NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17205

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!network.ucsd.edu!calmasd!jpb
From: [e-mail] (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound Quality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:24:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pi(3.143832666)) writes:
<In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kong Kritayakirana) writes...
<>> 99% of the audio buying public has already been suckered into
<>> thinking that CD sound is the be-all end-all of sound quality.  They are
<>> mistaken.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<>   Although we can definitely engineer a better medium for holding music, I
<>   think we can say we have perfectly satisfied our ears with 44.1kHz x 16bit
<>   data for each channel. Who the hell can tell the difference between 96dB
<[digital babble deletia]
<>   and we definitely can cure jitter by putting the crystal of the DAC system
<>   IN THE DAC box, not in the transport box. The whole jitter scene then
<>   becomes a nonissue.
<
<    Further proof of how one-track-minded people have become
<    about the storage and reproduction of music.
<
<    Obviously yet another "critical listener" who auditioned
<    a $200 CD player versus a $200 phono set-up and decided
<    that digital was inherently better.

    It doesn't matter, IMHO.  The point is:

   The difference between the CD and the LP is very close to nothing when
   one compares both CD and LP to the live sound.

    Jan Bielawski
    Computervision, San Diego
    [e-mail]