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

Where do you buy the system you listed for "circa 2000"? Presumably you mean dollars and not some exotic cryptocurrency.

I mean it’s exactly the kind of system an enthusiast might have bought 20 years ago, around the year 2000. Yes, it would be much more than $2000, even then. It's fine gear - but probably NOT a great microscope into recordings by today's standards. 

The article is behind a paywall now, but I was able to read it a few days ago. It’s really about Better Records and their selection process, so posing it as "Vinyl vs. Digital" is clickbait-worthy. The Better Records guy bashes all modern reissues (along with the companies that make them), chiding one particular reissue as sounding "dun dun dun" (or something like that) in the bass - and I can’t help but thinking it’s his old Legacy Focus speakers doing that 😂

I hope Tom Port makes a lot of money from the gullible and easily duped! 

I would say that I have had pretty good luck with remasters but I have come across some when compared to an original pressing from the 60's or 70's where I thought the original copy sounded better and in some cases much better. Most of my collection is earlier pressings from the 60's and 70's of primarily rock and if the copy is relatively noise free and I am happy with the sound quality I usually will not order a remaster. I am pretty selective with the remasters I order and the record companies producing them and where they are pressed and also look to who is the remastering engineer and also who is cutting the lacquer if available. 

What I will say is that I have rarely if ever been disappointed with Analog Productions or anything pressed at QRP under different labels and I am referring to their more standard issues in the $25-$75 range and not just the premium remasters like the UHQR releases.

Whatever the merits of the case, there is an obvious opportunity cost to being this obsessive (or perspicuous) about one's sound. Namely, there is only so much time left on this earth for each one of us, and time spent on this will come at the expense at further, farther, explorations of sound and music.

Everyone has to choose what they want to spend their time on, but for me, this would be like exploring the cracks in my neighborhood's sidewalk rather than visiting a new place. No thank you.

So, let me get this straight. We will compare analog vs digital artifacts by recording both as digital, compressing eh living crap out of it, and playing it back on a computer.

The only possible thing that this could prove is that the digital representation of each is perfect and we prefer some additive analog artifacts that are faithfully reproduced in one of the files. I’m not saying that’s the case, but its the only possible proof that can come of this.

If, in fact, the process used to code each example (A vs D) to a file is so very good that it can reveal the nuances of each, why not just record music with this astonishing approach int he first palce and put an end to the debate?

These sorts of comparisons underscore how little many really understand the signal chain. Apparently it does not stop writing and commenting however.

No, i have not dug into the specifics - it doesn’t really change the facts all that much.