Half the information on CDs is analogue

Here's a simple task that most everyone with a stand alone CD burner or computer based burner can do. That is, if they have the desire and means to do so.

Take an analogue source, record it onto a CD and then compare the original analogue source to the digital "cloned" recording using the same playback equipment. If you can't hear the difference between the original and the "digital clone", you better check into the office of an audiologist for a very thorough exam. You are either going deaf and / or are thoroughly lacking in listening skills.

Until one has done something like this, making comments about this subject is useless and a waste of everyone's time. Anybody that has done something like this will know why older analogue recordings pretty much HAVE TO BE remastered when released on CD. That is, they have to apply TONS of equilization in order to get something that even remotely resembles the "natural" tonal balance that was lost when converting to digital. Sean
>

PS... making digital to digital copies typically results in excellent copies. When going from analogue to digital, even using the shortest and purest path possible, it all goes to hell.

Sean...Did it ever occur to you that the "TONS of equalization" that you say is applied to digital recordings may actually be the removal of equalization that was applied to make vinyl sound good? There are several digital recording labels that claim to use no electronic equalization or other processing at all.

I'm comparing apples to apples here. In the tests that i performed, i used live analogue recordings that i had made. These recordings had no form of compression, equalization, etc.. performed on them. I then converted them over to CD via an audio based digital recorder that i have. The end results were that the digital "clones" weren't clones of the original analogue signal at all, but bad recordings that barely resembled the originals in terms of tonal balance.

Using this same digital recorder, i've made very good "dubs" of other digital recordings. As such, the losses incurred going from analogue to digital are FAR more severe than when working strictly within the digital domain. This is probably why so many of the early "AAD" discs sounded SOOO bad. That is, they were recorded and mastered in analogue form, but sold as recordings in digital form.

Given that i've had similar results using other digital based recording devices that i have access to, i know these results to be both consistent and repeatable. This is why i said what i did above i.e. others can find out for themselves by performing just such a test. Sean
>

Sean, please name your digital recorder. The implications of your comments is that A/D conversions cannot capture any analog signal, whether a line feed from a microphone or the output of a tape deck. Even professionals who prefer analog recordings have admitted that high resolution digital is more faithful to the original sound.

Sean,

Take an analogue source, record it onto a CD and then compare the original analogue source to the digital "cloned" recording using the same playback equipment. If you can't hear the difference between the original and the "digital clone", you better check into the office of an audiologist for a very thorough exam. You are either going deaf and / or are thoroughly lacking in listening skills.

By your definition I am deaf and thoroughly lacking in listening skills. I admit that I often can't tell whether my AKM ADC & DAC converters are in the signal path or not. What equipment are you using that you hear such a huge difference....a PC sound card?