Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: bilver!bill@uunet.UU.NET (Bill Vermillion)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Improving
Message-ID: <10382@uwm.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 13:49:37 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 28
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <10340@uwm.edu> rgaetz@hydra.unm.edu (Robert Gaetz) writes:

>               In addition to the reasons I mentioned before, the
>issue of 20th generation copies of digital material sounding
>different seems to be a clear sign that noise is a contributing
>factor to sound quality. If you listen to a 20th generation copy
>of an analog signal, you'd probly find that, among other things,
>it is a lot noiser than the original, so surely the data on a 20th
>generation digital signal will contain much more noise than the
>original.

The "20th generation" caught my eye here.  Recently there has been
much discussion of the article in Mix magazine whereby several
"important" audio engineers listened to 20th generation copies made
on DATs. However - these 20th generation copies WERE 20TH
GENERATION ANALOG copies.   The amazing part (to me at least) is
that there was so little apparent differences, because analog has
always been additive in it's noise/distortion in successive copies.
It shows that the analog circuitry has been very well refined.

It wasn't that much noisier, and the distortion levels were way up
from the original they were still siginificantly low.  Lower than
many first generation analog tape recordings I have seen.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : bill@bilver.UUCP