this is going to possibly sound a bit harsh toward this and i do not mean it
with any negative attitude, but when the copying occured from the source to
the cd, was there any post digital processing done? what i mean is, was it
possibly modified in any way from the original? It leaves out IMO one
important question, and that is what was the middle man between these two
sources? anyway i'm just being curious, because if there was any processing
done, that would say a whole heck of a lot. if not, well i'd be curious to
hear the comparison too :)
-Original Message-
From: Ivica Petrovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:04 AM
Subject: MD: better sound?
>
>this is an excerpt from British magazine Hi-Fi news & record
>rewiev, May issue
>
>"The 1999 Hi-fi show was certainly intriguing...but the van den Hul demo
>somewhat threw me and I suspect many others as well. Mr. A J Hul was there
>himself, asking people for their views on the difference in sound between
>two
>alternative sources played through B&W 802s and his own amplifiers.
Everyone
>in the room agreed the first example seemed preferable, with a fuller, more
>focused sound. He carried out the comparison several times moreWe still
>thought the first sounded better, before he went on to tell us, with a wry
>smile, that we preferred a 16-bit\44.1 kHz CD being played on a Sony SACD
>player to the original 24-bit 96 kHz master tape on a Nagra D tape deck!
>What's more, he agreed with us."
>
>Comments? And they're talking about "we can't recommended MD format yet"?
>Maybe master tapes too?
>
>
>-
>To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
>"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
