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