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
roberttdid OP
534 posts
 
@rauliruegas


If someone says cable A sounds better than cable B, that is a Subjective opinion. If that same someone can reliably differentiate between cable A and cable B in a controlled blind test, then we have Objective proof the cables are different.

Anyone who doesn't believe in blind testing really does not trust their ears no matter what they may claim.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Pure baloney!! This is the oldest con game in audio, so-called “objectivists” dismissing listening results when listening results are empirical evidence, you know, one of the foundations of the scientific method. Don’t let the pseudo scientists con you. At least we have identified 👀 them. Just more jibber jabber from the usual suspects. Be vigilant, they can be very slippery, like eels.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,046 posts
 
rauliruegas
I respect your polite and factual tone...

I want to say that what i read incline me toward your view point in principle, but in concrete experience  with one anolog  audio system or another more refined, i am not sure that a very refined analog system  will not surprise my factual reasons to place the digital technology ahead ( the reasons you described)...

I respect you and thanks you for your interesting posts anyway....
roberttdid OP
534 posts
 
When a dude who lies about his qualifications as a physicist (I read old posts), sells Magic Pebbles to improve sound, and claims to improve audio via a telephone call .. just the call, not a call about audio, ...calls you a pseudo scientist, I will take that as high praise.  Must really burn your Geoff that you never got published, not once, after that paper in what Junior High and people who actually contribute to science like me get published, cited, even invited to speak. Your envy and jealously is really ugly but keep doing you.

Your repeated Wrong use of the term empirical evidence shows you do not know how to do research and I expect you never have. What you describe as empirical evidence is anecdotal evidence. I borrowed someone else's words but here, let me spell it out for you. Maybe you will learn something.



Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.


As a layperson in research I can understand your error. Empirical evidence can be observational, not hard measured, and you make the leap that that includes anecdotal evidence but it does not. It still needs to meet the scientific requirements of unbiased and repeatable


Here, this article may help:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/


roberttdid OP
534 posts
 
It is quite clear that the pseudo scientist is the one who does not even understand what empirical evidence is. Sad really that he works so hard, 16 hours a day,  to mislead others. Not sure what is the motivation for that.
More to discover