Search results

Doesn't surprise me at all. Several mastering and mixing engineers that worked with both digital and tape masters around the turn of the century said the same thing, that digital and analogue masters (particularly at 30 ips) were broadly comparable in sound. This included comparisons with 16/44...

As I posted in this thread a couple years ago, there is at least one controlled listening test of peer reviewed quality comparing analogue recordings with digital, i.e. Geringer and Dunningan (Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert...

You're confusing music production with reproduction. Music production is the artistic side of things to create sounds, whether they be distorted guitars, bashing trash bin lids, electronic generated sounds and so on. Anything goes. Reproduction is about capturing and playing back those sounds...

You're not seriously suggesting their objective views have equivalence? That's a bit like giving equal credibility to someone who has theorised about UFOs for the past 30 years with a physicist. Subjectively, Fremer, yourself or anyone can have a preference for less fidelity in sound...

Corrected.

The letter Fremer wrote to The Audio Critic on page 6 and Peter Aczel reply is a classic. https://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/mags/The_Audio_Critic_21_r.pdf

Fair enough cheers, I read it the other way round.

10 years later, many of those early digital back ups of direct to disk recordings were released as CDs. I hear you on the irrational digiphobes. Just like most LPs made since the late 70s used digital delay lines on the cutter. In other words the signal was digitised (12 to 14 bits in the...

I'm still waiting on a new release of DSOTM that sounds better than my 1983 Sony mastered CD, from the pro-use master tapes which back then were still relatively fresh. Anyway, tape degradation aside, it is all in the mastering as 16bits is already higher resolution than the master tape...

Not really, for example this test of listener preferences between CD and analog live concert recordings (and as far as I am aware, the only controlled test of peer review quality comparing the two media). The test purposely excluded mixing and mastering of the recordings as one of the many...

Why not? This was the test which Sony and Phillips imposed on the engineers at the proof of concept stage for CDs and CD players. Remember, the introduction of CDs was a high risk venture which no record production label wanted a bar off (and it wouldn't have happened if Sony and Phillips...

Correct that is the only legitimate way to compare formats and nothing else. And if it was possible for a consumer to do this the other way round, ie compare a vinyl copy of a CD, the vinyl will sound different to the CD. Surely that would be enough to convince any reasonable minded person which...

Yep, laser TTs are better for transcribing 78s for that very reason. I think it is not only that it reads deeper, but that it follows the groove undulations better than a stylus, particularly a conical stylus. I know that I could play worn or damaged 78s that were unplayable on regular players.

Well the cart combo would be different. Less IGR for a start, maybe better FR and SNR due to less friction on the grooves and the ability to read deeper into them.

I'm interested in how a laser record player measures. I owned a Lineal in the last century and it certainly performed better than my stylus record players with scratched or worn records, particularly 78s but the sound quality didn't scale with price.

I tend to agree. My first CD player, a 1985 Pioneer Elite playing those early pre 1986 CDs were a significant improvement in sound quality to my LPs and analog rig (and I always had pretty high end TTs and carts). Maybe I was lucky as that CD player was one of the first with an oversampling...

It wouldn't persuade me as there are no objective measurements to support that argument. At best, a turn of the century studio recorder running at 30 ips can only get near the SNR and dynamic range of the humble CD if sophisticated noise reduction is used and even so, it would have higher...

The problem with your statement is that you're ascribing a personal opinion on to everyone else. All things equal analog definitely does not sound better than digital to me, nor to most people I know. We can hear the difference of higher resolution digital (ie at least CD quality) on good...

The pair I have are the 9RST, the model superseded by the 10. So how is it a big improvement-eg clarity etc.

Sounds like you've got a fairly good setup with the miniDSP added. Apart from the bass, do you hear the DM10 as a 'massive' improvement as described by Ashley (who is reknown for being over the top) over the 9Ts? The main difference i can see is it now has an 8th order active crossover compared...