mikelavigne your posts are the best opinions I read about this subject....Not only you are not dogmatic or obsessive but your gear and room qualities can gives to you the real possibility of experimenting and experiencing about that debate most of the times badly informed... Thanks....
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.
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.
- ...
- 269 posts total
Thanks ricmci for perspective on SACD v CD. I’m still debating whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player. Maybe more will opine on level of fidelity between sacd and Tidal mqa or hi res qobuz. As to vinyl, yes, I agree that seems to be consensus but for now starting from scratch that rabbit hole is too wide and deep for me at present. Maybe in ten years upon retirement when I have more time to spend on it..... |
kren0006, "...whether to get a regular CD transport to run thru dac or a full sacd player."I would buy SACD player. You could always play CDs through an external DAC, if wanted. There are a few more ways. You could put your SACDs into a hard drive and not even need a SACD player. However, it would be a little itchy to have those discs laying around with nothing to play them on. |
Thanks glupson. I don’t want to sidetrack the thread too much and to be clear, I don’t yet have any SACDs, and the CDs I have from 80s, 90s I don’t play because as of now I no longer have a modern player. I’m strictly Tidal streaming today, and happy enough. But in the spirit of this thread and assessing fidelity of different playback options, my main question was *IF* SACD delivers a higher fidelity or sound quality listening experience than hi res Tidal or Qobuz streaming (that’s what I do not know), then I’d be interested in newly investing in SACD. If not, then no. Hi quality analog would be ideal for reasons articulated by others but for time/inexperience/$$ reasons analog not in cards for me at present time but maybe in 10 years. |
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. |
- 269 posts total