|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: Jonathan Valin on Digital vs. Analog in new TAS posted by ecl876 on March 10, 2017 at 19:15:47
It's a shame that most analog and digital discussions always have to be a debate about which sounds better. As an audio hobbyist, I need to have both formats in my system. In fact, when I was growing up, all the audio hobbyists I knew had multiple formats in their systems. Vinyl was usually considered the standard by which other formats were judged, but all the audio hobbyists I knew wanted to have analog tape in their systems as well as vinyl. I don't remember there being a constant war among the formats. I guess it was really more about the music back in the good old days.
In addition to a high-end turntable or two, I always had a high-end reel-to-reel tape recorder in my system. I also wanted a good cassette recorder to make tapes for my car. Some people got into eight-track tape for their cars, but I never went there. I guess by the time I began upgrading my car stereos to play tape, the cassette had taken center stage as an audio format.
For some odd reason one of the things I always liked to do was copy vinyl to analog tape. When digital audio tape (DAT) came along, it just seemed natural to add a DAT recorder to my system. When I heard my first DAT recording of vinyl I was swept off my feet. There was no question in my mind that DAT was the most accurate format to come along for transparently copying vinyl. Therefore, I gradually moved away from analog tape in favor of DAT. I had no doubt that vinyl sounded better than commercial Compact Discs, but for making transparent copies of vinyl, DAT was the winner hands down over analog tape.
Nowadays, there's no question in my mind that hi-res digital and DSD are the digital formats I require in my audio system. I still have at least one exceptionally high-end turntable, but for copying vinyl, hi-res digital is the only format I will ever need. As far as I can tell, DSD 5.6M makes the most accurate copies of vinyl I've ever heard. With respect to DACs, the TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder has the best sounding DAC I've ever heard. Furthermore, at $1000, I don't think it's all that expensive either. Of course, I also own a $15,000 turntable with a $4200 phono stage but my thousand dollar digital recorder makes perfectly transparent copies of vinyl.
Best regards,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
....DSD5.6 rips of 30-IPS analogue studio master tapes. These kill the LP, and every other format.
Unfortunately, record labels can't offer such high resolution files, because that would giving away the keys to the kingdom.
Sorry, 30 ips is not for me, unless it's material with no bottom end, or unless you have an ATR102 with special heads. 30 ips *is* best for chamber groups, singer-plus-guitar, etc., but for anything with material down deep, 15 ips half-track is, for me, the king of the hill. Check out Jack Endino's graphs. They're old, but I think probably accurate.
The best tape machine I've spent with with was an A80 Mk-3 1/2" half-track. I'm afraid I couldn't hear much of a difference between 15 and 30, in part because the material (jazz groups) didn't have much down deep. And as the dynamic range of the material wasn't challenging, hiss was a non-issue. That machine, set up for the wonderful ATR Master Tape, is a delight.
Second to that, LP wins out for me, though the Plangent System 24/96 files, even on my modest Metric Halo ULN-2 dac, are pretty much neck-and-neck. If I had a killer LP setup, that might be different. (HDTracks has some early Springsteen albums, which are very good, and the Paray/Detroit Mercury Saint-Saëns 3rd, which is something of a revelation.)
One thing is for certain: we have more good choices now than ever before.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
as to the history you discuss. I'll take your word on the $15,000 turntable.
On my much more modest "budget audiophile" equipment, I once made a careful A/B comparison between NM vinyl and SACD using the same early 1960s analog recording that was digitally remastered for SACD. Yes, the LP produced slightly more background noise, and the SACD showed some very slight evidence of digital artifacts. But they were very close, and completely a subjective choice as to which one might prefer.
No point in debating it endlessly. Even the silent, "black" background, reasonably viewed as a major advantage of good digital audio, might be seen by some as unnatural and a drawback, since live music comes with all sorts of background noise. Etc., etc., etc.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: