greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (02/02/84)
If one person A hears something, person B is not going to persuade him that he didn't. At least he shouldn't be able to. Someone who hears and likes the characteristics of good analogue recording can't be bullied into believing that he doesn't really hear these characteristics. Likewise, someone who hears a superior clarity and definition in digital recordings can't be convinced by means of verbal fencing that they are inferior. A person who puts himself into the position of being a critic doesn't do so (or shouldn't) to show off his superior knowledge or sensitivities. If he has anything of value to offer by way of perceptions or insights, he tries to make these useful. Two people are viewing a painting of a blue sky. One of them sees streaks of pink mixed faintly through the blue. He points it out to the other guy. What will the other guy do? Usually, he'll say either "that's interesting, I didn't notice it before" or "sorry, I just don't see it." But if he's on the net, he'll bash the first guy on the head and call him an idiot for daring to say so. Greg Paley
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/03/84)
If someone likes the sound of analog recording better than digital recording (or vice versa), it will indeed be difficult to convince that person otherwise. However, I have seen numerous examples of people coming to completely different conclusions about what they like WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT TO EXPECT. For instance: someone who likes brand X of beer better than brand Y is given two unlabeled glasses of beer. I have seen or heard about such people (1) not being able to tell them apart, or (2) actually liking brand Y better when the labels aren't there, or (3) liking one much better than the other even though the two glasses actually contain the same brand. That is why it is hard to believe statements such as "When I listen to a digital copy of a 15 IPS Dolby A master tape, it smears the stereo image." The statement may indeed be true, but the perception is unavoidably colored by the fact that the listener KNOWS in advance what he's hearing and therefore what to expect. I'm afraid I can only trust this sort of comparison when it is conducted double-blind, with extremely accurate level and frequency response matching. Please notice that I am not putting anyone down. I am merely trying to warn that psycho-acoustal phenomena are difficult to measure reliably, so attempts to make comparisons on more than a purely personal level must be conducted with extreme caution.