NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19262

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!calmasd!jpb
From: [e-mail] (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound under attack again. Was: Re: Preamp and Amp
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:51:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cal Lott) writes:

<    I don't know what he means by "golden-earing", but I can certainly
<respect someone's opinion if they think that vinyl sounds better. However,
<stating that vinyl is "the high-end medium of choice" is a different matter
<entirely. I'd be curious as to what criteria you used to arrive at this
<conclusion, Dave.

    Which reminds me...  An analog tape recorder cannot reliably record
more of the frequency spread than about 8 1/2 octaves.  Beyond that range
the frequency response is probably too low to be called "high fidelity."
If the tape moves fast one can record high frequencies very well but
not the low ones as the corresponding magnetic flux with respect to any
tape segment changes too slow to magnetize that segment strongly enough.
If the tape is moving slow then the highs disappear.  No matter what, the
recordable frequency range is fixed although it can be adjusted up or
down by choosing the tape speed.

    My question is: why aren't CD critics bothered by this?  To me
it's a serious problem that seems to indicate that the only analog way
to record is direct to disk.

    Jan Bielawski
    Computervision, San Diego
    [e-mail]