NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19632

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 1.7 KB | 35 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!scsing.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!batcomputer!caen!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!adserv.enet.dec.com!winalski
From: [e-mail] (Paul S. Winalski)
Subject: Re: Dolby S vs. DCC etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 22
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr. USENET)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:10:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Henri Defense) writes:
|>
|>    Almost a year ago, I remember reading a Stereo Review article on Dolby
|>S: a few audiophiles were given blind ABX listening tests to see if they could
|>tell the difference between CD and Dolby S.  I seem to recall that when the
|>listeners were given classical pieces (sans piano solos) and "modern" music,
|>they could not hear a difference almost half of the time.  Apparently, this
|>seems to be better than DCC or MD's record, seeing as how many people claim they
|>can hear a difference between PASC/ATRAC and CD most of the time.  This leads to
|>my question: Ignoring the fact that Dolby S is an analog format, which sounds
|>better... Dolby S, DCC, or MD?  (If anyone has listened to Dolby S, I'd love to
|>hear your reaction.)  Thanx.
|>

I would expect Stereo Review to say something like that.  Judd Hirsch & Co. are
notorious for propounding the theory that if you can't read it on a meter, it
doesn't exist.  I wouldn't believe anything that they say regarding listening
tests.

--PSW