From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!mat
Newsgroups: net.audio,net.physics
Title: Re: Digital Vs. The Audiophile.
Article-I.D.: hou5f.168
Posted: Fri Dec 17 19:15:01 1982
Received: Fri Dec 24 00:34:00 1982
References: utah-gr.666

I for one CAN hear TV raster, though I don't know if it is the 17+ kHz signal
or some lower frequency that is being generated.  In any case it is one of the
most offensive sounds that I know.  Yes, my terminal bothers me a little too!
I can also hear SOME of the ultrasonic store alarms, and can 'feel' some
others.  This notwithstanding, I find most digital recordings just fine.  Some
of them seem a bit on the bright side after listening to 10 or 15 year old
recordings ... but is that the fault of the digital process or of the older,
less accurate recordings ?  Every medium introduces SOME effects, either as
a result of the medium itself or as a result of the paraphenalia that
accompanies the medium.  There are some people who feel that Avery Fischer
Hall is too 'bright' and prefer Carnagie hall.  There are some who find the
visible delay in sound propagation in Carnagie Hall to be disconcerting and
prefer the more 'accurate' Avery Fischer.  Are recordings made in anechoic
chambers with perfect mikes? What about reflections from the recording
artists body, the mike stands, etc?  And how many of us listen at the
ideal locations for proper phasing relative to our speakers ... in an
anechoic chamber.

Yes, there ARE bad things that can happen to the HiFi signal ... but not
all things that happen must be bad, and some of these can thoroughly mask
many of the 'distortions' that get introduced.       --NEXT PLEASE!