2. analog
  3. 192660-1647

Why do records made from digital sources sound good?

This question defeats my understanding.  If analog reproduction sounds better than digital, and my ears say that it usually does, how can a digital master, for example make for a better sounding record?  I also have a Sugar Cube, which removes pops and clicks from old or damaged records and it does this be making an instantaneous digital copy and editing out the noise.  And it works and the records sound quite listenable and the digital part is almost undetectable - emphasis on almost.  So can someone explain this to me?  Please no diatribes from fanatics about the virtues of analog and the evils of digital.  What would be appreciated is a technically competent explanation.

billstevenson

Showing 1 response by ghdprentice

ghdprentice
7,789 posts
 

There are tons of spectaculary bad analog and digital recordings. Also, spectacularly good ones. In part it depends on when they were made. In the late fifties most of the finest recordings ever produced were made. They were all analog. But during that period there were still some spectacularly bad recordings made. The tinniest horrible brittle ones, typically early rock, but I’ve heard some horrible classical as well..

Then the industry slowly switched over to digital mastering. Wow, there are some terrible early digital recordings. Deutsch Gramophone, known for outstanding classical recordings produced some incredibly bad stuff... released on vinyl. Over time digital recordings got better. But the digitall playback systems got better as well... only in the last ten years of so have they equaled vinyl playback.

So there have been long termed trends, but huge local variation within the time frame for recording, then the same in playback.

Today, the playback equipment has erased (or can, if you have a good system that is carefully curated) any difference between analog and digital. So, then you are left with how they were mastered.

More to discover