I was a die-hard uncompressed PCM DAT fan for years. When MD's first
came out, they sounded terrible, so I wrote off the format. Then a
person, whose ears I trusted, said that I should really check out the
new MD's. I was impressed, and now am the proud owner of a Sony
MZR-90. I absolutely love it. Even though it has its share of annoying
(endearing?) quirks.
Now as for data-rate compression, If you can't hear the difference,
what is the difference? My PCM buddies take the attitude that even if
it's inaudible, all of the music should be recorded, for archiving
purposes, future improvements of playback, and on and on. But 44.1 kHz
16 bit PCM cuts out the stuff you can't hear as well--Everything above
~20 kHz and below ~-90dB. The difference in the formats is the amount
and type of information that they decide to throw away.
So now 96 kHz 24 bit recording is on the scene. I have heard very good
systems of that kind, better than 16 bit 44.1 (or 48) kHz systems. but
the question I have is, is the difference in quality due to the
increased sample rate and bit depth? or is it due to just the
improvement in the A-D converters, which would offer a similar
improvement in a 16 bit 44.1 system? More testing is needed...
And what about the still raging Analog VS. Digital debate? I'll only
say this: If you put a warm, fat, punchy signal onto a high quality
digital system, you get out a warm, fat, punchy signal. End of debate.
The music recording industry is in an atrocious state of affairs because
there is no standard of reproduction systems. At least the film
industry has standards, like THX, to get some uniformity in the
production process. But if I take a recording to 15 different recording
or mastering studios, it'll sound different in each one. There are so
many differing opinions about what is good sounding, the only opinion
that matters is yours.
Having said that, I think everyone should try to do comparison tests and
try to hear the flaws in MD, and CD and DAT, and DVD and on and on. Try
to come up with an understanding of why people prefer one format over
another.
If you're looking for fidelity (faithfulness) I havn't come across a
situation where MD has not been adequate. I'm new to MD, however, so
perhaps I'll stumble across something that will trip it up. 'Till then
I'll happily continue "taping" with my MD.
-steve
Fendlewood Walker wrote:
>
> >"Fidelity" is an objective term. It
> >means faithfulness. Which means
> >that the what you hear is as close to
> >the original as possible. It is true or
> >"faithful" to it.
>
> Me being on the digest, this may've already been addressed, but just to
> continue in the hair-splitting vein:
> Some people striving for hi-fi are attempting to reproduce exactly what the
> recording engineer hears on his monitors in the studio.
> Some people are attempting to reproduce the live event. Which is subtley
> different, and begs the flippant question - which seat? - because the
> listening environment overwhelms all else.
> Some people are trying to create the sound that pleases them most in their
> environment, a moderate and perhaps sensible approach given that none of us
> live in anechoic chambers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
