Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site olivej.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!zentec!qumix!qubix!ios!oliveb!olivej!greg
From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: The Pepsi Challenge
Message-ID: <241@olivej.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 17:19:30 EST
Article-I.D.: olivej.241
Posted: Fri Oct 26 17:19:30 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 07:08:49 EST
References: <1189@hou4b.UUCP>, <1239@drux3.UUCP> <953@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 26

I feel, quite frankly, that analogue vs. digital comparisons are
now ultimately irrelevant.  The LP as a distribution media may
not be dead but analogue master recording seems, like it or
not, to be a thing of the past.  

If you accept this as true, the real concern should be with
tracking down and eliminating what anomalies remain in the
current digital technology.  Where comparisons are used as
a basis for doing this, they should be with the object being
recorded (live vs. Memorex) - even using an analogue master
tape to measure what deviances a digital copy produces won't
ultimately suffice.  A major first step will be the development
of a set of genuinely appropriate measuring techniques for
generating specifications for digital recordings and 
equipment.  The fact that, by the standard measurement
processes which have been previously applied to analogue
recordings, digital recordings seem to be flawless is 
only a confirmation of the inadequacy of those measurements.

Claiming that there are no problems remaining in digital
recordings and sneering contemptuously at those "golden
ears" who claim to hear them is going to help nobody.

	- Greg Paley