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