roberttdid,
So not only is there this distinction between what we seek from a recording, ie accuracy or pleasure (objectivist v subjectivist), not only is there great confusion for the consumer regarding what the recording was intended to sound like (audio's circle of confusion), there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound.
Signal processing is an entirely separate issue and a no less complex one. A 2009 study even indicated that some Stanford students preferred lower bitrate recordings to higher bitrate ones (192kbps to 320kbps).
"Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information."
For the purposes of this post it's fairly safe to conclude that digital does hold more data than tape.
Tape can sound wonderful no doubt, but it's fairly obvious that successive generations of tape recording (bouncing down) have far more serious implications for its sound quality than digital copying ever does.
The 1960s, especially the latter half, saw many recordings following in the footsteps of Phil Spector/Joe Meek etc with dubbing and overdubbing and bouncing down repeatedly. Daniel Lanois often used these techniques to great effect.
Some of those recordings as works of art hold up well, but sonic masterpieces they're not, ie the background is often a load of mush. Pleasant mush, but mush nonetheless.
As any fan of the Mamas and the Papas can tell you.
So not only is there this distinction between what we seek from a recording, ie accuracy or pleasure (objectivist v subjectivist), not only is there great confusion for the consumer regarding what the recording was intended to sound like (audio's circle of confusion), there's also this issue of how an individual brain processes the sound.
Signal processing is an entirely separate issue and a no less complex one. A 2009 study even indicated that some Stanford students preferred lower bitrate recordings to higher bitrate ones (192kbps to 320kbps).
"Reduced total information can allow easier processing of the remaining information."
For the purposes of this post it's fairly safe to conclude that digital does hold more data than tape.
Tape can sound wonderful no doubt, but it's fairly obvious that successive generations of tape recording (bouncing down) have far more serious implications for its sound quality than digital copying ever does.
The 1960s, especially the latter half, saw many recordings following in the footsteps of Phil Spector/Joe Meek etc with dubbing and overdubbing and bouncing down repeatedly. Daniel Lanois often used these techniques to great effect.
Some of those recordings as works of art hold up well, but sonic masterpieces they're not, ie the background is often a load of mush. Pleasant mush, but mush nonetheless.
As any fan of the Mamas and the Papas can tell you.