Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!5121cdd
From: 5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: zen and the art...LP vs CD
Message-ID: <1259@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 13:50:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxm.1259
Posted: Fri May 31 13:50:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 03:15:15 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 57


   I see/have seen several articles trying to compare the differences
   between LP and CD.  Personally, I think this is silly waste of time
   for a few simple reasons -- rather, the proper question that should
   asked is: how can digital audio at the consumer level be made better?

   You see, CDs have the potential for being a truly exceptional means
   by which music is stored and distributed to the customer, but I feel
   that they have, so far, not reached their potential.

   The LP is obsolete -- I agree that there are several good LPs
   out there and that the LP will continue to exist.  The problem lies
   in the manufacturing process for the LP.  First, the master laquer
   is cut and plated to form what is called the father.  From the father,
   a metal mother (negative father) is formed.  From the mother, then,
   the stampers are made and the pressings we buy are made from the
   stampers.  IF everything goes right in this father-mother-stamper
   process (called matrixing) then all you have to worry about is the
   mastering engineer (there are only a few good ones in the country)
   and his equipment, how many pressings from each stamper, how many
   stampers from each mother,...the list goes on and on.  In short, we
   have a process that that has AT LEAST five stages with significant
   room for error at each stage.  I have, on occaision, needed to test
   what are called "reference disks" (essentially master laquers cut
   for testing purposes) in comparison with finished product, the
   pressing.  You would be astounded with the difference, even when
   the matrixing all the way to the quality of the vinyl in the pressing
   is first rate -- there is a non-trivial amount of loss in this process.

   The CD, potentially, has many fewer stages to go through.  There problem
   here lies in the equipment used in production.  The only digital
   mastering processor for CDs is the Sony PCM 1610 -- and it has some
   some significant problems:  time delay distortion and crummy i/o
   electronics primarily.  Top engineers, like Tony Faulkner, who
   own a 1610, generally modify them heavily.  What we have to realize
   is that digital for audio (music) is still in its infancy.  Many
   discoveries and achievments are yet to be made.  People like Bob Adams
   from dbx, Roger Logadec and our own Chuck Podaras from Studer are
   quite actively persuing better A/Ds and D/As all using more resolution
   and oversampling techniques.

   I think if you sit back and look around for a minute, the people that
   you see and hear saying that "CDs are the ultimate" are those people
   trying to sell CDs today.  The people that are truly interested in the
   music are saying "digital is the way to go -- let's work on it some more".

   Maybe I'm totally off base, but I feel that this is an extremely exciting
   time for audio -- some of the audiophiles are coming "out of the closet"
   and speaking their peace.  To our surprise, they often have something to
   say: simple is better, soundstage is important too, use the best components
   can (caps, resistors, wire, etc.), and on and on.  This is not in anyway
   to belittle the importance of the scientists and engineers out there --
   we need to get their ears (pardon the pun) so that they can employ
   expertise to design and build these next-generation systems.


   Craig Dory