wjm@whuxj.UUCP (MITCHELL) (02/03/84)
Some thoughts about the digital debate:- I have to agree with Phil Karn's comments about controlled testing being the only way to resove the great digital vs. analog debate. Let us not lose sight of the fact that CD's are a new technology and as the technology matures, we'll see better players. Personally, I expect to see improvements in the D/A converters and the low-pass filters in the next generation of players. Given the large number of circuits used in the ANALOG sections of CD players, its not reasonable to expect them to sound alike. I also feel (and agree with Phil) that there ARE measurable parameters that can be used to separate the CD "Stars" from the mediocre models. However, since this is a new technology, I don't think we know what they are at this time. I'm hoping that we can find them soon. I'm also hoping for improvements in the recordings themselves - it appears that recording engineers are going to have to learn about the digital medium and how recording techniques (specifically that #$!@%& multi-mike business) interact with it. One thing that digital HAS done for us is shown us how lousy multi-miked recordings really sound. This brings me to one of my pet concerns - while we need standards to get new recording technologies off the ground (look at what happened to quad) let us not lock ourselves into an "adequate" digital standard that we'll regret in a few years. Frankly, the only digital recordings that sound good to me have been made using the 16 bit Soundstream system. I have yet to hear a 14 bit digital recording that sounds "right" - the sound on many Denons sounds "harsh" and have a fair amount of quantizing noise (from the 14 bit encoding). This is an unscientific test, as I've said many times, the only way to obtain quantifiable results is to run a controlled double-blind experiment and I'd like to see some testing done to analyze this problem. In the middle of this, let's not lose sight of what high fidelity is all about- the reproduction of sound as close to the original performance as possible. Recording techniques (be they analog or digital) are an means to this goal and should not be an end in themselves. Let us judge them by the recordings that they are capable of producing. Personally, I've heard some Telarc digital recordings that are quite good, and based on that I think digital has a bright future in audio, but it may not be the only way to go. Bill Mitchell CSO Whippany, NJ (whuxj!wjm) As always these are strictly my personal opinions and not necessarily those of the Central Services Organization, Inc.
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (02/04/84)
I've kept silent on this issue for a couple of reasons. The main one is that
I'm waiting for a favorable price on a CD player, and not having one,
I don't feel qualified to critique the differences in sound quality
between high-tech vinyl and CD's. However, I can offer a few observations
which seem to have been neglected in this discussion.
1) In order to fully appreciate quality vinyl, one needs an expensive truntable,
tone arm, and cartridge. Such a combination may well cost more than a
typical CD player.
2) Despite such ownership (of an exotic record player), it is impossible to
prevent the eventual deterioration and destruction of an analog disc.
Every time you play a record, on any kind of equipment, you do some amount
of damage to the surface. Ask any physicist; diamonds are harder than
vinyl.
3) Records collect microscopic garbage out of the air, no matter how well
you take care of them. This gets ground into the surface, accelerating
the process described in (2).
CDs seem to be immune to these problems. They have no surface noise, in the
usual sense, and they can't wear out, no matter how often you play them.
I agree that we need a high standard of reproduction quality -- the phase
shift problem does seem to be significant -- but face it, these things are
the end of surface noise and damage, forever. I don't think analog technology
will ever solve that problem.
Besides, there's no stylus to replace.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fish