"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com...

R wrote:
wrote in news:1105416504.770784.249440
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Walter Sear, however, is trying to make it better.

And his work proves it, in my opinion. When the anti-analog,
antitube
zealots can produce the quality of work Mr.Sear, 73, a former tuba
player, does, I will be more motivated to listen.



Please explain how it came to be that when the Mercury Living
Presence
recordings were to be re-released on CD, no one could tell the
difference
between the master tapes and the CD in a blind AB test.

http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf

"After completing the masters for the first ten releases on CD, we
decided to
set up listening sessions for the press at the Edison Studios. This
would
give them the ability to A/B the manufactured CD's with the
original
recordings for direct comparison. On June 21, 1990, representatives
of the
major audio magazines and the audiophile press gathered at the
PolyGram
Studios in Edison, New Jersey. After two separate sessions of blind
A/B
comparisons between the CD reissues and the original master tapes,
these
critical listeners were unable to consistently identify the source."


Now that these recordings are available on SACD, they can do one
thing that
is quite impossible for an LP or a CD to do and that is to reproduce
the
sound that is in the center channel. This discrete center channel
was how it
was originally recorded so many years ago.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

So, each of you has presented some data arguing in favor of one format
or the other. From the description given, Mr. Sear had a sample size
of about 150, which statistially speaking, is probably pretty
significant depending on what type of statistical analysis (e.g. chi
square test) he performed, if he did any. What was the sample size in
the Mercury CD comparisons? You may or may not be aware of the fact
that some of the Mercury Living Presence LPs have been reissued on 180
gram vinyl - under the supervision of Bob Fine's widow directly. (I
have atr least one of them). You also have not mentioned, nor has Mr.
Sear, what analogue playback equipment or what digital playback
equipment was used in making this comparison. There are just too many
unanswered questions re. the methodology used in these comparisons to
form any significant conclusions.

I'd be willing to speculate that as with many debates, people can and
will find data supporing their point of view, while ignoring that
refuting it. Such is the nature of the biases we all have.

Perhaps some more research into what's already discovered would benefit the
anti-digital folks. Clearly their view is at odds with the known facts.