Analogue v. Digital...again (Washington Post)

I would say that I have had pretty good luck with remasters but I have come across some when compared to an original pressing from the 60's or 70's where I thought the original copy sounded better and in some cases much better. Most of my collection is earlier pressings from the 60's and 70's of primarily rock and if the copy is relatively noise free and I am happy with the sound quality I usually will not order a remaster. I am pretty selective with the remasters I order and the record companies producing them and where they are pressed and also look to who is the remastering engineer and also who is cutting the lacquer if available. 

What I will say is that I have rarely if ever been disappointed with Analog Productions or anything pressed at QRP under different labels and I am referring to their more standard issues in the $25-$75 range and not just the premium remasters like the UHQR releases.

Whatever the merits of the case, there is an obvious opportunity cost to being this obsessive (or perspicuous) about one's sound. Namely, there is only so much time left on this earth for each one of us, and time spent on this will come at the expense at further, farther, explorations of sound and music.

Everyone has to choose what they want to spend their time on, but for me, this would be like exploring the cracks in my neighborhood's sidewalk rather than visiting a new place. No thank you.

So, let me get this straight. We will compare analog vs digital artifacts by recording both as digital, compressing eh living crap out of it, and playing it back on a computer.

The only possible thing that this could prove is that the digital representation of each is perfect and we prefer some additive analog artifacts that are faithfully reproduced in one of the files. I’m not saying that’s the case, but its the only possible proof that can come of this.

If, in fact, the process used to code each example (A vs D) to a file is so very good that it can reveal the nuances of each, why not just record music with this astonishing approach int he first palce and put an end to the debate?

These sorts of comparisons underscore how little many really understand the signal chain. Apparently it does not stop writing and commenting however.

No, i have not dug into the specifics - it doesn’t really change the facts all that much.

This man's opinion is totally arbitrary, meaningless but, if he can make money at it. great. That is the American way. Consumer beware. 

+1 on the American way and capitalism

All these opinions are merely data points and incumbent upon each of us to trust but verify before reacting

I can only say my personal experience is different than his

I've got near 500 albums from the 70s and 80s

My parents have passed down their collection from the 60s and 70s, some great artists and original pressings of Elvis, Sonny and Cher, The Supremes, Roy Orbison, etc

My analog kit is moderate by today's standards but better than Mr Port's circa 2000 kit

During analog playback, I've got dozens of those pressings that sound spectacular, despite the pops and warps

But I've got a much higher percentage that sound average to nails on a chalkboard, the lack of quality consistency is the biggest analog let down for me

My digital playback is at least 95% as good as my best analog and the quality consistency is off the charts - nothing sounds like nails on a chalkboard and less than 10% sound average

I would submit that 90% of my digital playback is the best playback versions of these old war horses that I've been playing over and over for 40 years

For reference I stream everything and play fewer CDs than even records 

Again simply my personal experience on my kit in my space

The mileage varies for all of us, no wrong are right answers - just different experiences and preferences

Happy listening to all