Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

Thank you Tousana. What great information in that story.

One of my good friends is a Grammy award winning classical musician, so I've been able to audition him live, versus digital, versus analog on several occasions.

During a recent visit to his home in New York I was able to compare several of his digital master tapes with the same material on Compact Disc.

The CD was a factory pressing, (not a special CDR which he also has), identical to ones released to the public. We listened to all on his high end system in a large dedicated sound room with his own personal equipment.

I am still shocked at how bad the CD's were compared to the master digital tape. The CD was a mere shadow of the original.

I have some analog safety's in my own personal collection (none are his work), with one that's absolutely a first generation (unmixed) master.

No doubt these best-of-best analog tapes are better than my LP's, even with my very high quality turntable and mere mid line tape playback machine.

Still, the difference between the two analog sounds is more dynamics and "you are there" rather than omission of quality and emotion.

In his system the analog was incredible as were some of the digital masters. BUT, the CD's as released to the public were just plan "nasty" compared to the original.

I would guess is the CD format itself is the problem. Do you agree or is it something that happens to the master when the record company gets done with it?

Opinion?

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?

They couldn't do Lp vs cd, everyone would have known which was which by the pops and crackles:)

I have read a few reviews of cd players lately where the reviewer states that the sound of the cd was close to if not equal to the sound of the vinyl version. I expect to hear that more frequently as time passes. I think that cd players are just starting to reach their potential and that there will be sonic improvements in cd players for a long time to come.

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?
Tgrisham

In the case of the listening tests I did in New York, the digital master had much higher sampling rates than the consumer CD.

That's probably the biggest difference, or perhaps there are errors that the shiny disc creates while spinning, compared to tape against the playback head?

Another friend of mine was involved in the JVC XRCD project, he too is a recording engineer and audiophile. A few years ago at Stereophile, he and I were having a long conversation and he expressed his frustration that his digital masters sitting on the hard drive were incredibly good, but the VERY FIRST transfer to anywhere else, it moved toward digital nasty.

Note here, perhaps digital on hard drive is converted to analog at the studio for LP's production? If so, this might explain why DSD masters pressed to LP (often) sound better than Redbook.

Maybe this is a clock thing? Maybe the hard drive is more perfect and other formats are required to evolve the sound from that point on?

As for your tests with re-recording CD's, you are possibly getting error correction and that's what you hear. I've heard others say this is possible, many burn a "better" CD after software compares 100 times (or whatever).

You say you did not do double blind, no need, I'll take your word for the results.

I'm an advocate of relaxed listening over double blind. Long term allows you to relax, absorb and learn all at the same time. Double blind tests are like cramming for an exam the night before, instead of studying all semester :^).

I hope Tousana will contribute to this thread again.

Albertporter, first let me say to your friend that is working with the JVC XRCD
project, that those CD's too me are some of the finest CD's made that will play in a standard CD player. I've said before that if all CD's were produced with such care the format would not get bashed so much. The list is long of things that can happen while recording and or mixing to affect the sound of the recording. I don't remember if they touched on the fact in the PBS segment that analog is very forgiving as far as the recorded level is concerned and that some of the warmth that is achieved from analog recording can be caused by the natural compression of the signal as it gets recorded. This happens when the level of the recorded material gets to hot for the tape to handle, but in digital when levels get to hot it is all or nothing. Digital is not a forgiving medium when mistakes are made. If you make it out of the studio with a good mix there are other things that can go wrong between finishing the mix and the actual release of a CD. One of the main things is the mastering of a project where for the last 10 yrs. or so the loudness wars have pretty much ruined the sound of many recordings, in every type of music. This is the phenomenon of everybody wanting their recording to be as loud or louder than the next persons. Loudness = compression = loss of dynamic range (no real difference between the loud and soft passages in the music), which could all lead to possible distortion on the CD itself, or even the distortion of the electronics being used in the playback of the CD.
These are just a few of the the things that must be taken into account to produce a great sounding recording, regardless of it being put on CD or vinyl. There is very long list of things that can go wrong, but I'd need to write a book to explain them.