home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!uotcsi2!revcan!software.mitel.com!kim!kim
- From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Subject: Re: CD Sound Quality
- Message-ID: <KIM.92Dec24104817@kim.Software.Mitel.COM>
- Date: 24 Dec 92 15:48:17 GMT
- References: <1992Dec19.113749.8088@leland.Stanford.EDU> <19DEC199208241886@rigel.tamu.edu>
- Sender: kim@Software.Mitel.COM
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
- Lines: 25
- In-reply-to: mjf9968@rigel.tamu.edu's message of 19 Dec 92 14:24:00 GMT
-
- In article <19DEC199208241886@rigel.tamu.edu> mjf9968@rigel.tamu.edu (Pi(3.143832666)) writes:
-
- | Obviously yet another "critical listener" who auditioned
- | a $200 CD player versus a $200 phono set-up and decided
- | that digital was inherently better.
-
- There are far more articles from "born again vinylfiles" who had a
- sub-$500 CD player and were introduced to analog through the magic of
- Linn and ended up with a $3000 vinyl source. It never seems to occur
- to them that going up an order of magnitude in the CD domain would
- have made pretty much the same sound quality difference.
-
- | PS-- I've been wondering: wouldn't it be possible to
- | have a optical, analog format? Isn't that
- | effectively what LD's are? Would such a format
- | give us the best of both worlds: durability,
- | convenience, *and* sound quality?
-
- I believe that most new releases on LD come with both digital and
- analog versions of the soundtrack. I haven't read rec.video in a
- while, but I got the feeling that the digital versions were preferred.
- Maybe someone who has an LD player could correct or confirm this
- information?
- --
- Kim Letkeman kim@Software.Mitel.COM
-