Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houxe!drutx!pmr From: pmr@drutx.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Turntable questions (Lack of response) Message-ID: <1134@drutx.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 09:28:28 EDT Article-I.D.: drutx.1134 Posted: Thu Sep 20 09:28:28 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:59:36 EDT References: <76200015@hpfclk.UUCP> <607@hound.UUCP> <805@opus.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 22 OK, OK. I have to say this: CDs are quiet, they go loud, and they don't wear out. They are good as a supplemental signal source but the best CDs and CD playback equipment are not as good as their best analog counterparts (I can feel the flames already but this is something I've said since the introduction of this format). However, some day, just as the Phillips audio cassette format evolved, so will the CD format. Once enough $$$ are pumped into R&D, CDs will probably surpass the quality available with SOTA analog systems. This may take two years or twenty, but it will happen. Analog is a dying format. (Please don't quote me out of context.) The arguments about existing performances not being transferred to the CD format are valid arguments for still buying a quality analog turntable and cartridge. And as long as the analog format produces superior quality it motivates engineers to find out why and do something about it (let's hear it for free enterprise!). Yours for higher fidelity, Phil Rastocny AT&T-ISL ihnp4!drutx!pmr