On 29/04/14 12:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
IF you had a wide enough tape running fast enough and you calibrated the
kit on a regular basis and re spooled the tape every few months to avoid
ghosting and' it COULD, with a sacrifice of a virgin and a goat at
midnight, give a passable imitation of 'a recording device'.


Unless you added Dolby, in which case you needed three virgins and a
prayer to St. Bridget as well.

You've obviously not had experience of Dolby SR.

You'd also think by your post that digital gives perfect results every
time. Which means you don't much listen to current commercial recordings.

Professional digital equipment as currently made is capable of better
quality than the equivalent analogue equipment. Even bottom end digital
recorders are of a quality I could only dream of in the 1970s.

On the other hand, there are a lot more incompetent operators producing
stuff for general consumption round nowadays than there once were.
Partly, this is because almost anyone can afford a digital setup,
whereas, in the days of analogue recording, there was a major investment
in easily damaged equipment, so the ham fisted and half deaf operators
very rarely got anywhere near it.

Don't blame the tools for the bad sound on modern CD releases.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.