Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wateng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!wateng!gtward
From: gtward@wateng.UUCP (Greg Ward)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Print-thru: Magnetic or Mechanical
Message-ID: <2869@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 13:47:25 EST
Article-I.D.: wateng.2869
Posted: Wed Nov 20 13:47:25 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 04:06:36 EST
References: <937@cvl.UUCP> <2860@wateng.UUCP> <428@nicmad.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25

> In article <2860@wateng.UUCP> gtward@wateng.UUCP (Greg Ward) writes:
> >Your argument for why mechanical print through would be stronger on one
> >channel then the other is incorrect. You seem to be suggesting that each
> >channel is recorded on a different side of the groove. In fact, how the
> >two channels are multiplexed in the groove is that one channel is
> >recorded in the side to side variations of the groove, and the other is
> >recorded in the up and down variations.
> 
> Sorry, but the gentleman you are referring to was correct.  On record,
> each wall DOES pertain to a certain channel.
> 
> Mr. Video   {seismo!uwvax|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!brown

I have taken a lot of flack over this posting and I am prepared to
accept that my version is wrong, as the version described by others
makes more sense.

However I would like to defend myself by saying that I did not make up
my version of how the two channels are recorded in the groove, I read
it somewhere. This was a number of years ago, and I cannot remember where
I read it, so I haven't been able to look it up.

Please excuse my erroneous posting,

                         Greg Ward