DeVerm;347149 Wrote: > Well guys, once again I disagree with you all ;-) I don't see any > evidence that the LP/CD versions are different masters. From what I > read they are the same Analog recorded and Analog mastered recordings. > (The material for testing is listed on the page).
When CDs and vinyl records are made from the same recordings, I think they are usually mixed differently to take into account the limitations of the medium. > What they tested isn't the medium and it's not needed to test that > because everyone agrees that vinyl is not as good as CD (like surface > noise etc.) No, what they wanted to test is analog vs digital. But again, what they actually tested was vinyl versus CD, which means the medium was under test. Maybe that's not what they wanted or intended, but it is what they did. > If you take an all-digital master and put it on vinyl you defeat any > advantage of the vinyl medium and it will loose big time. But when you > put that analog master on vinyl you get the whole original analog > signal that was never in the digital domain. I think you're confused about this. There is no intrinsic problem with digital, and there is no sense in which analog is intrinsically closer to the original sound. That's a common misconception, and it's simply wrong. Look - suppose we press two vinyl records, one from an all-analog chain and one from the same masters put through an A->D->A chain. Do you think you could tell the difference? I'm willing to bet you can't. Themis;347177 Wrote: > Well, I was probably not clear enough the first time : Format has > nothing to do with this article. I don't understand what you're saying. Are we looking at the same webpage? They compared vinyl to CD - how can format have nothing to do with it? > This is not CD vs Vinyl. What they compare (as Nick points out) is > media-making techniques and reproduction machines. But it -was- vinyl to CD! > Please note, that I'm not trying to defend any Vinyl vs CD here. But, > unfortunately, there so many digital fiascos (going from CD mastering > and numerous brand-new-digitally-re-re-remastered CD published, to > various techniques of over-sampling and digital/analog filtering on the > 96kHz domain) that I wonder why such a (supposedly) perfect media and > reproduction machines can get better every year... > Not you ? But they don't get better in sound quality - not significantly. It's only in the dream world of audiophiles that that happens. In the real world, digital playback technology matured years ago. What does happen is convenience improves, products like the squeezebox and transporter appear, digital room correction improves, etc. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53355 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
