Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: The Pepsi Challenge
Message-ID: <15487@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 19:18:18 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.15487
Posted: Thu Nov  1 19:18:18 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 21:30:42 EST
References: <1189@hou4b.UUCP>, <1239@drux3.UUCP> <550@watdcsu.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 26

> > Munch!
> > 
> > Perhaps the way to take the Digital Chalange is to take an arbitrary source
> > (perhaps the finest pressings on the finest playback equipment all the way
> > down to really skuzzed up pressings with cunge in the grooves) digitize it,
> > reconvert to analog, then through any arbitrary amplifier speaker combination.
> > 
> >                                        Larry Cler
> 
> NO NO NO NO NO!!!
> 
> In fact, what such a comparison would reveal is whether CD technology
> introduces any degradation in the sound.  It would not, however,
> allow any valid A/B comparison between the detrimental effects of CD
> and LPs (boy, there are some here!).  There is no way a digitization
> of a (very fine, even) LP pressing will sound any better than the
> original.  How could this be called a valid test?
>

Simple!  It's not an A/B comparison in the conventional sense, but your 
first statement is correct - it would reveal whether CD introduces any
audible degradation.  If the 'golden ears' can't hear the difference 
between their favorite direct-to-disk LP and a CD copy of it, that 
clearly implies that CD is AT LEAST as good at sound reproduction as
the best LPs.  It seems to me that this is the principle issue involved
in the comparison of the two technologies.