I can't imagine how preservation of music can be considered without taking
sound quality into account.   Yet the example you've chosen is of spoken word.

You state:  "Sound quality can also be improved after transferring to cd
also, if that's what you want. "

Since the cd is at best only a fair imitation of the original recording, at
least that's what many of us hear, & as there is to date no way to
accurately re-create what has been lost, I cannot agree with your statement.

After 3 days at the latest CES listening to room after room of state of the
art digital presentations & never hearing one come close to the best analog
rooms, I fail to find any rationale for this approach, save convenience &
the idea that something is better than nothing.

Quite the contrary, greater musical content could have been preserved
through a second generation analog copy made at the same time as the
digital copy.  The resulting metal parts & pressings will last well past
any CD/DVD/SACD technology currently available & serve a much truer source
than the stored digital information.

For most listeners, some learning & practice is required to train the
ear/mind to listen carefully to the nuances of live & recorded sound.  Most
people have no interest in this level of involvement.   But reference &
archive material should be treated to the best methods possible to ensure
that all the information available from the groove or tape is accurately
captured.  To date digital processing at its extreme comes close to but
does not equal the best analog reproduction.  When it does I'll join the

  Analog reproduction has yet to be taken to its limits & every time better
cartridges & play back equipment come along more is heard from the
groove.  The renewed interest in the great recordings of the mono era well
demonstrate this phenomena.   During the CES nothing could have better
demonstrated what's missing from current digital presentations of music
than the old large horn based speakers in the Lamm room at  T.H. E.
Show.  A coherence & beauty like the finest late 30's electrical recordings
when thoroughly cleaned & played back with attention to details.  No, not
modern stereo but music with a breath & beauty of presentation never heard
from digital reproduction.

For the time being I feel I've exhausted the remarks I should make in this
forum on the digital vs. analog debate & will let matters rest.  Thanks for
permitting me to air my opinions.


Duane Goldman

At 09:03 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Duane, The question is not about sound quality, it is about preservation and
>access. If a recording sits in the library of congress and nobody hears it
>does it make a sound. Sound quality can also be improved after transferring
>to cd also, if that's what you want. The lady on the radio wanted to
>preserve a recording of her great-grandmother's oral history of riding a
>covered wagon into Missouri. The people on the show totally discouraged her.
>She could have easily made many copies of the tape she had. That would have
>given her a better chance of preserving her great-grandmas legacy than
>hanging on to a single casette tape. No one is saying to throw away the
>analog originals are they?-ml

h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax/modem
"for the sound you thought you bought"       |