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
 

Petepappp, in order to get where I am as an "audiophile", I had to spend years in an analytical mode, as opposed to simply enjoying the music. Now that I've reverted back to that "analytical" mode I'm going to stick with it until I've completed my mission; that is with your help as well as others.

Although there is a difference, it's not enough to pay for unless you're replacing one of your beloved scratched records. I'm not using these "downloads" for new music, but for records I already have. For me, the advantage is the improvement in sonics that would require the most expensive analog gear. Strictly for my purposes, if one already has the most expensive analog gear, there would be no need for the downloads. When a person can get excited over a record they've heard a "bazillion times", that speaks for itself in regard to how good 88KHZ/24 Bit is. The bottom line is still the music, after all is said and done.

Enjoy the music.
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Works both ways...in my experience it depends on the mastering, particularly how much compression is added into the mix...
tonywinsc
583 posts
 
You know, 33 1/3 LPs are not the standard of Analog- Reel to reel master recordings are. LPs are full of compromises. LP vinyl was the sound medium for the masses. If the internet were around 3 or 4 decades ago this same discussion might be going on about reel to reel vs. LPs. LPs have the advantage of decades of technology development which has brought it a long way- to be sure. A lot of hurdles have been overcome to lift such wonderful music off of a vinyl disc; but it still has many limitations. eg. The signal is compressed in the grooves, hence the RIAA curve and the interpretation of that curve by various preamps, cartridge design, tonearm design and of course, speed control of the platter. CDs are built around the same paradigm as vinyl using a laser instead of a needle and a motor based time system. So many of the challenges of vinyl were carried over to CDs. I have found mechanical isolation of my CD player has a big impact on the sound quality just like with my turntable. CDs are really a hybrid- half analog and half digital. So my point is that HD Digital downloading has the potential to one day give the masses the same level of quality as the master recording. For that, I am excited about it's potential. Sure, it will highlight bad recordings and bad mastering just like actors and newscasters had to adjust to the higher detail and resolution of HDTV; but eventually I think HD Digital promises to bring us to a new level of hifi.
vicdamone
850 posts
 
Digital and vinyl both have the potential to sound very good.

I prefer to bitch about the degradation of the media after the initial recording process. Post production and compression takes incredible amounts of fidelity and dynamic range away from the initial recording.

The mediocrity of modern click track recording takes the spontaneity and musicianship out of most recording. After all the degradation the original recording takes fencing about the analog or digital mastering of a recording originally recorded in analog is lost in the subjectivity of personal taste.

Try this: listen to any CD, rip. or digital download of Weather Reports "Birdland" then listen to the Bernie Grundman mastered 45 RPM LP.

Compared to digital, quality phono playback can suffer greatly from the quality of the components in the playback chain. In the example above one should be able to hear the superior mastering with a modest phono chain.

It's not about digital or vinyl its about how its produced. Both can be very good.
orpheus10 OP
8,668 posts
 
Believe it or not, I'm discovering all the variables mentioned close up and personal, but at the same time; I'm really enjoying these HD Downloads. Nothing can be better than the master tape, but it can be as good, and so it is with these downloads, they vary according to the quality of the master tape.

Enjoy the music.
More to discover