Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

I have been a recording engineer for 24yrs. and use digital recording/Pro tools every day. So you might ask which I prefer, the answer good old 2" Analogue Tape. I have CD's, still listen to vinyl often and have never downloaded any music. If you could download full bandwidth files I might stop and think about it. I do prefer Analogue but these days it's usually more a matter of cost for most people. One reel of 2" tape $200-$250 and you get 15 minutes of record time and only 24 tracks of information. One album for a moderatly budgeted project 8 to 10 reels of tape. One 1 terabyte hard drive $400-$600 and depending on the system almost unlimited tracks. You could probably do at least 10 albums on the drive of that size. As for working in the digital domain it does not necessarily equate to being quicker or saving time. Also in my recent questioning, I find that alot of people just don't care, this is very unfortunate. The bottom line is I always try to record things to the highest possible level at my dispossal and within the clients budget. Just my thoughts on the matter. Just watched the PBS segment online, and it probably would have been better to have a nice sit down in a decent room, with some nice moderatly priced speakers to hear the differences.

Thank you Tousana. What great information in that story.

One of my good friends is a Grammy award winning classical musician, so I've been able to audition him live, versus digital, versus analog on several occasions.

During a recent visit to his home in New York I was able to compare several of his digital master tapes with the same material on Compact Disc.

The CD was a factory pressing, (not a special CDR which he also has), identical to ones released to the public. We listened to all on his high end system in a large dedicated sound room with his own personal equipment.

I am still shocked at how bad the CD's were compared to the master digital tape. The CD was a mere shadow of the original.

I have some analog safety's in my own personal collection (none are his work), with one that's absolutely a first generation (unmixed) master.

No doubt these best-of-best analog tapes are better than my LP's, even with my very high quality turntable and mere mid line tape playback machine.

Still, the difference between the two analog sounds is more dynamics and "you are there" rather than omission of quality and emotion.

In his system the analog was incredible as were some of the digital masters. BUT, the CD's as released to the public were just plan "nasty" compared to the original.

I would guess is the CD format itself is the problem. Do you agree or is it something that happens to the master when the record company gets done with it?

Opinion?

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?

They couldn't do Lp vs cd, everyone would have known which was which by the pops and crackles:)

I have read a few reviews of cd players lately where the reviewer states that the sound of the cd was close to if not equal to the sound of the vinyl version. I expect to hear that more frequently as time passes. I think that cd players are just starting to reach their potential and that there will be sonic improvements in cd players for a long time to come.

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?
Tgrisham

In the case of the listening tests I did in New York, the digital master had much higher sampling rates than the consumer CD.

That's probably the biggest difference, or perhaps there are errors that the shiny disc creates while spinning, compared to tape against the playback head?

Another friend of mine was involved in the JVC XRCD project, he too is a recording engineer and audiophile. A few years ago at Stereophile, he and I were having a long conversation and he expressed his frustration that his digital masters sitting on the hard drive were incredibly good, but the VERY FIRST transfer to anywhere else, it moved toward digital nasty.

Note here, perhaps digital on hard drive is converted to analog at the studio for LP's production? If so, this might explain why DSD masters pressed to LP (often) sound better than Redbook.

Maybe this is a clock thing? Maybe the hard drive is more perfect and other formats are required to evolve the sound from that point on?

As for your tests with re-recording CD's, you are possibly getting error correction and that's what you hear. I've heard others say this is possible, many burn a "better" CD after software compares 100 times (or whatever).

You say you did not do double blind, no need, I'll take your word for the results.

I'm an advocate of relaxed listening over double blind. Long term allows you to relax, absorb and learn all at the same time. Double blind tests are like cramming for an exam the night before, instead of studying all semester :^).

I hope Tousana will contribute to this thread again.