From: ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: DAT, DCC and MD
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:36:38 GMT

ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Kent Ritchie) writes:

>it right on the head.  Both Sony and Phillips are trying to sell less for more.

Frank Simon writes-

FS>You have to proof why MD (or DCC) is less than CD !!!

I don't have to prove that MD and DCC are less than CD.  Sony and Phillips 
already have.  They admit that the quality of these two new formats are
sonically inferior to CD (and DAT for that matter).  The only thing that
MD does better than DAT is access tracks faster (oh, and it allows you
to label each track with a cute little name).  DAT is better than DCC
period.  It access tracks faster, it is sonically better, but oh! it
can't make those cute labels for each song.  Boy, how do DAT and CD 
users cope?!


>What makes me sick is that they are trying to make these formats standard.
>I believe, as consumers, we control the manufacturers, or at least we should.
>So why are we letting some slick ad agencies get us in bed with something
>inferior to what we could have at the same price - DAT.  DAT has proven to 
>be superior in audio quality to both DCC and MD.

FS>STOP here, I think you didn't read the tests about MD and DCC exactly:
FS>At first all tests are very unjust because of the differences between the
FS>participants:
FS>On the one side is the new MD MZ-1 of Sony, a *cheap* set to introduce
FS>into the new technic. And it's portable. On the other side there is a
FS>expensive high-end-CD-Player (Marant* ***), not portable and (!!!) not
FS>able to write to the CDs.

Ok....  so comparing it to CD isn't fair because you can't record on a 
CD.  Ok...  I will play along.  What about comparing it to the *portable*
marantz DAT?  It has the same quality audio as CD, and you can record.
Now tell me this Frank...  What happens to your precious recording when
you accidentally bump the MD during recording.  I think it is going to 
skip.  Unless of course they have come up with a write buffer.  You can't
take a MD to a concert and do bootleg tapes.  They MD wouls skip in    
recording when the guy on LSD next to you shoves ya a little.  Just
because MD and DCC are a "new technique" for digital audio *does not*
mean they are better than what is already in place.  Now if MD is so
great why isn't the pro industry interested? You don't see studios rushing
out to get a MD to mix down on!  Did you know that many studios are
mixing down to DAT and taking that DAT and having CDs mastered from it?
DAT is better than MD and DCC sonically.  The rest of it.  Well I see it
as a bunch of little gimmicks and knobs to make the consumers go
crazy.  The likes of who buy a receiver because it has a graphic eq, and
surround sound emulator, and lighted buttons... tons of junk that costs
nearly nothing to add, but will make the unit sell at a higher price.  
Then look at the true audiophile.  He has a straight gain preamp with no
tone controls, maybe an input selector and maybe one light indicating 
power.  The amp is an accurate amp, not necessarily powerful, but
accurate.  And the speakers are sonically uncolored (well as much as they 
can be).  The result?  A system that sounds better than the gadjet systems
most consumers buy.  Everyone thinks that audiophile systems are 
substaintially more expensive.  Some are.  But I have heard great sounds
from low priced systems.  It all depends how you choose your components.
The main criteria in these low cost (and all audiophile systems) systems is
*SOUND QUALITY*.  So to go back to DAT...  DAT is like an audiophile 
system.  It sounds better.  It may have less little buttons to press
but it sounds better.  If you want a toy and don't mind the loss in 
sound quality then buy a MD or DCC.  But the whole point of audio is
music... not buttons and lights.  If you want buttons and light buy a
Sega Game Gear, they are much better than MD! 

FS>After that the results are showing the following:
FS>The MD has got a *bad* sound about 12KHz. At first this result is only
FS>seen on the oscilloscop. The second point: Who hears about 12KHz ??
FS>Maybe dogs, but no human about an age of 20 !!!
FS>If you want to *see* music on an oscilloscop it's ok but I want to
FS>*hear* music !!!

Hmm... I think normal human hearing is considered to be 20-20kHz.  I agree
that one does loose the ability to hear high frequencies as they age, but
unless you are Pete Townsend of the WHO I don't think you have lost
this much hearing in the high frequencies by the age of 20.

>Granted it does not access
>tracks as fast as MD, but it kicks DCC'c ass....
FS>Not but !!! Why do you think the CD has killed the LP ?? Not because
FS>of the sound (Some people still hear LP because of the full sound).
FS>It's because of the feature you get with it:
FS>Free track-changing (fast), CDs aren't sensitive and the CD-technik
FS>is very robust.
FS>All these features aren't given in DAT !!! Also DCC hasn't got all
FS>features but MD.
FS>So I believe and hope that the MD is the new format for music !
FS>Finally you are able to write music to a non-sequential format,
FS>over 1Million times, you are able to delete music-parts of the

over a million times... that's over kill.  What are you going to make it
afamily tradition to record over the song that your great grandather once
recorded?  I see the point though... it is an optical disc.  And that is 
a nice advantage.  But DAT tapes last a long time if cared for.  Your MD
could lose it's life before 1 million recordings.  All I have to do is 
step on it... :)


FS>middle of the disc, you always are able to make your own sampler,
FS>you have digital qualitaet without the sensitive Video-Technic (VCR)
FS>Please let be your advertising for an *antik-technic* and don't prevent
FS>the progress of technic.

Sorry Frank!  MD and DCC are the *anti-technique* of audio.  The purpose
of audio is music as pure as one can find.  MD and DCC don't fit the bill.
MD and DCC reduce the music to less than what it is (some might argue that
digital in general does this.  Maybe they are right too.)  DAT and CD are
as faithfull to the music as one can get in digital audio.  Frank, don't
let some slick marketing rep shovel hype down your throat for an inferior
product because the company has figured out that whatever they put on a 
glossy 5 page ad sells.  Figure it out for yourself.  The only thing
that DAT doesn't offer is immediate access time, although it is faster than
your average cassette.  I don't know about you but I listen to my discs
right on through from beginning to end.  I guess I skip once in a great
while.  But I am willing to wait an extra 20 seconds or so to hear a song if
I know that it isn't going to sound like MD.  And if you want to be portable
but a portable Frank.  Maybe a car deck too! 


>The optimal format would
>be a re-recordable non-lossy optical disc.  But in the lack of presence of
>such a format the consumer should pick the next best format, DAT.  DAT has
>proven its quality and reliablity in pro-audio applications.

FS>But only there !!

As someone posted earlier....  it is interesting that when the advertising
started for DAT the DAT players weren't available in the US.  The 
copy right issue was still being decided.  The previous poster pointed
out that without the product ready for sale the advertising wasn't very 
useful.


>If the pros
>use it I am convinced it is good enough for the average Joe.  C'mon people!

FS>I hope nobody come with you !

>Get out there and demand DAT on your next big purchase, not MD or DCC...
>Let's not dig our own grave here.  MD and DCC are a step in the wrong 
>direction.

FS>If progress is the wrong direction for you ok, it's your live but
FS>don't demand to be all in your direction..

What I am saying is that MD and DCC are a step in the wrong direction
for recorded music in general.  Hmm.. ya I guess that would include 
everyone.  Well I still think that way.  Just because the general public
is so *stupid* about its choices.  These people believe what a salesperson
tells them is fact.  Unbelievable.  The general public has begun to 
distrust doctors.  What do we need to do to get them to distrust the
audio salesman?  

>As always I am open to discussion....

FS>It's ok. I'm of course too.
-- 
FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT242FRONT
    E-MAIL-ADDRESS:      ~       I am       ~      MAIL-ADRESS:
    Frank2.Simon@arbi.   ~       because    ~      Frank Simon
    informatik.uni-      ~       somebody   ~      Alexanderstr. 156
    oldenburg.de         ~       dreams me  ~      2900 Oldenburg


--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
^Kent C. Ritchie    "The power of equality      ritc0003@student.tc.umn.edu^ 
^Physics 136         is not yet what it ought     kritchie@mvax.spa.umn.edu^
^626-0235            to be"  -Chili Peppers     Fido: Kent.Ritchie 1:282/31^
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>