Why no interest in reel to reel if you're looking for the ultimate sound?
My golden ears told me that WAV is better than FLAC when I compared the two HD down-loads; now I no longer use HD down-loads because they only offer FLAC. How brilliant of you to note that I can only speak with authority on my rig; you got anymore mind blowing observations left? That's my lock-down sense of humor coming out. |
@geoffkait You can measure all you want but there is one central truth: Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. This is part and parcel of Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is known as Entropy. It is immutable. Additionally, when you sample a analog signal, by definition, there is some period of time when you are NOT sampling. This information is lost forever. Yes, if the sampling rate is high enough - and in Redbook CDs it is not even close - you don't tend to notice these losses as obvious. The loss seems to be realized as a loss of "presence" or depth of soundstage or perhaps a certain "air", This is why vinyl has seen such a resurgence; it stays in the analog domain. Bench measurements have been shown over and over to be a distraction in audio. All that matters is your ears. |
No offence, rrcpa, but you don't seem to understand thermodynamics or sampling theory. When you record on tape, something is lost. Tape is neither infinite bandwidth nor infinite signal to noise, and even speed and level is not consistent, hence something is always "lost". Your statement, -- "there is some period of time when you are NOT sampling. This information is lost forever."-- , only shows your lack of understanding of how analog sampling in a system limited by bandwidth works. If the system is bandwidth limited, say 50KHz, far beyond anything ever shown to be detectable ever, and where most tape has no response either, then sampling at 192KHz will capture everything within the limits of the signal to noise and dynamic range of the A/D system. You can attempt to debate it, but unless you have an advanced math degree, it would probably be pointless. Redbook CD is sufficient to capture all the information up to 20KHz, again within the limits of it's SNR and dynamic range. Want to talk about a format where things are lost? ... let's talk vinyl. RIAA equalization and de-equalization coupled with potential for imperfect cartridge loading, tracking error, etc. throws away level information, and the limited channel seperation throws away a ton of data w.r.t. what should have been coming out of each channel. A significant majority of that "resurgent" vinyl was digital at some point of the process. Very little vinyl is pure analog. Measurements can tell us about accuracy, they can't tell us what you will like. Claiming that tape or vinyl is more "accurate" isn't supportable at the device level. Vinyl may modify the signal (and it most certainly does) in a way that is pleasant to a lot of audiophiles and there is certainly a resurgence in vinyl buying, but most of that is played are far from audiophile systems for nostalgia and cool factor. Music (sound) is analog and by changing that signal to digital something is lost. Something is lost once again when you change it back to analog so your ears can understand it. This is part and parcel of Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is known as Entropy. It is immutable. |
