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!