Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!rzdz
From: rzdz@fluke.UUCP (Rick Chinn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: ambience and digital recording
Message-ID: <162@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jan-84 12:39:45 EST
Article-I.D.: tpvax.162
Posted: Wed Jan 11 12:39:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jan-84 00:38:00 EST
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, Wash
Lines: 32

re: digital recordings

I have had a chance to a/b a digital recording and an analog recording made
at the same time, using the same mics and electronics.

Yes, the digital machine won the s/n race hands down (didn't you expect
that). But it made the stage seem somewhat smaller.

A lot of us have theorized about what happens, but there is nothing concrete.
I suspect that it has something to do with quantization errors at *very low
levels*. I'm not so sure that you would hear the difference on more
contemporary musical forms, like rock and roll. What we heard was a
shallower, narrower stage, and a much drier hall.

The digital machine did *not* exhibit the *steeley, grainy* high-end that
many of those present expected.

You could hear the hiss on the analog recording (15 IPS, no noise reduction,
Nagra T-audio). 

The kicker: We did this comparison on a *very* high quality system. This
system has spatial characteristics that defy description. I don't believe
that you could hear much of a difference (at least as far as stage width) on
a plain vanilla system. (receiver + bookshelf spkrs)

These are my opinions. Please direct flames to /dev/null. Civilized
discussion welcome.

Rick Chinn
John Fluke Mfg. Co MS 232E
PO Box C9090 Everett WA 98043
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!rzdz
(206) 356-5232