Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bergil!lauck From: lauck@bergil.DEC Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: CD vs. LP Message-ID: <3739@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 18:25:09 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3739 Posted: Tue Sep 25 18:25:09 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 03:29:32 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 51 [!} >Goodness gracious, heavens to betsy! The last thing I would ever want >to do is get into a dispute with a golden ear. Please, take your monster >record cleaner and go in peace. I don't want to argue the merits of >different flavors of hiss, scrathes and gouges. >... > By the way, if your cleaner is as good as >you say it is, its worth a million! No one else I have heard of has >claimed a cleaner so good records never wear out. I will personally >look into that one, cause I want one too if the're! Before I bought my CD player last December, I certainly didn't consider myself a "golden ear", just a music lover. But perhaps in my youth I was tainted, since I did go to school with J. Peter Moncrieff. The record cleaner is not a monster, it is about twice as tall as the typical turntable and the same width and depth. It is, alas, a bit noisy. I have already reclaimed dozens of records which had become unlistenable, so I consider it has already "paid for itself". Further use will be needed to determine how many times records have to be played before noticable wear sets in, but some I've cleaned had been played dozens of times and after cleaning sound better than they ever did before. I doubt that I will ever wear out any of my records by listening to them. I am not inclined to perform wear testing, given the cost of the Alpha-1 cartridge. On an operating cost basis lasers are cheaper than styli! I realize that few people have the interest or finances to buy a high end system, which can be as costly as an automobile. My point was rather that the current digital technology does not measure up to what is currently possible with analog records, in some cases analog records made 20 years ago, played on today's equipment. A young person investing in analog records and a modest system can expect to play them better tomorrow as his budget improves. I am not so confident that there is much room for improving playback of CDs. I am critizing digital sound not to kill it but to improve it. The only way this will happen is if many people learn to hear its limitations. A fair comparison of LP and CD is now possible. Yesterday I bought the digitally mastered CD and the direct disk analog LP of Sheffield lab's "West of Oz". My wife and I listened to the CD first than began the LP. We got as far as "Somewhere" before my wife stopped me and suggested there was no further need for comparison. We didn't need to go "over the rainbow", the LP was so obviously superior. It was an order of magnitude difference, not the subtle differences we listened for while trying amplifiers, step up devices, wires, etc. My wife is a musician, not a golden ear. Tony Lauck ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!bergil!lauck