Does HiRez really sound better?

"The only limiting factor with digital audio resolution occurs if an analog multi-track reel-to-reel tape recording is used as the master, rather than recording the performance directly to digital via PCM. This distinction, between transferred from an analog master and recorded direct to digital, is at the center of the provenance issue."

That's not necessarily true. You're assuming that the digital recorder is of a higher resolution than the analog recorder. While its possible that may be the case, it could just as easily not be.

"I wonder if anyone has recorded direct to digital via 16 bit/44.1khz PCM for a cd, bypassing the analog master tape? If so, I would think this has the potential to sound very good, too."

I'm sure its been done by someone, but in most cases, music is recorded in a higher resolution digital format, and then downsampled to CD quality.

I don't know if you'll agree with me on any of this, but maybe just this 1 thing. It would be nice if the industry would get together and set some standards as to what it considered standard, high and low resolutions.

As a recording engineer I would strongly disagree that r to r tape is less resolving than hi rez digital. They both, when done right, can sound fantastic and in many cases r to r can sound even better.

Did you know that Walter Becker ' s Circus Money was recorded on r to r using dolby sr noise deduction. Yes it is a bit overly compressed but as for pop it wipes the floor of most all pop recorded today....hi rez digital or not.

You really need to listen to well recorded analog to appreciate what that medium can do.

Also, what about direct to disk? If that ain't hi rez....well......

To summarise, here's the question.
In descending order of resolution, please list the following recording techniques :-

1. Reel-to-reel analog master tape
2. PCM at hi-res, either DXD or DSD
3. Direct to disc(vinyl)

The thing is no-one knows the definitive answer. So, this debate can rage on till the cows come home. Homo sapiens are good at this sort of thing.
J. :)

Chrs - based on my experience about $20K is the starting point for a lifelike system resolving enough to tell the difference. Receivers are not in the system. A few integrated amps will work. Bass will not be as tight or loud as in more expensive systems. Treble will not be as extended or clear either.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Raymonda - R-R can indeed be very good, but ultimately lacks the dynamic range possible with digital. There is also the artifacts caused by the Dolby noise reduction, which are audible. These filters are anything but perfect.

Direct to disk is also compelling. The problem is that so many recording studios are using sub-standard DSP codes for mixing. This software makes all the difference.

The best recordings I have heard to date were recorded on analog tape, mixed in an analog console and then A/D to hi-res digital. These came from Bluecoastrecords.com. They do a minimum amount of EQ because they tune the room acoustically. Also very little or no compression. This is a model for good recordings.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio