Does HiRez really sound better?

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

If 20,000 is the number then for the average consumer high rez is dead in the water and will remain a cottage industry.

First off I'm not advocating one medium over the other. I record strictly in the digital domain at 96/24 or 48/24, which I modestly say with good results. However, if I could, I would love a top of the line Dolby SR multitrack system. It is high Rez and does many, many things well. It has a dynamic range of 95 dbs and is tomb quiet

I think 99.99 percent would not be able to tell whether they were listening to this or the best that digital has to offer and in some cases folks may prefer it over pure digital.

Zd542,

You stated:

" 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."

Yes, I agree this would be a very good step in clarifying the current somewhat chaotic situation. I also think a standardized description of provenance would be useful.

Raymonds:

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

My friend's older brother had an Akai r to r in the 1970's. I remember listening to some Marshall Tucker Band songs on it. I don't recall if it was a prerecorded tape or if he recorded it himself from an album, but I do remember it sounded very good.. Truth be told, however, that was 40 years ago and I was 18. His brother might have also shared some of his marijuana with us. I might have attributed the extra fine music to being stoned for the first time. I just know it sounded especially good and I was especially hungry after.

I would love to hear some present day music on a more modern r to r in a more sober state.

Do they still make r to r machines for home use?

If they do, I would think no companies still provide prerecorded r to r tapes, right?

Or are owners expected to record their own from LPs, CDs and other sources?

Or are you, as a recording engineer, referring to a master tape on a professional r to r?

The Dude always tries to keep an open mind, looking for good technology and music and, no matter what, The Dude always, I mean always....... keeps abiding. ....If, you know what I mean.

Later,
Tim

Cassettes to my ear have more resolution than CDs. Notes are more rounded, the harmonics are richer, there is more air and you can hear all the squeaks and whirring noises of instruments like violins that are missing in action on CDs. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes.