In Reply to: RE: "equal or superior" posted by ahendler on April 22, 2014 at 09:56:06:
Hi Alan, in the particular case of '5 seconds flat', the designer (Mike Stahl) of the digital system was there when I did the comparison. In fact he was playing a hi rez file and since I had the same cut on LP, asked him if he would like to hear them compared. He did indeed!
So I put it on (a track by Massive Attack, FWIW...). Five seconds in, he turned to me and said 'Digital has sooo far to go.'
Mike readily admits that LPs sound better and I have no doubt that that is part of why his equipment sounds so good- its head and shoulders above the next best digital (dcs) that I have heard.
We record digital backups of our analog recordings in the recording studio (it is adjacent to our LP mastering operation). Invariably the clients prefer the analog version on comparison, hi rez files notwithstanding.
I'm pragmatic about this- clearly Mike is too. You can't make improvement if you can't also admit that improvement is needed :)
But I agree there are likely many who would take me to task, but the challenge is that to do so, you must take the position that the current technology needs no improvement whatsoever (it also helps to have exposure to the technologies- most people have not had hands on experience with LP mastering so I probably have an advantage here...). To put this in perspective Redbook is a technology that while still in use, was introduced about 1980, when the lowly Apple 2 was the king of desktops. Most cell phones have considerably more computing power than that nowadays- why do we persist with what is clearly an antiquated format (and while the LP is certainly antiquated, I feel that Redbook went out of date a lot faster)? The answer is that it has nothing to do with sound quality.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "equal or superior" - Ralph 11:18:38 04/22/14 (0)