<?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: </title>
	<atom:link href="http://idolator.com/339469/339469/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://idolator.com/339469/339469</link>
	<description>Music News, Reviews, and Gossip on Idolator.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 11:40:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Molanphy</title>
		<link>http://idolator.com/339469/339469/comment-page-1#comment-407592</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Molanphy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:01:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://a55af8e76402998b022aa5191731a86b#comment-407592</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I can narrow this down for the poor guy: the failed copy-protection for analog sources dates to the late 1980s -- I know, because I remember reading about it in either &lt;i&gt;High Fidelity&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;Stereo Review&lt;/i&gt; at my high school library (had to be there; I&#039;ve never subscribed to either mag), and that would place this whole adventure between 1985 and 1989.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reason I remember those two mags covering this short-lived controversy is that the audiophile community (one I pay attention to only glancingly) was &lt;i&gt;furious&lt;/i&gt; about this idea, not because they liked taping music so much as they despised the idea of any audio degradation, even theoretical.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IIRC -- and this might be apocryphal  -- the &lt;i&gt;dénouement&lt;/i&gt; of the whole thing happened when a hardcore audio scientist/nerd at one of the publications produced a &lt;b&gt;gotcha!&lt;/b&gt; moment: a record where the addition of the high-pitched signal eliminated the entirety of, like, a woodwind in an orchestra or some-such. The lab working at the RIAA&#039;s behest conceded the point, and the effort was dropped.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can narrow this down for the poor guy: the failed copy-protection for analog sources dates to the late 1980s &#8212; I know, because I remember reading about it in either <i>High Fidelity</i> or <i>Stereo Review</i> at my high school library (had to be there; I&#8217;ve never subscribed to either mag), and that would place this whole adventure between 1985 and 1989.</p>
<p>The reason I remember those two mags covering this short-lived controversy is that the audiophile community (one I pay attention to only glancingly) was <i>furious</i> about this idea, not because they liked taping music so much as they despised the idea of any audio degradation, even theoretical.</p>
<p>IIRC &#8212; and this might be apocryphal  &#8212; the <i>dénouement</i> of the whole thing happened when a hardcore audio scientist/nerd at one of the publications produced a <b>gotcha!</b> moment: a record where the addition of the high-pitched signal eliminated the entirety of, like, a woodwind in an orchestra or some-such. The lab working at the RIAA&#8217;s behest conceded the point, and the effort was dropped.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
