----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> the reels were cooler. I borrowed a pile of them, transferred them to
digital and burned to DVD-A
> discs. Some of the quad mixes were pretty hokey but some were excellent,
and the reels were
> later-era, so they used decent tape, had less hiss and no edge warpage.
Apparently they were
> premium-priced, so no 3.75IPS junk either. If the quad disk formats hadn't
been such kludges, the
> format might have worked, but I think even if the mass-market version
(grooved disks) worked well
> and sounded great, there just aren't that many people willing to double
the size, cost and
> complexity of their sound system. The same wall hit by SACD.
Well, seeing as how the powers that be only saw fit to equip us with two
ears per person, it would seem that anything over and above stereo would
be overkill...at least for humans!
The odd thing is that no one ever seemed to discover that a much more
realitic-sounding recording could have been made if they had only used
acoustically "live" spaces instead of relentlessly eliminating any
trace of echo/reverberation! Listen to Waring's "Freshie"...which was
cut in an acoustically live setting (probably much to Victor's dismay!)
and as a result sounds very much like stereo. Our brains expect echoes
and are set up to extract a lot of information therefrom...in all
probability, our ancestors who could figure out which tree the bear
was hiding behind survived to evolve, while those that couldn't didn't...
Steven C. Barr