As an eternal devil's advocate I still ponder the concept of translating a
continuous 3-D analog signal into a digital representation when so many of
us find fault with the curent state of the art digital product.
Rather than unintentionally insult supporters, it is of some value to
realize that many educated ears are not satisfied with digital
reproduction. Easy to say, difficult to quantify. Perhaps in concert with
such efforts should be an equal expenditure to improve analog recording &
reproduction if for no other reason as to establish a proper base
point. Personally such efforts should include better preparation, ie
cleaning, of lacquers prior to pressing, the use of red vinyl formulations
& pressing cycles that bias quality over quantity. Of course the ultimate
criteria in all cases should be the original master tape but doing so will
set the bar far above current digital technology.
For those who think this a mindless rant, you should note the extent of
analog gear at last years CES & by all accounts this year as well. To
date properly cleaned analog recordings are still heads above the best
digital presentations ... CES 2004 awaits ....
as Pathe' stated oh so long ago..... " only your ears can explain it to you."
At 03:23 PM 9/24/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>LC is a big place with room for differing opinions. James may be right
>about 2-D, but maybe not, and many of us see several reasons to pursue
>both 2-D and 3-D mapping. Two offices at the Library of Congress are
>working actively with the Berkeley group to refine and improve 2-D as well
>Samuel S. Brylawski
>Head, Recorded Sound Section
>Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division
>Library of Congress
>Washington, D.C. 20540-4690
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>"Usual disclaimers apply"
h. duane goldman, ph.d. | P.O. Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141
lagniappe chem. ltd. | (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
"for the sound you thought you bought" | http://discdoc.com