atmasphere
I think it’s important to keep perspective, and to claim that the resolution or performance limits of LP exceed that of the best digital just isn’t supported by the numbers. On the other hand, many of the potential technical advantages offered by digital far exceed that required by the music. For example, the LP has restricted dynamic range compared to digital, but that’s of no consequence with most recordings. And it’s the same with channel separation and with w&f ...
LPs since the 1960s have had bandwidth to 40KHz and beyond- I suspect that is one reason they are still around, as they have the widest bandwidth of any format.Ralph, I’m really surprised to see you say that. There’s no way you can get 40 kHz from analog tape at 0 VU - that’s why FR specs for analog tape are always done well below 0 VU ... usually -10 dB for reel, iirc, and -20 dB for cassette. So if you want the best, pure-analog LP, you have to live with the limitations of tape. Hi-res digital can easily be flat out to 40 kHz and beyond.
Recent advances in pressing technology (mostly at QRP) have allowed the pressings to be considerably lower noise, rivaling Redbook. Most of the surface noise of an LP is produced during pressing; almost none from mastering.You’ll get no argument from me there. As I’ve said, I’m an analog guy. Typically, I prefer LP to digital.
I think it’s important to keep perspective, and to claim that the resolution or performance limits of LP exceed that of the best digital just isn’t supported by the numbers. On the other hand, many of the potential technical advantages offered by digital far exceed that required by the music. For example, the LP has restricted dynamic range compared to digital, but that’s of no consequence with most recordings. And it’s the same with channel separation and with w&f ...