Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Measured differences between CDs and analog discs
Message-ID: <2646@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Mar-84 17:28:51 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2646
Posted: Wed Mar 28 17:28:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Mar-84 00:51:07 EST
References: <903@drufl.UUCP>, <811@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 50


I've also heard quite a bit of discussion about the differences in
L-R and frequency response.  My own feeling (which has been
attributed to Bob Carver <first, please, I didn't come up with
it alone...   I think many folks did> ) is that the ANALOG
playback system has the defective frequency response, and that
the differences are what is heard.

It's clear, from the nature of digital, that the difference
in L-R must come from the ANALOG process.   The difference
in frequency response (which an author shows as flat for the Analog
equipment) is RELATIVE.  I.E. It shows the DIFFERENCE between
the analog and digital equipment, not that either one is
right or wrong.  Incidentally, I object to representing
the digital as the WRONG response offhandedly, since the
methods used to generate the digital signal are much more
easily controlled, but that belongs in net.flame.  Let's just
say that the learned perception of the deficencies in analog
recording are missing, and that the frequency shaping
(which is pretty severe) that the listener is accustomed to
is missing.  The L-R signal is easily explained as well,
because of the way that record lathes work.

(It's interesting that digital techniques point out so well
the differences between analog and digital reproduction,
while the analog measurement techniques of 10 years ago couldn't
even come close.)

Oh well, goes to show:
	Garbage In, Garbage Out.

In other words, when they finally stop compensating discs
the same way that they compensate alaong records, we'll finally
have listenable CD's.   Not only that, it IS the recording,
not the medium.  Fancy that! (I'm sure we'll find a few
defects in the medium, too, it's just that nobody has
convinced me of any yet.)

Interesting, isn't it, that this whole problem was caused by
the deficiencies in analog reproduction?  <Or so this author
thinks, as he's said on many occasions.  Shame I can't
do like Bob Carver, and buy 50K$ of audio equipment to 
prove my point.>

Cheers
-- 
TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY!
(If you go out in the woods today ... )
 
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj