From: IainNG@kolumbus.fi   
      
   "Phil Allison"  wrote in message   
   news:95rdr3F1ndU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
      
   >>> An argument based on Hitler's speeches alone is utterly insane.   
   >>   
   >> Just a simple example.   
   >   
   > ** A blatantly fallacious and irrelevant one.   
      
   Neither fallacious nor irrelevant.  The difference between   
   taped broadcasts and those recorded to transcription disc   
   were clearly audible even back in those days, in UK listening   
   stations.   
      
      
   >>> When tape equipment is removed from the process of making LPs, as it was   
   >>> for " digital"  recordings sold in the early 1970s by Denon and others   
   >>> and   
   >>> also for all the " Direct to Disk " records  -  sound quality took a   
   >>> *very   
   >>> dramatic* leap forward.   
   >>   
   >> You yourself said we were discussing the situation in the early 1950s so   
   >> why are you suddenly taking about LPs and 1970s Denon?   
   >   
   >   
   > ** Cos it proves the  POINT  that even with 20 additional years of tape   
   > and tape machine development it was FAR better not to use the stinking   
   > piles of SHIT at all.   
      
   OK. Let's discuss this rationally for a moment, if you can.   
      
   Has it not ocurred to you that direct to disk recording was   
   marketing strategy?  I wonder if I were to present you with   
   two vinyl pressings of the same recording, one made direct   
   to disc, and the other carefully mastered to Agfa PEM468   
   on a Studer A80/II with Doby SR and then cut to disc in   
   the standard fashion,  if you could tell the difference between   
   them?  If you could, there is every reason to think that you   
   would choose the version made via tape, because the   
   dynamic control feeding gain information to the pitch control   
   servo via an advance head on the tape machine, gives greater   
   possibility to accomodate larger changes in dynamic than   
   direct to disc fixed pitch ever could.   
      
   So what, in addition to sales were the objectives of   
   direct to disc recording. The idea was to leave out two   
   stages, two links in the chain -  the multitrack analogue tape,   
   and the stereo analogue tape master to which it had been   
   mixed.  Tape has a frequency response similar to cutter   
   heads used in the 1970s, but a noise floor considerably   
   better than an acetate master and far better than any   
   vinyl pressing.  But by leaving out the tape stages,   
   they hoped to also avoid the 2% disortion of a  fully   
   modulated analogue tape.   
      
   D to D demo discs were indeed common.   
   Even Peter Walker of Quad had an orchestral direct   
   to disc recording which he used for demonstrations.   
   It was made in Decca III studio. I was one of the   
   engineers. It was techincally excellent, with a musical   
   performance as artistically flat as the disc on which it   
   was recorded.   
      
   Direct to disc had a huge problem.  The chances   
   of a flawless performance of 25 mins in duration were   
   pretty slim.  French horn and trumpet players in particular   
   were under considerale duress - far more so than in a concert   
   situation. It is a well-known phenomenon that in a live   
   concert, where the visual reference is just as important as   
   the aural, small errors in playing pass, and are gone in an   
   instant, often un-noticed.  But on a recording, those same   
   errors seem to grow exponentially each time one listens   
   to the recording, to such an extent that you are soon   
   waiting for them from bar one!   
      
   The other major disadvantageof direct to disc recording was   
   the limited genre of music which could be recorded.  No   
   bricklaying (overdubs) were possible, neither was any form   
   of compex post production.  These are things that add greatly   
   to the perceived quality of a recording.   
      
   >>> Such LPs became the standard for hi-fi demos and are a perfect   
   >>> demonstration of how even the very much better tape recorders of the   
   >>> 1970s   
   >>> were still way inferior to good old vinyl.   
   >>   
   >> That's incorrect.   
   >   
   > ** The point is overwhelmingly  CORRECT !!   
      
   It is incorrect, and I have clearly stated why.   
      
   >> The  recording industry standard tape recorder   
   >> even as far back as 1965 was the Studer C37.  It had a SNR   
   >> of -70dB (published spec) even without Dolby A.   
   >   
   > ** ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!   
      
   Despite your lack of experience with professional   
   recording equipment, you can confirm my statement by   
   looking at the Studer spec.  The C37 like its multitrack   
   cousin the J37 was a valve recorder.   
      
   The rest of your "learned response" snipped.   
   Expletives, text in capital letters and strings of   
   exclamation marks are no substitute for a rational   
   well-argued viewpoint.   
      
   Iain   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)