Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: konar@lennon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Mithat F Konar)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Twenty generations of DAT copies...
Message-ID: <10017@uwm.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 13:58:52 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 18
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <9981@uwm.edu> tristram%conan.asd.sgi.com@SGI.COM writes:
>See Mix, April 1991...
>
>A maniac at Mix magazine took selections from the Prosonus reference
>disk and other sources, and used a pair of common pro DAT recorders to
>make *NON-DIGITAL* copies back and forth on virgin tape for *TWENTY*
>generations.  A panel of three "golden-eared" producers were unable to
>reliably distinguish approximately one third of the material from an
>original (one-generation) source DAT.  The author indicated that this
>result renders some of the current hoopla regarding SCMS (and digital
>copies) moot.  Interesting?

If you re-read the conclusion, you'll discover that the panel was able
to reliably distinguish a difference between the copy and the original
on most material. What they didn't do reliably was indicate correctly which
was the original and which was the copy. A subtle but important distinction.

Mithat Konar