Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: The CD challenge!!
Message-ID: <1813@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 13:32:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1813
Posted: Wed Aug 17 13:32:21 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 23:56:44 EDT
References: <1269@tekig1.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 33


	Greg, Greg, Greg!  You've missed the whole point!

	The purpose of net.audio is not to discuss new, state of the art
advances.  It is, rather, to RESIST new ideas, and to create the
greatest possible quantity and (lack of) quality of superstitions regarding
various analog and digital techniques.  
	I certainly agree with your article, I have made the comparisons
that you comment on, excepting Telarc vs. Telarc, and I find the digital
players quite acceptable, which is more than I can say for <snap, crackle,
pop> analog discs of the best quality.  In addition, in the few digital
discs that have been RECORDED PROPERLY, the realism (the final test, according
to superstition mongers) is the best I've heard. <Miking techniques on the
first releases from Sony/etc were among some of the most atrocious ever
devised.  Perhaps they were devised by digital engineers rather than
recording engineers.  Perhaps the reason for that is that the
recording engineers <who do not want to learn anything new> would not
work with the digital machinery until they saw that they would have to.>

	I am a digital signal processing engineer and acoustitian,
I've published articles in net.audio that have been refuled by the
most ignorant and deliberately offensive articles, and I fear that
you will receive the same treatment.

	Good Luck.

	(Remember, in net.audio, it's not HOW it sounds, it HOW MUCH
it costs!  The stranger and more regressive the better!  Back to
direct mechanical recording!)

(harpo/allegra/research)!rabbit!jj

down the luddites!