Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihopa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihopa!burris
From: burris@ihopa.UUCP (David Burris)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: High Quality Recordings
Message-ID: <129@ihopa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jan-84 15:55:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ihopa.129
Posted: Wed Jan  4 15:55:52 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 01:08:41 EST
References: <355@whuxk.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 31

The Sheffield Lab engineers sent a letter to Mix magazine which was
posted in the letters column. I think it was in the October issue.
The were lambasting the entire digital process as the worst thing
that ever happened to professional recording. From the tone of their
letter it is fairly obvious there is a degree of "sour grapes"
envolved.

Why would a analog mastering lab specializing in "audiophile"
half-speed and direct-to-disk masters be biased in their opinion of
the digital process? Couldn't be because they hear footsteps, could it?
There is a lot of "hocus-pocus" and "handwaving" behind the magical
process of operating a mastering lathe! Most mastering engineers
consider it an art to manipulate the lathe to get what they feel is
a good master. Also, many "audiophiles" would shudder if they
realized the mastering process used by some of the most famous
mastering engineers who are recognized for their "art". The
complaints of phase distortion, etc. added by using equalization at
home to achieve a flat frequency response to compensate for room
anomalies are dwarfed in comparison. The amount of filtering,
equalization, etc. added in the mastering process are phenominal and
subjective opinion at best (even if it is based on experience).

One should always keep things in perspective when reading such
letters. Even the Sheffield Lab's engineers stated that their opinion is
not totally without bias.

-- 
	Dave Burris
	..!ihnp4!ihopa!burris
	AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.