Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mtxinu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: ... (actually CD vs LP)
Message-ID: <409@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 14:44:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtxinu.409
Posted: Mon Jun 17 14:44:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 14:59:49 EDT
References: <141@utflis.UUCP> <301@moncol.UUCP> <494@edison.UUCP>
Reply-To: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1472@utah-gr.UUCP> thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) writes:
>
>This is an interesting comment, since all the Telarc recordings (at
>least in the last several years) are digitally recorded.  This implies
>that somehow putting digital information onto an LP in the recording
>studio and then playing the LP gives a more listenable result than
>playing that SAME digital information directly.  As a friend of mine
>likes to say, "What's wrong with this picture?"

At least one of the things wrong is that the Soundstream recording
system that Telarc uses for (at least) their analog disks records
at 50k samples/second, while CDs play back at 44k.  I don't really
want to reopen the religious battles about whether 44k is "enough",
but that's at least one difference between the analog and CD releases.

-- 
Ed Gould		    mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146