Re: [ARSCLIST] Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy

["Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. Duane Goldman" <thedoctor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> I'm a bit slow on the uptake at times so please near with me.  Will 1/4"
> material be available from Europe? Will wider widths be available from
Europe?
> Is this yet a continuation of the effort to make digital sound
reproduction
> the ONLY option.  I am not alone in believing this will thus be the end of
> high quality sound reproduction.  If you've ever heard direct to lacquer
> playback or the sound quality of analog master tape, you could never look
> upon current digital formats as an equal to fine quality analog
reproduction.
> Must we stand by & watch the demise of high quality recorded sound for the
> sake of convenience?  The history of recorded sound makes it clear that
> sound quality was never a driving force.  Are we to accept this mandate?
> When there is a growing market for analog gear among the young because
they
> can HEAR the difference, can not we be a part of making sure this
> technology survives at least until a true equal is ready to take it's
place?
> Analog recording has never captured the entirety of live music & digital
> methods are a poor second at best.  Why do we bow out of the effort to
> insure the quality of our archives whether personal or professional?
> My 16 year old is an armature international piano finalist, now guitar
> player [too much hard rock for this dinosaur], has recently taken up
> harmonica & will start playing double base at school next session.  He
> listens to digital music all the time, but he doesn't need me to lecture
> him about analog sound... HIS choice for a major Chanukah was a
turntable!!
> We cannot allow analog tape to disappear, regardless of the cost.  Just
one
> person's thoughts.  My business be damned, its about the music, period!
One important point...today's musical artists don't use analog gear
because of its sound quality! They use it because they can perform certain
tricks with it which turns the turntable into a musical instrument (of
sorts)...and even that function of an anolg turntable can be duplicated
by digital software, or so I have read!

It's my view that the difference between analog and digital reproduction
is primarily due to the fact that most digital recordings have been
remastered and engineered by the current generation of eingineers and
sound technicians...and these are people who spend about 99.9% of their
time doing final mixes on post-rock recordings, and are used to (and
possibly hearing-impaired enough, as well) to that particular
sound and its characteristics.

There is a difference, easily demonstrable by an a/b comparison
using a pair of oscilliscopes. By definition, a digital waveform
is a series of finite steps, not a smooth curve. Just as in integral
calculus, the goal is to obtain an infinitely large set of
infinitely small variations. However, the experts tell us that
beyond a certain point the human ear and human mind cannot notice
an identifiable difference.

I agree that analog master sources should be preserved, if only because
the next generation of digital hardware may regard terabytes as small
quantities...however, I tend to doubt that, if an existing analog
sound source is converted to a digital file without any further
processing, there exists anyone who can notice a difference?

Steven C. Barr