Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

No one mentions that Pro Tools (the digital company) set up the test for PBS.

Sure, digital can sound great at "master" level, I've been fortunate enough to hear direct digital masters against the same release on CD.

LP is not perfect either, but LP is the superior CONSUMER format for those willing to put in the time to make it right.

Perhaps when (and if) high def downloads become available we will finally have digital that's superior to LP.

Meanwhile it's still the 25 year old Redbook format with brick wall filters and digital nasty (or) downloads at no better resolution that what's already offered in the stores.

With Apple making hundreds of millions of dollars, selling crap downloads, we audiophiles will be lucky if truly high resolution downloads are ever offered. The recording companies see it as pearls before swine.

Shadorne

Perhaps the whole thing was faked and the band who claimed they could not tell were all paid to do so (or more likely the music was all from the good sounding analog).

I think the test was performed exactly as portrayed on TV. Electroid took the words out of my mouth as to how things were likely done for the "test."

Another good point. CD's are often a lot worse than studio masters due to the mastering process where they are compressed horribly to sound "hot" or "loud" (no dynamics left after this process and very prevalent with pop music).

ABSOLUTELY correct, right in the bulls eye.

Add to that, lots of playback equipment is not happy at 0 DB (maxed out all the time). The chip sets are designed to swing and take advantage of digitals great dynamic range.........then the engineers "loudness wars" the format and destroy it's advantage.

Thank you Tousana. What great information in that story.

One of my good friends is a Grammy award winning classical musician, so I've been able to audition him live, versus digital, versus analog on several occasions.

During a recent visit to his home in New York I was able to compare several of his digital master tapes with the same material on Compact Disc.

The CD was a factory pressing, (not a special CDR which he also has), identical to ones released to the public. We listened to all on his high end system in a large dedicated sound room with his own personal equipment.

I am still shocked at how bad the CD's were compared to the master digital tape. The CD was a mere shadow of the original.

I have some analog safety's in my own personal collection (none are his work), with one that's absolutely a first generation (unmixed) master.

No doubt these best-of-best analog tapes are better than my LP's, even with my very high quality turntable and mere mid line tape playback machine.

Still, the difference between the two analog sounds is more dynamics and "you are there" rather than omission of quality and emotion.

In his system the analog was incredible as were some of the digital masters. BUT, the CD's as released to the public were just plan "nasty" compared to the original.

I would guess is the CD format itself is the problem. Do you agree or is it something that happens to the master when the record company gets done with it?

Opinion?

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?
Tgrisham

In the case of the listening tests I did in New York, the digital master had much higher sampling rates than the consumer CD.

That's probably the biggest difference, or perhaps there are errors that the shiny disc creates while spinning, compared to tape against the playback head?

Another friend of mine was involved in the JVC XRCD project, he too is a recording engineer and audiophile. A few years ago at Stereophile, he and I were having a long conversation and he expressed his frustration that his digital masters sitting on the hard drive were incredibly good, but the VERY FIRST transfer to anywhere else, it moved toward digital nasty.

Note here, perhaps digital on hard drive is converted to analog at the studio for LP's production? If so, this might explain why DSD masters pressed to LP (often) sound better than Redbook.

Maybe this is a clock thing? Maybe the hard drive is more perfect and other formats are required to evolve the sound from that point on?

As for your tests with re-recording CD's, you are possibly getting error correction and that's what you hear. I've heard others say this is possible, many burn a "better" CD after software compares 100 times (or whatever).

You say you did not do double blind, no need, I'll take your word for the results.

I'm an advocate of relaxed listening over double blind. Long term allows you to relax, absorb and learn all at the same time. Double blind tests are like cramming for an exam the night before, instead of studying all semester :^).

I hope Tousana will contribute to this thread again.

Eldartford.

That sound like a reasonable way to maximize the dynamic range CD is capable of. Too bad the recording people don't think about that when they produce them.

As quiet as CD's are, I don't see the point of pushing the limits and compressing them. Guess it's a way to put the music in your face, so even in a car or listening on a computer system, it jumps out at you.

What a waste when you have a nice system though.