Raymonda,
I actually do have decent experience with analog, having utilized vinyl playback for a decade or more using very good quality turntables and cartridges but never ultra hi-end equipment. I enjoyed a lot of good music on those systems and thought the fidelity, at the time, was very good. I also listened for many years to a friend's reel-to-reel system playing copies of master tapes of Steely Dan, the Moody Blues and the Marshall Tucker Band albums. Those sounded better than I had ever heard a system sound up to that point. I have no doubt that good analog recordings on both vinyl and reel-to-reel, played back on high quality systems, can sound exceptionally good.
20 plus years later, however, I decided to set up a computer audio system (laptop running JRiver and connected to an Oppo 105 as a DAC via a NAS and wi-fi network) and discovered that, if the recordings were made direct to digital by a competent engineer, the result is highly accurate and the most 'in the room' realistic that I've ever heard thus far. In my opinion and to my ears, recordings merely transferred from the original analog masters are not nearly as satisfying since they have a higher noise level, lower dynamic range and less detail. That 'in the room' illusionary impact is lessened in my experience.
I do not wish to carry on the analog vs. digital debate; to me, the the debate has been settled.
Zd542,
Yes,I consider'standard resolution' to be anything at or below Redbook CD quality. I would classify vinyl, reel-to-reel and cassette tape as standard resolution.
You stated: " For analog recordings, there's no limit on resolution. Quality will vary depending on how well the recording was made. It can range from very high, better than CD quality, to very low quality."
I definitely agree that quality will vary depending on how well a recording was made. However, claiming there's no limit on the resolution of analog reel-to-reel recordings ignores the fact that it has a high noise floor and its dynamic range is limited to 60-70 db while digital has a dead-quiet noise floor and has a dynamic range limit of 90-95 db.
However, my reason for posting this thread was not to dismiss analog as a music source. Analog users know how good it can be.
Looking back, I think it was HD Tracks email ads that spurred my posting. Their site is filled with good artists and music that I want to buy but know I shouldn't because the recordings are not up to the standards of true hi-res. I think, at best, their recordings are transfers of the original analog masters to digital PCM and DSD formats. But I cannot be certain because they give absolutely no information of how their so called 'Hi-Res' titles were created. I'm assuming they're just transfers from the original analog masters since I know of none of these artists re-recording their music directly to digital and qualifying as hi-resolution audio.
I think my frustration at HD Tracks not identifying their process, and not making a distinction between analog transfers and direct to digital recordings, spurred me to post this thread questioning their claimed hi-res offerings.
I am certain that music recorded directly to digital by a competent recording engineer, and played back through a high quality system, results in a musical experience that the vast majority of Audiogon members would classify as excellent. I think this because I've achieved these results using several different direct to digital recordings.
I think my main point is that companies like HD Tracks selling analog to digital recordings as hi-res will only lead to disappointment from buyers since they will be unable to hear any differences between their existing music and those falsely claimed to be hi-res. The sad truth is that they'll be right, there is no difference, since the music was not recorded direct to digital.
Hopefully, more artists will become aware of this important distinction and begin recording digitally but companies selling analog transfers as hi-res titles certainly won't help.
I hope I adequately clarified my thoughts,
Tim
I actually do have decent experience with analog, having utilized vinyl playback for a decade or more using very good quality turntables and cartridges but never ultra hi-end equipment. I enjoyed a lot of good music on those systems and thought the fidelity, at the time, was very good. I also listened for many years to a friend's reel-to-reel system playing copies of master tapes of Steely Dan, the Moody Blues and the Marshall Tucker Band albums. Those sounded better than I had ever heard a system sound up to that point. I have no doubt that good analog recordings on both vinyl and reel-to-reel, played back on high quality systems, can sound exceptionally good.
20 plus years later, however, I decided to set up a computer audio system (laptop running JRiver and connected to an Oppo 105 as a DAC via a NAS and wi-fi network) and discovered that, if the recordings were made direct to digital by a competent engineer, the result is highly accurate and the most 'in the room' realistic that I've ever heard thus far. In my opinion and to my ears, recordings merely transferred from the original analog masters are not nearly as satisfying since they have a higher noise level, lower dynamic range and less detail. That 'in the room' illusionary impact is lessened in my experience.
I do not wish to carry on the analog vs. digital debate; to me, the the debate has been settled.
Zd542,
Yes,I consider'standard resolution' to be anything at or below Redbook CD quality. I would classify vinyl, reel-to-reel and cassette tape as standard resolution.
You stated: " For analog recordings, there's no limit on resolution. Quality will vary depending on how well the recording was made. It can range from very high, better than CD quality, to very low quality."
I definitely agree that quality will vary depending on how well a recording was made. However, claiming there's no limit on the resolution of analog reel-to-reel recordings ignores the fact that it has a high noise floor and its dynamic range is limited to 60-70 db while digital has a dead-quiet noise floor and has a dynamic range limit of 90-95 db.
However, my reason for posting this thread was not to dismiss analog as a music source. Analog users know how good it can be.
Looking back, I think it was HD Tracks email ads that spurred my posting. Their site is filled with good artists and music that I want to buy but know I shouldn't because the recordings are not up to the standards of true hi-res. I think, at best, their recordings are transfers of the original analog masters to digital PCM and DSD formats. But I cannot be certain because they give absolutely no information of how their so called 'Hi-Res' titles were created. I'm assuming they're just transfers from the original analog masters since I know of none of these artists re-recording their music directly to digital and qualifying as hi-resolution audio.
I think my frustration at HD Tracks not identifying their process, and not making a distinction between analog transfers and direct to digital recordings, spurred me to post this thread questioning their claimed hi-res offerings.
I am certain that music recorded directly to digital by a competent recording engineer, and played back through a high quality system, results in a musical experience that the vast majority of Audiogon members would classify as excellent. I think this because I've achieved these results using several different direct to digital recordings.
I think my main point is that companies like HD Tracks selling analog to digital recordings as hi-res will only lead to disappointment from buyers since they will be unable to hear any differences between their existing music and those falsely claimed to be hi-res. The sad truth is that they'll be right, there is no difference, since the music was not recorded direct to digital.
Hopefully, more artists will become aware of this important distinction and begin recording digitally but companies selling analog transfers as hi-res titles certainly won't help.
I hope I adequately clarified my thoughts,
Tim