-=> Quoting Ken Hotte to Steve Mctague <=-
 KH> only be semi-correct, after all, it is digital. Not saying that 
 KH> analog is any better (wait a minute.... it is!), but, digital
 KH> needs a little more before it gets things good enough to fool
 KH> everyone's ears. 
        You've obviously never heard the right CDs.  Ask Mark for a
list.  Better yet, visit his Hot Picks page:
--
http://users.aol.com/basspig/favorite.htm
--
Although I'd add "Macross: The Complete" to that list.  
        As for LPs, yeah, they contain music, once you train your
brain to ignore all the surface noise, high distortion, low stereo
seperation, clicks & pops, and wow and flutter.  
        I hear many people do prefer the so-called "euphonic"
distortions on LPs to the inherent *accuracy* of CDs (although a CD is
only as good as the material you put on it and and how it's conveyed
to it), but that distortion is not accurate in any sense of the word.
Record an LP straight to CD through your own turntable and phono
section.  They'll sound identical.  *That's* accuracy, distortions
from the Lp and all.
 KH> Truth be known though.... I would rather have 20 bits transposed
 KH> down to 16 bits, than a straight 16 bit recording. Properly done
 KH> it DOES help. There is also the chance that at a later date I can
 KH> get a copy done at the full 20 bit level.
        The only improvement you're going to get with a 20 bit CD is
more dynamic range.  Unless you enjoy blasting yourself out of your
house, you'll probably never reach the dynamic range of a 16 bit cd
(96dB plus inherent room noise level).  In fact, until recording
equipment (mics especially) are brought up to a whole new level,
you'll never get 120dB dynamic range out of them anyways (their noise
floor is too high).  20 bit is *way* overrated.
        No, the problem with lousy sounding CDs is in the recording
and mastering chains.  Get them to clean up their act and you'll see a
*huge* improvement.  *Some* discs are recorded properly and they sound
great.  The best thing about HDCD is not the format, but the recording
chain that is assured by the process.  HDCD does nothing for pure
conversions from typical master analogs (nor does SBM and other
formats) because there is not enough dynamic range in most recordings
to improve upon.  
        Those that think HDCD does something magical to digital
recordings to "fix them" are not only barking up the wrong tree,
they're in the wrong forest.  It's no wonder Pacific Microsonics are
so reluctant to offer direct comparisons to a non HDCD version of the
same master recording.  They know there's no difference there.
SM> I've got a few conventional CDs (no SBM, no HDCD) that
SM> really sound outstanding.  Then again, I've got the SBM
SM> remaster of Miles Davis' 1959 _Kind of Blue_, and it
SM> sounds better than many contemporary recordings (minus
SM> some tape hiss, of course).  I dunno, just curious to
        This is probably because they reequalized the thing.  This is
usually a travesty.  Some people prefer the reequalized version
(obviously the guy in charge did or he wouldn't have done it).  It has
*nothing* to do with SBM itself, which is purely a method add a little
more dynamic range where possible.  It does *not* perform miracles!
The SBM versions that sound better than the original are either taken
from different tapes (they usually dig up the master for an SBM
release) or reequalized or both.  There's nothing "magical" about it.
Almost no recordings have enough dynamic range to benefit from what
SBM itself *does* do.
  
SM> hear some insight of how 16bit media benefits from the
SM> studios higher resolution.
        Dynamic Range improvement (lowers the noise floor).  That's
it.
        Oh, for those still wondering about green pens, someone on
Usenet tried comparing the actual digital data on a computer of a CD
before and after green pen treatment.  *Zero* difference.  Does that
tell you something about it? ;-)
 * AmyBW v2.14 *
... KARAOKE: A Japanese word meaning tone deaf.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------