2. tech-talk
  3. 157932-137904

Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:

Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital

I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?

High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two.  Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?

This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
roberttdid

Showing 7 responses by kren0006

kren0006
1,859 posts
 
This is an awesome discussion. Much appreciated.

@mikelavigne: in your opinion is there value today in SACD versus the highest quality digital streams from Tidal or Qobuz? If so, do you expect that to be the case in a couple of years? I hope this is not a stupid question. I am asking because I am contemplating getting an SACD player if there is an improvement to be had in sound quality over digital streaming for my 10-30% of time I’d be willing to listen to it over streaming. For point of reference, I have an all-digital system with total msrp in the low $20k’s (speakers, amps, source, cables included), if that impacts the answer. Thanks!
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
cleeds,
Just looking for his opinion.  As to your question, I don't have a dealer willing to do that and even if I did, I don't have any SACDs.  So, that's why.
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
Thanks ricmci for perspective on SACD v CD. I’m still debating whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player. Maybe more will opine on level of fidelity between sacd and Tidal mqa or hi res qobuz. 

As to vinyl, yes, I agree that seems to be consensus but for now starting from scratch that rabbit hole is too wide and deep for me at present. Maybe in ten years upon retirement when I have more time to spend on it.....
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
Thanks glupson.  Appreciate it.
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
Thanks glupson. I don’t want to sidetrack the thread too much and to be clear, I don’t yet have any SACDs, and the CDs I have from 80s, 90s I don’t play because as of now I no longer have a modern player. I’m strictly Tidal streaming today, and happy enough.

But in the spirit of this thread and assessing fidelity of different playback options, my main question was *IF* SACD delivers a higher fidelity or sound quality listening experience than hi res Tidal or Qobuz streaming (that’s what I do not know), then I’d be interested in newly investing in SACD. If not, then no.

Hi quality analog would be ideal for reasons articulated by others but for time/inexperience/$$ reasons analog not in cards for me at present time but maybe in 10 years.
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
Thanks, OP. That’s the plan regardless. Today I have Teac NT-505 but I plan to eventually move up to hopefully dCS Bartok for streaming. If an SACD player could provide even better quality playing SACDs than the Bartok can for streaming, then I’d consider getting an SACD player as well, but regardless streaming will be bulk of listening. Thanks again to all who responded.
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
under 50 by a ways but wish it was more, haha.....sigh
More to discover