2. tech-talk
  3. 1135741249

Diff in recording/reproduction in Analog/CD/SACD

Without going in to too much technical details, is it possible to discuss why analog sounds better? (Although having limited analog auditions, I think digital could come very close). Starting from how the recordings are made-old and modern, and recorded ( signal type and quality) on master tape and how the mastertape signal is transfered/reduced/upsampled? on Records/CD/SACD.

Once we go thru the original signal waveform and its transfer on records/CD/SACD, how it is being reproduced thru cartridge/laser to DA/laser to DA?

I know details are very involving but is there clear consensus that anlog has the least curruption of the original signal? Does not different cartrideges designs reproduce the signal 'differently' than the original, adding its own coloring to the signal?

Is Analog clearly the winner in the battle?

I would really like to know if there is some material out there that discusses these three different mediums.

TIA.

Nil
nilthepill
boa2's avatar
boa2
1,551 posts
 
Rene Fleming? Nah, I'll bring along my sister. Her voice will blow you away!

And this bird will never chay-ee-ay-ee-aynge...
schipo
1,268 posts
 
Shadorne please stop the nonsense. I have a modest TT setup compared to my digital, and my the TT just destroys it for musical enjoyment. Digital was chosen by the industry for ease of storage and it was a new medium that could be sold to the consumer who was willing to buy the crap about perfect sound. I for one was one of them, and I went back to vinyl because it just sounds better not only to my ears but to everyone that listens with their ears. Believe me it all made so much sense when cds first came out. They were read with a laser, no more pops,clicks,ticks, then finally it filtered in. This sounds horrible like a transitor radio. Oh sure digital improved greatly but it still sounds coarse, hard, and fatiguing to the ear, with vinyl I can listen for a long time.
bignerd100
515 posts
 
And so the discussion plummets into the abyss.

Personal opinion is that a top notch analogue set up is more involving and does give me a better illusion that there are musicians in front of me.

To get such a set up is prohibitively expensive for most people though. A high quality vinyl rig can easily cost ten times what a comparable (though not better) digital rig costs. Add to that the convenience of CD's or WAV files and you have a clear winner in the mass market race. Plus a high quality record with a couple of irremovable pops will squash the illusion pretty fast for me.

As far as different playback means imprinting their own signature we could start a similar debate on tubes v. solid state. Albertporter makes some valid observations above.

As far as any empirical "best" we all know that this hobby is about seeking the finer shade of gray. Measurements on paper do not always translate into a better playback tool.

:)
spiro
115 posts
 
Many things come to mind here. I wonder what those lasar read vinyl's sounded like. Anyone know?
My limited experience is that vinyl can't get as clear and airy as CD and CD can lack warmth. Imagine a guitar made of non resonant material as bad CD and one made of no hardwood as vinyl.
"Follow the money" regarding studios, they are *not there for our enjoyment over money, but money through our enjoyment and will often only press or hold standards that we support. So studio standards are not to be held as paramount in that light.
Also, blindfold tests are really the only listening vinyl/CD; because bias runs deep.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
uru975
684 posts
 
My favorite description of the difference between analogue and digital is that
Analogue is as approximate to perfections as it gets
Digital is the perfection of the approximation

Or there is always something lost in translation
More to discover