SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) (Dec. 1986)

A Grace Note

Dear Editor:

Such uncanny timing! First comes Ted Fox's wonderful article on zydeco music (see September 1986), helping convince me that Audio tops the list in reading for music and hi-fi between the same covers. Then, a mere two weeks later, Paul Simon's Graceland sails into the local shops on LP, CD and cassette (at the same time-bravo, Warner Bros.!), wearing its Louisiana-to- Africa influences proudly on its record sleeve. (I bought the CD.) I'm sure Mr. Tearson or the Tivens will get to it in due time; for now I'll just say it's all terrific music, first note to last, and that, as you know, ain't too common.

The musical influences Simon is helping introduce to the mainstream (if one can still regard Paul as such) can do nothing but good. I don't know about zydeco taking off like crazy, even in New York, but stranger things have happened.

Barrett W. Benton New York, N.Y.

Some Words About Words

Dear Editor:

Regarding Jon R. Sank's comments on "simplex power" and "phantom power" in his profile of the Shure SM91 microphone (see Audio, June 1986), I agree entirely that one term should not have more than one meaning. But in this particular case I have to condemn the electronics industry for accepting second meanings for related terms.

In this case, the terms were in use by the telephone and telegraph industry since the 1800s. "Simplex" is the super-positioning of a d.c. signal over an a.c. signal--that is, a telegraph channel over a voice channel. A one-way channel, that is; a dual channel was called "duplex." The terms are still accepted today; other terms are also in use, such as "half-duplex." These terms are also used in radio communication and have a very similar significance.

The terms "phantom" and "ghost" were also coined by the telephone industry in the late 1800s. The first term defines an artificial voice circuit de rived from two physical circuits; a further artificial circuit derived (with great difficulty) from two "phantoms" was called a "ghost." Once more the electronics industry stole a term from others and then was surprised at the en suing confusion.

The proper term for the SM91 circuit in question is without doubt "simplex." Shure stands vindicated and should be congratulated for their attempt to straighten things out, or at least to bring forth the subject.

For many years I have been shocked at the laxity of the industry in its coining and accepting of terms without proper research and/or application of the correct rules of word creating. For example, quadraphony and its variations should be tetraphony. There is also the odd juxtapositioning of stereophonic vs. monaural, or is it monaural? Maybe it should be monophonic. I wish the editors of the most professional magazine of the trade would stand guard on the proper use and spelling of English.

I will continue to enjoy reading your magazine as I have for many decades.

-F. A. Leclaire Montreal, Que.

Author's Reply:

My reference was a book published by RCA Global Communications in 1976, Communications Terminology Guide. On page 1-14 "simplex" is defined as: "Method of operation of a communications circuit where signals can be transmitted in one direction at a given time. A radio circuit must always be simplex when only a single carrier frequency is used." This is why I rejected the term as a substitute for "phantom," which has been used for a long time by other manufacturers of condenser mikes.

Some new information has come to light from Shure Brothers. I received a letter from Shure's president, Mr. James Kogen, which enclosed a note from Elaine Shinbrot, who wrote the SM91 data sheet. She relates that the original reason for using simplex, "be sides the debate on which was proper, was that Gotham Audio, I believe, claimed to have a copyright on the term 'phantom.' " Since Shure is now using the term phantom with simplex in parentheses, the industry seems to be all together on terms, albeit with a somewhat incorrect usage, according to Mr. Leclaire.

I thank him for setting things straight, and making all of us in today's electronics industry look a little foolish for having mixed up the terms stolen from telephony. I would like to add that Harry Olson did use the term monophonic in some publications circa 1960, but apparently it did not catch on. He defined stereo/monophonic as including field reproduction by speakers, whereas binaural/monaural systems employed headphones.

-Jon R. Sank

Editor's Note: It's fairly well established among language handlers that usage and meaning do change over the years, even if we don't want them to and even if we're using a well-defined technical term. In the present case, it appears to me that Mr. Leclaire is citing a technology which hasn't been practiced for some time. If language is mimesis, as Aristotle taught, then words describing dead technologies should die too. Clearly false. And what is to be made of the changes in, say, the Greek language over the years? It's thought that ancient Greeks would not be able to understand the current tongue. Too, there's the problem of authorities with opposing definitions, not to mention spellings. While I am not yet ready to turn in my blue pencils and resign my editor's post, I am often amazed that any meaning gets across at all.

-E.P.

Call from Overseas

Dear Editor:

Do you know where I might be able to get replacement parts for a Triplett sound level meter, M-370? The manufacturer apparently has moved or is no longer in business. To complicate matters, the IC which is defective (the only one, fortunately) does not have a clear number stamped on top. Thus, I would have to contact someone who is an agent or specializes in repair of Triplett instruments in order even to identify the part needing replacement.

Being stationed in Manila, where nothing is obtainable (and what is obtainable does not work much of the time), your assistance is especially appreciated.

-Douglas K. Ramsey; American Embassy; APO, San Francisco, Cal. 96528

Editor's Note: If anyone can help Mr. Ramsey, we hope you'll let him know.

-E.M.

(Audio magazine, Dec. 1986)

= = = =