Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!spoo
From: spoo@utcsrgv.UUCP (Suk Lee)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re (..!rabbit!jj): High Quality Recordings
Message-ID: <3073@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jan-84 03:34:49 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3073
Posted: Mon Jan  9 03:34:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jan-84 03:50:52 EST
References: <355@whuxk.UUCP>, <2349@rabbit.UUCP> <766@drufl.UUCP>
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 46

I would like to dispute some of the
comments made in the article, namely:

-CD recordings are inferior to the
 best analog recordings

-The CD is facing the same teething
 problems as the cassette.

While I must admit that there are a lot
of BAD CD's out there, I don agree that
Digital Disks in their present form are
inferior:  many of the problems 
associated with bad CD's can be traced
to producers who press CD's as if they
were vinyl.  i.e. they leave the treble
boosted (to offset vinyl losses),
leading to screechy treble, and/or
sum the bass (to avoid overcutting the
vinyl), etc., etc.  A state-of-the-art
CD pressing, Telarc for example, beats
*ANY* vinyl hands down.  

The second point:  while CD's may not
be perfect right now, it is facing 
opposition that never faced the Compact
Cassette.  When the cassette was 
introduced, tape recording had been 
around for a long time:  it was a 
familiar technology.  What the CD is
facing is opposition from people who
can't or won't accept that music can
be "chopped up" and then restored.
A fundamental stumbling block must be
overcome before CD's become as 
"intuitively natural" as the analog
recording process.

I think that the CD is a great step
forward:  one that *ALREADY* super-
cedes vinyl. 

From the pooped paws of:
Suk Lee
..!{decvax,linus}!utcsrgv!spoo