly part of the world. Well, it happened when the transportation system of the Empire broke down and collapsed. Pottery had to be re-invented - but it took hundreds of years .