Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

It was interesting and disappointing at the same time.

Interesting was the analog engineer saying that he could incorporate the same "effects" as the digital engineer. Then the digital engineer says - so what - "I can do it quicker and easier and you can't tell the difference". "I can even add effects to make it sound "analog"", which implies he hears a difference.

Disappoining was the short "verse" based testing and the non-blind nature of letting 2 people review at the same time. I can't pick out subtle differences in 10 to 20 second listens (tin ear, low res system?). Can you? Standing side by side and showing your choice visually has to exert some influence on the other listener.

I would have been a lot more anal about the test procedure.

Jim S.

Interresting but the test was between masters in a studio, not between the end products of CD and LP, which is what the average and above average listener would be using respectively. :D

Using a different type of music may have helped to reveal differences. I've always found analog to be much better at reproducing ambient venue sounds, hall sounds, or 'air' vs CD's of the same recordings.

Of course there are many different degrees (sampling rates, word lengths) of digital. The test did not indicate (that I saw) what was being used and if it was what a consumer would get with a red book CD.

No one mentions that Pro Tools (the digital company) set up the test for PBS.

Sure, digital can sound great at "master" level, I've been fortunate enough to hear direct digital masters against the same release on CD.

LP is not perfect either, but LP is the superior CONSUMER format for those willing to put in the time to make it right.

Perhaps when (and if) high def downloads become available we will finally have digital that's superior to LP.

Meanwhile it's still the 25 year old Redbook format with brick wall filters and digital nasty (or) downloads at no better resolution that what's already offered in the stores.

With Apple making hundreds of millions of dollars, selling crap downloads, we audiophiles will be lucky if truly high resolution downloads are ever offered. The recording companies see it as pearls before swine.

Albert, more importantly Pro Tools is known in the recording arena as the software to use because of EASE not quality. Other digital editing/recording software is MUCH better but requires a brain to use. Many in my past field can't operate superior software that delivers quality.

No one mentions that Pro Tools (the digital company) set up the test for PBS.

Interesting. Perhaps the whole thing was faked and the band who claimed they could not tell were all paid to do so (or more likely the music was all from the good sounding analog).

PBS relies very heavily on sponsorship....so you never know!

Sure, digital can sound great at "master" level, I've been fortunate enough to hear direct digital masters against the same release on CD.

Another good point. CD's are often a lot worse than studio masters due to the mastering process where they are compressed horribly to sound "hot" or "loud" (no dynamics left after this process and very prevalent with pop music).