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.