Great comments
A case for Hi Rez Digital
Ok...walk with me (BTW I listen to both analog and digital)
You have a Master tape from a classic album that is considered "audiophile". You get the best mastering engineer. Best converters, etc. Tape in great shape. The Engineer is well experienced in both digital and analog mastering.
1. The Engineer masters a Hi Rez 24 bit (96 or 192) file. Which is either distributed digitally (HD Tracks, etc) or SACD (24/44?). No 16/44 version...just High Rez. The consumer purchases and plays thru a high quality DAC and stereo system.
2. Same Engineer masters a vinyl version. The normal process (Laquer---plates---stampers or whatever the process) for an audiophile LP (think MoFi, MM, etc). Goes to pressing plant and uses the highest quality vinyl. The vinyl is packaged in a cover, shrink-wrapped and shipped to warehouse, record store, etc. The buyer gets the album and has a similar high quality system as the digital buyer. Just instead of a DAC...the buyer has a phono pre, Turntable, and cartridge.
Shouldn't the digital buyer get the closest version to the source master tape and thus have the best sounding version?No surface noise, fewer variations (Dacs can vary, however, with LPs you have a TT, Cartridge, more interconnects thruout, plus variations in the vinyl itself. How about cutting head wear).
Myself, numerous LPs that sound better than digital. I have a huge collection of Hi-Rez and DSD files. I have many Hi Rez versions better sounding than audiophile Lps. I'm inclined to think that the majority of sound quality (I know there are human preferences) comes from the recording and mastering vs format. And all things equal, Digital edges out LPs for noise alone.
Thoughts?
You have a Master tape from a classic album that is considered "audiophile". You get the best mastering engineer. Best converters, etc. Tape in great shape. The Engineer is well experienced in both digital and analog mastering.
1. The Engineer masters a Hi Rez 24 bit (96 or 192) file. Which is either distributed digitally (HD Tracks, etc) or SACD (24/44?). No 16/44 version...just High Rez. The consumer purchases and plays thru a high quality DAC and stereo system.
2. Same Engineer masters a vinyl version. The normal process (Laquer---plates---stampers or whatever the process) for an audiophile LP (think MoFi, MM, etc). Goes to pressing plant and uses the highest quality vinyl. The vinyl is packaged in a cover, shrink-wrapped and shipped to warehouse, record store, etc. The buyer gets the album and has a similar high quality system as the digital buyer. Just instead of a DAC...the buyer has a phono pre, Turntable, and cartridge.
Shouldn't the digital buyer get the closest version to the source master tape and thus have the best sounding version?No surface noise, fewer variations (Dacs can vary, however, with LPs you have a TT, Cartridge, more interconnects thruout, plus variations in the vinyl itself. How about cutting head wear).
Myself, numerous LPs that sound better than digital. I have a huge collection of Hi-Rez and DSD files. I have many Hi Rez versions better sounding than audiophile Lps. I'm inclined to think that the majority of sound quality (I know there are human preferences) comes from the recording and mastering vs format. And all things equal, Digital edges out LPs for noise alone.
Thoughts?
- ...
- 19 posts total
- 19 posts total