Re: DCC - why not?
- From: Eddie Oliver <eoliverNONSENSE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:43:49 +1000
Steve Magee wrote:
Wire, large enough gauge to avoid v drop, $45 per 100 metres from Bambachs. Now, that's each roll.
Or about a tenth that price for ten times the length if you go searching or if you accumulate such things when you see them available.
But isn't the real point much more fundamental? If someone is starting from scratch, obviously they would consider DCC. But if you already have a system that works (for which all these costs, real or imaginary, were incurred long ago) then the relevant cost to CONVERT to DCC is the cost of installing decoders and control systems (and maybe some other reconfiguration), which can be very considerable even if you can physically do it.
Which brings us back to the basic point - if it isn't broken, don't fix it, but especially don't spend money to "improve" it if there are no benefits sufficient to justify the cost.
It's like people wanting to spend thousands of dollars to get plasma or LCD TVs - if your existing TV works perfectly well and gives you complete satisfaction, why would you spend such money for at best marginal benefit? Some people will spend the money because they want new technology for the sake of it, or for snob value, or similar; but others will look purely at the practical benefit and conclude that it in no way justifies the cost.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: Stevert
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: Steve Caple
- Re: DCC - why not?
- References:
- DCC - why not?
- From: Mark Mathu
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: David Starr
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: Jon Miller
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: RonMcF
- Re: DCC - why not?
- From: Steve Magee
- DCC - why not?
- Prev by Date: Re: DCC - why not?
- Next by Date: Re: photoetching
- Previous by thread: Re: DCC - why not?
- Next by thread: Re: DCC - why not?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|