From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, still grouchy and out of sorts)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:23:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24678
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, still grouchy and out of sorts)
Distribution: world
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1jmercINNg4g@transfer.stratus.com> rsud@sw.stratus.com (Rajiv Sud) writes:
>In article <24668@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:
<sud says that I know what I wrote. As shown below, HE doesn't.  Pfui!>

>	First off, the reference for any audio system is (or should be) live
>unamplified music produced by acoustic instruments. The debate between
>analogue and digital isn't (or shouldn't be) about specs. It should be about
>which sounds closer to the real thing. So, no, I don't like the sound of
>distortion, I like that which sounds closer to real music and instruments.

Fine.  You like live music.  We can both agree on that, even,
I prefer live music, too.  Now, you claim that LP is "more accurate"
because it sounds more like live music to you.  Well, there are only
several problems with that. First, any stereo image is STRICTLY
an illusion, and a remarkably poor one. Second, there's NO
chance of reproducing the hall's soundfield.  Third, "distortion"
is hard to quantify in a hall.  Is the reveration distortion? Yes.
Is it desirable. Yes, usually.   

Finally, speaking as a person who's recorded stuff live more than 
once or twice, I find that digital PCMF-1, DAT recordings sound
much more like what I originally heard. When I add some
out of phase low frequency noise, a bit of low order distortion,
and some other stuff, I find the resulting ILLUSION nicer than
the recording.  What does that prove?


>	You say analogue is distorted. I take it you imply that digital is
>not. Amazing. You know, back in high school we calculated how far a gallon
>of gasoline, when combusted, could move a 3000lb object. We came up with
>about 150 miles. If digital is perfect because the nyquist equation is
>perfect I guess I should stop believing my gas gauge. 
Of course, you lie about what I think here.  The distortions in a 
PROPERLY working digital system are both small and easily 
characterized (yes, it's possible to to a system wrong, you may
be sure), but they surely exist.  They are also easily measured
and determined, if you know what to measure and how to determine.
How dare you suggest I say that digital has "no distortions"?

I do say that digital has MUCH less distortion, excepting 
bad examples (I suppose there are more than I suspect, but
I tend not to buy bad examples twice) and I'm entirely confident
in that.

Your use of the falicy of the excluded middle to misstate my
opinions is absolutely unforgivable, and I strongly request that
you never, ever do such a thing again.

You have NO technical facts to stand on, and we both know it.
Is that why you stoop to setting straw men afire?
-- 
Copyright alice!jj 1993, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
---------
Member HASA - Athiest Scum Division
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - AuH2O for President
From: kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:07:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Comments on analog music
Organization: Shredding the water of SF Bay, HP-OCD