Analogue v. Digital...again (Washington Post)


This is an interesting article and it features a couple of A vs. D recordings so you can try to tell the difference. Michael Fremer had a brief remark in the "comments" section. Hopefully, this Washington Post link for non-subscribers works:

 

kacomess

Showing 1 response by stevewharton

+1 on the American way and capitalism

All these opinions are merely data points and incumbent upon each of us to trust but verify before reacting

I can only say my personal experience is different than his

I've got near 500 albums from the 70s and 80s

My parents have passed down their collection from the 60s and 70s, some great artists and original pressings of Elvis, Sonny and Cher, The Supremes, Roy Orbison, etc

My analog kit is moderate by today's standards but better than Mr Port's circa 2000 kit

During analog playback, I've got dozens of those pressings that sound spectacular, despite the pops and warps

But I've got a much higher percentage that sound average to nails on a chalkboard, the lack of quality consistency is the biggest analog let down for me

My digital playback is at least 95% as good as my best analog and the quality consistency is off the charts - nothing sounds like nails on a chalkboard and less than 10% sound average

I would submit that 90% of my digital playback is the best playback versions of these old war horses that I've been playing over and over for 40 years

For reference I stream everything and play fewer CDs than even records 

Again simply my personal experience on my kit in my space

The mileage varies for all of us, no wrong are right answers - just different experiences and preferences

Happy listening to all