Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!whuxj!whuxk!wjm From: wjm@whuxk.UUCP (MITCHELL) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Spencer's comments about Digital and the Audiophile Message-ID: <336@whuxk.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Nov-83 10:28:15 EST Article-I.D.: whuxk.336 Posted: Tue Nov 29 10:28:15 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Nov-83 04:17:45 EST Lines: 27 In answer to Spencer's questions: 1. Fortunately or unfortunately, I can hear those (BLEEPED) ultrasonic alarms and try not to shop in stores that use them. The only thing I buy from those outfits is Excedrin to cure the headaches the alarms cause :-) 2. Several of the high-end Nak decks (like my 680ZX) go up to at least 22 KHz (higher if you use the standard -20dB record levels with metal tape). 3. Now that I've answered the flame, let's look at this digital vs. analog business. As I said yesterday, I'm somewhat concerned about SOME digital systems with their 22.05 KHz (44.1 KBit sample rate) cut-off frequency. I'm NOT knocking digital recording itself - some of the Telarc and Delos digitally mastered LP's are among the best LP's I've heard and I suspect the CD versions sound even better. However, there is (unfortunately) a fair amount of digital garbage out there (put out by the same people who put out garbage analog recordings). It appears that digital recording is much less tolerant of the sloppy recording techniques used by some large record companies (especially multi-miking) and that the best digital recordings made so far use much simpler mike setups (like Telarc's two microphone technique). "Audio" magazine's reviews have done a good job of separating the CD sheep from the goats and the real dogs. 4. One major advantage of CD's is their scrach and damage resistance which will greatly improve sound quality for most people. Also, they won't suffer from the surface noise that LP's produced by several US record companies that don't seem to care about quality do. End of Flame Bill Mitchell whuxk!wjm