Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: david@agora.rain.com (David Robinson)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Twenty generations of DAT copies...
Message-ID: <10054@uwm.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 91 13:38:01 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 46
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...
>

[Delete a line or three...after 20 generations of DAT duping...]

> 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?
>
No, merely predictable.  %-)


Actually, I find it *much* more interesting to note the two-thirds of the
material that they apparently *could* tell the difference on.  There's 
nothing like showcasing a logical flaw.  Adam and Eve headed for the bushes...


Nothing has been rendered "moot."  As the Stereophile test CD (with its
"original" and its "100 generations later" samples) shows, things can most
definitely happen to digital sound in the retelling.  A theoretical basis
for what we are hearing has not been definitely established...yet...but I
don't believe that it's arguable that *something* goes astray.


This calls for more work, I'd say....

david@agora.rain.com


>
>
>
>
>--
>David Tristram			
>1661, tristram@sgi.com		True words seem contradictory.


-- 
My opinions belong to me...and vice versa.  They're not copyrighted;
third party thinkers should feel free to clone them at will.              
david@agora.rain.com               davidr@glacier.UUCP