Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
analog format because analog copying is marginally lossy. The ultimate analog format is the original master tape, not a copy.
The digital files of the original studio master recordings are exact copies of the original and I am fortunate to have many to use for reviews and enjoyment.
OTOH, I do not think this entire issue is significant except to those who have complete disdain for one or another format. Well chosen examples of any format are suitable.
totally hilarious to see the dogma over this , as if all are mutually exclusive..
Tape, LP, digital, Tuner at a whim I say ..........
Not necessarily. Especially when you consider new PB heads with narrower gaps are far better than what was used back in the '60s and '70s. Ergo the old master tapes played back on newer machines can sound even better than before (one has to make the distinction between record heads where the gap width is far less critical than the PB side.). I think with better heads, electronics, good transport, etc, the loss in going from the master to safety is minimal. I've compared several 2nd vs third gen here and again the losses are minimal done with TLC. Mostly the differences are a very slight loss of transparency, midrange bloom and focus. But ever so little.
Myles B. Astor
You say minimal and I said marginal. Nonetheless, copying involves transduction from one physical tape to an electrical signal followed by a transduction to another physical tape.
That's your usual response to format evaluations. As I remember (your) disdain on the CD vs. SACD debate. As long as there's respect, debate is good.
There are real technical issues here (on the old debate) and now, on format types for playback. Roger Sander's white paper on digital recording should enlighten anyone who wishes to gloss-over the issue.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: