NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/audio/15456

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!oasys!curt
From: [e-mail] (Curt Welch)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: DCC -- JUST SAY NO!  (was: The end of cassettes,
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:36:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Curt Welch)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 60

I wrote:
>> In his few hours of testing (before Hurricane Andrew hit his office),
>> he basically couldn't hear a difference between the CD and the DCC
>> recording of the CD.  I find it hard the believe that any recording
>> system that can do this, will degrade worse than cassette on multiple
>> generations.  And, I expect that it's much better than cassette, and
>> only slightly worse than DAT.

In rec.audio, [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
>You may find it hard to believe, but your expectations are based on an
>incorrect understanding of the system, as jj very clearly pointed out.
>You're coming at this from expectations based on pure digital-to-digital
>copying (i.e., "same bits"), and that's NOT what's going on here.  If it
>were, I (and, I'm sure, jj) would be in complete agreement with you.

I think you (and I asume a buch of other people) missed my point.  I
understand the system.  I just don't have any practical experence with
it.  I wasn't trying to dis-prove jj.  It's true that my expectations
may be wrong, but I think you missed the real statement I was trying to
make.

The point I was trying to make is exactly the same point you just
made in your long article in reply to the music lite post.

I think some people will read about this %80 data loss figure and
panic, just like they did when they were told about digital music
chopping the sound into little samples.  They will assume the sound
from the system is bad before they ever here it - and they
will make other people believe this.  Then when they do get to
hear it, their ears will hear what they expect to hear, instead
of hearing whats really there.

I don't want people to expect these new formats to sound bad before
they hear them.  I've just been trying to keep uninformed rumors from
spreading.  80% loss in data doesn't have to imply bad sound.  I want
people to listen to these new formats and decided for themselves whether
it sounds good or bad - and not let their ears be effected by what
their brain "expects" to hear.

jj's first post on this thread said something like: "Do I have to remind
you all again that these new formats will not duplicate well".  But
he gave no indication about why he thought this.  I made the mistake
of thinking he didn't understand the technology.

He later showed that he clearly did understand the technology, and that
he has more experence with it than most of us.  But I still didn't want
people getting the wrong impression.  They could read his comments and
decide - jj's an expert - he say's it's bad - it must be bad.  But
jj didn't say it was "bad".  He just pointed out the weaknesses
in the format and said he didn't like what they had done in general.

I think everyone should decide for themselves what they call "bad"
sound or "good" sound and they should try not to be pre-biased by the
experts or the layman.  And as far as how it sounds after multiple
generations, don't base you expectations (or "knowledge") on jj's
comments about how "bad" some special test signals sound after only one
or two passes through the system.  Do your own testing, and hear for
yourself what it sounds like.

Curt