Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihu1g!fish From: fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: The Great Digital Debate Message-ID: <183@ihu1g.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 17:59:49 EST Article-I.D.: ihu1g.183 Posted: Fri Feb 3 17:59:49 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 04:36:43 EST References: <106@whuxj.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 32 I've kept silent on this issue for a couple of reasons. The main one is that I'm waiting for a favorable price on a CD player, and not having one, I don't feel qualified to critique the differences in sound quality between high-tech vinyl and CD's. However, I can offer a few observations which seem to have been neglected in this discussion. 1) In order to fully appreciate quality vinyl, one needs an expensive truntable, tone arm, and cartridge. Such a combination may well cost more than a typical CD player. 2) Despite such ownership (of an exotic record player), it is impossible to prevent the eventual deterioration and destruction of an analog disc. Every time you play a record, on any kind of equipment, you do some amount of damage to the surface. Ask any physicist; diamonds are harder than vinyl. 3) Records collect microscopic garbage out of the air, no matter how well you take care of them. This gets ground into the surface, accelerating the process described in (2). CDs seem to be immune to these problems. They have no surface noise, in the usual sense, and they can't wear out, no matter how often you play them. I agree that we need a high standard of reproduction quality -- the phase shift problem does seem to be significant -- but face it, these things are the end of surface noise and damage, forever. I don't think analog technology will ever solve that problem. Besides, there's no stylus to replace. -- Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish