Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!ark
From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Politics, religion, and digital recording
Message-ID: <2475@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 12:33:59 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2475
Posted: Fri Feb  3 12:33:59 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 04:08:15 EST
References: <133@olivej.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 29

If someone likes the sound of analog recording better than
digital recording (or vice versa), it will indeed be difficult
to convince that person otherwise.

However, I have seen numerous examples of people coming to
completely different conclusions about what they like
WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT TO EXPECT.

For instance: someone who likes brand X of beer better than brand Y
is given two unlabeled glasses of beer.  I have seen or heard about
such people (1) not being able to tell them apart, or (2) actually
liking brand Y better when the labels aren't there, or (3) liking
one much better than the other even though the two glasses actually
contain the same brand.

That is why it is hard to believe statements such as "When I listen
to a digital copy of a 15 IPS Dolby A master tape, it smears the
stereo image."  The statement may indeed be true, but the perception
is unavoidably colored by the fact that the listener KNOWS in advance
what he's hearing and therefore what to expect.

I'm afraid I can only trust this sort of comparison when it is
conducted double-blind, with extremely accurate level and frequency
response matching.

Please notice that I am not putting anyone down.  I am merely trying
to warn that psycho-acoustal phenomena are difficult to measure reliably,
so attempts to make comparisons on more than a purely personal level
must be conducted with extreme caution.