Let’s get real for a second. The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons. If anyone says it doesn’t he is a mere beginner.
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
kren0006, I guess it is acceptable to metion experience/thoughts about SACD vs. CD here. No tape, though. At the first listen, SACDs may sound strikingly "better". There simply feels there is "more of everything". I am not sure if that is because of mastering (or whatever other process may be involved in preparing material for SACD) or because of the medium itself. I will never know, but to me SACDs almost always sound like "more" than their regular CD counterpart. Those that are not that impressive, at least do not sound duller than a CD. Basically, if there is an option, I always buy a SACD and do not regret it. Anyone I presented with music at home, seemed impressed by SACDs. That was an easy part. However, when comparing SACD and CD layers of the same SACD, on the same machine, it gets a little more slippery. I convinced myself that it is always worth choosing SACD layer, but I am not sure I would be able to discern the difference every time, if pressed to. That is why I am suspecting the processing before stamping may be as important as the medium itself, if not even more important. I assume, and have no knowledge of it, that preparing for SACD may make the engineer assume different expectations from customers and adjust the sound to them. The most complicated part may be deciding if all those SACDs are, in fact, "better". I seem to like them more, but I cannot say that they are "more natural". They may be, but it is not that easy to claim for sure. Not even for classical music, although that is where I think they are definitely worth giving a shot. If I were you and wanted to experiment, I would buy a SACD machine (basic ones can be really cheap), a few hybrid SACDs, and check the format out. If I liked it, I might buy a few more, but building the SACD library at this point is questionable endeavor for someone already familiar with streaming. There are plenty of DSF downloads out there and your DAC may be all you need. I have had a very limited experience with Tidal (in audio stores), but from what I have heard selection and sound quality would not make me consider it at all. I think CDs, SACDs, or better downloads would be much better. Again, not much experience. Here is just an example. It may be frowned upon as "not audiophile-worthy", but you can get some idea and it would not set you back by much... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Sony-SCD-CE595-5-Disc-CD-Changer-Working/114259185648?hash=item1a9a... |
roberttdid 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.That's true of any audio system. An illusion is the best any system can create, and even the best illusions are imperfect. So it is always about preference. 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.Same here. At least with headphones, you eliminate any effects that are the result of room acoustics. |
- 269 posts total