2. analog
  3. 1368882354

HD Down Load compared to Analog.


Lately, I've been comparing HD Down loads to "analog". The obvious first advantage is no pops and ticks, but that's just for old records. Another advantage for me personally is that I don't have class "A" analog, I have class "B", which is very good. I still use Stereophile magazine's ratings of equipment as a way of conveying how good a piece of equipment is. While folks here put that method of conveying how good a piece of equipment is, they still concur with it, and they don't even know it.

Class "A" analog is the best, and it's always very expensive. You have to have 100% class "A" in the chain to yield class "A" sound, which is why I have Class "B".

In my comparison evaluation, I used Santana "Abraxas" as the test LP. Since I've worn out 5 copies of this album, to say I'm familiar with it is an understatement. "Singing Winds And Crying Beasts" is the first cut, it has "tinkly" sounding chimes that test definition on all equipment. After listening to a new LP, I gave it an "A" rating. This meant the HD Download would have to be some kind of fantastic to top the LP.

As soon as the music began, it became apparent the HD Download was superior; there was a "jet black" background. This is something I had never heard before. I'm fully aware of the fact that's an "oxymoron". "How can you hear what you don't hear, and you have never heard before". Only an audiophile can understand that, consequently, I won't try to explain it. After only two cuts, I gave the HD Download an "A+" rating.

While I have Class "B" analog, if you have Class "A" analog, it might be better than the Download, I don't know. These are the results from my comparison, I would like to hear yours.
orpheus10
orpheus10 OP
8,668 posts
 

Raul, a funny thing just happened; although you stated you were ignorant on this whole digital subject, you've summed up everything I've discovered after making comparisons for all my waking hours, for the last 10 days; digital is better than records by a hair because of the silent background.

No record or HD Download can be better than the master tape. A recently recorded CD will sound better than music recorded a long time ago on record because of the equipment used to make the master tape. Love it or hate it, that's the way it is. No HD Download of old music, will be better than a recently recorded CD, because of the equipment used to make the master tape. "Analogers" are always comparing music on record that was made a long time ago, to something on CD that was recently recorded, and saying it's better; that's what I call "Psycho-acoustic" hearing, if it's on a record, it's always better.

Enjoy the music.
petepappp
37 posts
 
Most modern recordings are not done to master tape but recorded digitally. Digital recordings are manipulated by the mastering engineer, compressed, expanded, reverb added, certain frequencies manipulated,to try to produce something that is pleasing to the ear, (whose ear?). This doesn't take into account all the equipment, placement, a myriad of other things that are involved in recording and have an effect on the final outcome. The idea that a digital recording is somehow an uncolored picture of a musical event is just false. There are recently done analog recordings that are fantastic and yes way better than their redbook cd counterparts. I have high def digital files that are just not that good. Just because a recording and final product is analog doesn't make it all that either. Personal preference plays a huge role in what we find pleasing. Direct streaming digital 5.6 mhz format recordings are different than PCM 24/96 recordings, but does that mean they are inherently better, I don't think so, its not that simple. I choose to listen to all the formats I can to find the gem recordings that are pleasing to me.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,095 posts
 
Dear Petepappp: ++++++ " I choose to listen to all the formats I can to find the gem recordings " +++++

I'm with you, if we are music lovers " more " than " simple " audiophiles then IMHO we have to listen the different alternatives we have on hand been analog or digital and not only to find out the " gem recordings " but because there are great music ( if not its quality recording. ) that was recorded only in one specific format.

Today I can attest that we can enjoy, as an audiophile person, analog or digital format. The advacement on digital technology today permit to enjoy it in full way as analog.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
petepappp
37 posts
 
I agree Rauliruegas, especially since Itunes is now the biggest marketer of music and high definition is not their focus. I enjoy a great recording but if I limit myself to them, there is a whole lot of music I will miss out on.
orpheus10 OP
8,668 posts
 

I paid for a 44.1 KHZ/16 bit Download before I noticed what it was, and discovered that it's no better than a CD. "Buyer Beware", don't waste your money on a download that's no better than a CD.

44.1 is the standard sample rate for a CD. The sample rate defines the frequency range of a digital recording, also the amount of time between samples. The bit resolution defines the dynamic range of the sound, therefore you want 24 bits for a Download, as opposed to the CD standard 16 bit.

When comparing a 24 bit file with a 16 bit file you will get smoother high frequencies and more depth to the sound stage. Personally, I want it all, wider frequency range and wider dynamic range; that means 88 KHZ/ 24 Bit or nothing.

Enjoy the music.
More to discover