[net.audio] Digital audio

gill (07/26/82)

I agree with rabbit!jj, but would like to add another small criticism:

	"... When digital recordings clip, they clip like hell ..."

This is totally bogus. If you think that analog systems are designed to
clip gracefully (perhaps having S shaped transfer curves) you're wrong.
Who would buy an amplifier that reserved 10% of its dynamic range to
nonlinear clip handling?
Though there is without doubt a certain smoothness when a transister
approaches saturation, that region of transition is miniscule compared to
the amplitude of the signal. 

I would venture the opposite argument; with digital recording, any idiot
can tell EXACTLY when he is clipping the signal, instead of relying on
red zoned VU meters or drifting threshold detecters. If anything, digital
recording makes clipping less of a problem since analysis by computers
can be brought into play to decide on an optimum recording level.

	I have had to endure the flames of so called audiophiles stating
how digital recordings do not have "presence," etc ... It is this
sort of ignorance which I feel is holding back the technology. I recall
hearing the same things said of transistor amplifiers a few years back
when audiophiles still clung to tubes since they made the music sound
"warmer." Perhaps if you snuggled up to the amplifier ....

	I am beginning to get the suspicion that digital technology will
at long last divorce us from these sorts of flames. If all digital players
work as they must, there will be no one to advise us of cartridges or record
cleaning products and the like. Music recording will finally become a
science instead of a wizard's art. Unfortunately, the answers aren't
so obvious when it comes to speakers and microphone placement, not to
mention the virtues of concert halls. Alas these problems will probably
remain on the opinionated side of audio for quite some time. Why the
die hards want to fight an advance in the technology which simple
signal theory proves to be best method can only be attributed to the
fact that it is much easier to convince people you're an expert when
there is no way of objectively substanciating your opinions.

	Well, we don't need experts any more. The technology has been
around for the last couple years and I am very tired of being disappointed
by low quality records, wear, and accidental damage. Why are we sticking
with Edison's method when we know better?

	Gill Pratt

	...alice!gill (usenet)

	...gill@mc (arpanet)

karn (12/14/82)

Warning: entering SAM (slightly annoyed/amused mode)...

I have been following the on-and-off flaming regarding digital audio's
supposed "fatal flaws", but I have yet to see concrete evidence from any
scientific study that supports any of the claims that recent digitally
mastered records are "disasters", subjectively or otherwise.  Alan
Parsons is one of my favorite artists, and I hear nothing
technically wrong with "Eye in the Sky".  When will we see a controlled
double-blind experiment to prove the skeptics wrong, once and for all?

Maybe the record companies should just not advertise the fact when they
use digital mastering.  The anti-digital people would just marvel at the
sound quality, and would never know that they should be fatigued listening
to all those raw bits.  In any case, the record companies do seem to be
making less of a novelty out of digital audio. I just bought a
reasonably priced copy of Nightfly by Donald Fagen which mentions digital
mastering only in small type on the cellophane sticker, instead of in
banner type across the jacket.

Phil Karn

burris (12/15/82)

#R:eagle:-68100:ihlpb:4000023:  0:1321
ihlpb!burris    Dec 14 12:20:00 1982


Check out this month's issue of High Fidelity. Several of their
record reviewers compared high-quality analog pressings with
the new CD disks. Four out of five could consistently distinguish
the difference.

The comparison started with an analog recorded and mastered copy
of Sgt. Pepper's. Some of the listeners judged the digital as too
harsh, etc.

Later in the comparison they admitted that they could not have been more
wrong. This happened when the comparison got to the digital
recorded/mastered symphonic selections. On one selection, the listeners
thought the analog sounded good but found that the digital disk enabled
them to hear what was being played so well that they found it impossible
to judge the disk on format quality due to what they called "lousy" playing
and conducting.

They also tried everything short of bending or setting fire to the
CD disk to try to introduce noise and/or distortion. After
smudging it with fingerprints, writing on it with a pencil and finally,
scratching it with a nail, they were not able to make the CD disk
mis-play.

I heard one at the CES show in Chicago and I am a firm believer. But
don't take my word for it, read the article, or better yet, check one
out for yourself.

Trying to avoid another debate on this subject,

Dave Burris
ihopa!burris
BTL - Naperville