Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihlpa!freak
From: freak@ihlpa.UUCP (c e malloy)
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: Videophiles
Message-ID: <225@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 14:22:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.225
Posted: Wed May  8 14:22:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:26:33 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 58

> Words, words. What do they mean?
 
What ever the person that is saying something is trying to
express?
 
> I don't agree with you. While far from what I'd like to see,
> the quality of a good tape on a good TV is more than adequate
> to produce all the required effects on the viewer, especially
> if accompanied by a "Hi-Fi" sound track.
 
If it is 'far from what I'd like to see', then I would suggest
that you check out a laser disc player.
 
>                                          There are movies that
> are just stunning on the tube. Two right off: Apocalypse Now
> and Blade Runner, both in Beta Hi-Fi - so you know what I'm
> talking about. This sort of reasoning may or may not qualify me
> as a videophile, depending on the definition you had in mind.
 
What I am talking about is BOTH the picture quality and the
sound. It seems to have been taken as an audio question. And
what I was originally talking about was the drop-out rate of
tape vs. disc.
 
> The $ensible Sound in a recent issue distinguishes between
> audiophiles and audiophobes, to wit:
 
> An audiophile loves music. He loves to hear it reproduced on
> fine equipment. Given a good album he will play it all the way
> through with enjoyment. An audiophobe loves to tweak equipment
> and has no positive feelings for music one way or the other.
> Given an album he cannot play it for more than 12 seconds
> without jumping up to adjust something. By analogy, then, I
> think there are lots of videophiles and few videophobes.
 
Since it is virtually impossible to 'tweak' the video portion of
any movie (tape or disc), I must agree. But, I contend that there
are two types of people, videophiles and video junkies. I happen
to be both. On the other hand, a video junkie can also be either
an audiophile or an audiophobe. Also there is a third category
for the audio, the audio junkie. This type of person far
outnumbers the rest of the audio people. They will listen to the
music that they like on any equipment (good or bad) and not
notice (or care about) the difference.
 
> It is true that the original laser disc sound was pretty good.
> It it not true that it was/is equivalent to the "Hi-Fi" sound
> of either VHS or BETA. Nothing, heretofore has been that good
> except digital compact discs (CD's) which are still better.
 
WAS??? The sound has not gotten any worse, in fact it has gotten
better. With the advent of a digital soundtrack on some of the
recordings, the sound exceeds that of any tape machine with the
exception of PMS.


From inside the Tesseract of
	Clancy Malloy