Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drufl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!drutx!drufl!pmr
From: pmr@drufl.UUCP (Rastocny)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re (..!rabbit!jj): High Quality Recordings
Message-ID: <766@drufl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 10:23:18 EST
Article-I.D.: drufl.766
Posted: Thu Jan  5 10:23:18 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Jan-84 21:28:38 EST
References: <355@whuxk.UUCP>, <2349@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 23

I think that we should put things about digital and analog sound into
historic perspective.  The most recent analogy of what is happening
today between these two formats is the introduction of the Phillip's
cassette tape format.  When cassettes were first introduced, they
sounded fair at best, speech being the only range that these new
recorders could handle even moderately well.  15 years later, things
have changed and the Nakamichi Dragon is considered excellent in
storing the sonic information of an analog disc.  Quite an improvement!

Now, the digital CD format is the new contender.  Although the sound
is getting better (new filter designs, improved error correction
schemes, etc.), CDs are still inferior to state of the art
analog sound TODAY.  This is the only issue that the people at
SHEFFIELD are making; of course they have a vested interest, but
their philosophy at SHEFFIELD is to make the best reproduction as
humanly possible regardless of recording format.  The day that digital
recorders and playback systems become superior to analog, SHEFFIELD
will most likely buy a state-of-the-art digital system and gear up to
that.  It's not that they're anti-digital, but rather pro-quality.

		Yours for higher fidelity,
		Phil Rastocny
		..!drufl!pmr