Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!amd!fortune!hpda!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Vinyl vs. CD recordings
Message-ID: <842@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 14:36:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.842
Posted: Thu Sep 27 14:36:53 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 03:21:17 EDT
References: <159@mouton.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 40

> I see very little point in trying to make a laser-read "analog disc" now
> that the digital disc is here.

(One of the parent articles had asked whether it might be possible to
create an optical pickup for analog (vinyl) discs.)

It might be an interesting engineering exercise, but it does seem pretty
doubtful that it would have enough use to make it a marketable idea...
unless it could be made VERY cheaply, in which case people might like to
have it just for existing collections.

However:

> The only shortcomings of digital audio are in the minds of the golden ears.
> I see no need for new technology just to placate their ill-informed
> complaints. The only reason anybody even bothers to answer their wild
> ravings is concern that their visibility is all out of proportion
> to their numbers (and substance), and that anti-digital columns in trashy
> magazines (e.g., Absolute Sound) might inhibit the growth of digital
> audio and spoil it for the rest of us.

This adds nothing of substance to the analog vs digital discussion.  What's
the point of stirring up the flames?  The "golden ears" are hardly likely
to accept the above position (with all of the snide remarks).  There are
plenty of cogent arguments for digital technology, so why even bother with
the non-substantive, emotional ones?

> Once the CD has taken hold (and I think it's just now doing that), we can
> just relax, sit back and be amused by the anti-digital "golden ears" as they
> take their rightful place among the creationists, astrologers and
> flat-earthers.

A dream world, that.  If you think creationism is dead, go read net.origins
for a while.  If you think astrology is silly child's play, go pick up
some newspapers--what's the probability that they'll have an astrology
column?  (Probably > 95%.)  Astrology is far sillier than analog audio and
it's been around far longer--and it's nowhere near dead.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Cerebus for dictator!