2. tech-talk
  3. 157932-137904

Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

One common theme I read on forums here and elsewhere is the view by many that there is a pecking order in quality:

Top - High Quality Analog TapeNext - VinylBottom - Digital

I will go out on a limb and say that most, probably approaching almost all those making the claim have never heard a really good analog tape machine and high resolution digital side by side, and have certainly never heard what comes out the other end when it goes to vinyl, i.e. heard the tape/file that went to the cutter, then compared that to the resultant record?

High quality analog tape and high quality digital sound very similar. Add a bit of hiss (noise) to digital, and it would be very difficult to tell which is which. It is not digital, especially high resolution digital that is the outlier, it is vinyl. It is different from the other two.  Perhaps if more people actually experienced this, they would have a different approach to analog/vinyl?

This post has nothing to do with personal taste. If you prefer vinyl, then stick with it and enjoy it. There are reasons why the analog processing that occurs in the vinyl "process" can result in a sound that pleases someone. However, knowledge is good, and if you are set in your ways, you may be preventing the next leap.
roberttdid
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,934 posts
 
mikelavigne
... does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some would reasonably beg to differ) ...
As you suggest, some would think your claim is debatable, but I think the debate would be purely academic. Here's why:
... the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format.
Exactly! And for any of the reasons I've previously cited in this thread, the best version of any particular commercial recording could be on CD, or SACD, or LP, or tape, or from a streaming service. There are so many variables.
roberttdid OP
534 posts
 
No offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but still a preference.

My personal experience when I have been working directly with musicians, and it is a view I have seen reported often (even here), is that when musicians hear recordings, they will identify high-res digital recordings as a more accurate representation of the sound of their playing. Note I did not say pleasing, I said more accurate. I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all sound different.


Not everyone who has heard Mike's system loves it:  https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-visit-to-mike-lavignes-home-and-sound-g...





roberttdid OP
534 posts
 
@kren0006, get the DAC. That will give you access to a larger body of music played through a component capable of supporting a wider range of formats including 24/192,4/8x DSD, etc. that are unlikely to be found in physical media.
kren0006
1,859 posts
 
Thanks, OP. That’s the plan regardless. Today I have Teac NT-505 but I plan to eventually move up to hopefully dCS Bartok for streaming. If an SACD player could provide even better quality playing SACDs than the Bartok can for streaming, then I’d consider getting an SACD player as well, but regardless streaming will be bulk of listening. Thanks again to all who responded.
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,896 posts
 
@glup the amps are Vandersteen M7 HPA, mini Vader, you can see them with the hood off in my system pics ( poverty bay )

@mikelavigne nice contribution here, thanks again your even handed tone and congrats on retirement, I can highly recommend it as a stress reducer




More to discover