Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drufl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!drufl!pmr
From: pmr@drufl.UUCP (Rastocny)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Analog vs. Digital Challenge
Message-ID: <813@drufl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Jan-84 14:02:44 EST
Article-I.D.: drufl.813
Posted: Mon Jan 30 14:02:44 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 11:05:00 EST
References: <2427@utah-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 26

Here we go again.  Agreed that to prevent people from identifying
the analog recording you must also record the tape hiss.  Nothing wrong
with the approach.  But you probably couldn't pay "golden ears" types
to sit through a double-blind test for more than two switchings.
The second or third generation digital playback systems mentioned
are better sounding than their predecessors.  But there is still,
although granted not as much as there used to be, a significant
difference in the way instruments with higher-order harmonics sound,
not to mention the lack of hall ambience.  If you picked programme
material that excluded the CD's shortcomings, most people probably
couldn't tell the difference.  But remember that other people have
already complained about these differences (Re: the Windham Hill
CD vs. analog report).

As a side note, I also believe that it is NOT the digital recorder that
is to blame, although the Soundstream and the new 3M recorders appear
to sound better than some others.  I feel that improvements to the chain
involved in making CD software and also the error-detection schemes used
in CD players could use some help.  (I can feel the flames already.)
It is frustrating to discuss things like this with people who can't
hear what you're talking about.

		Yours for higher fidelity,
		Phil Rastocny
		AT&T-ISL
		..!drufl!pmr