[Codifus]

mike mueller wrote:
This is rec.audio.high-end? Correct?
Too the average listener, he or she will not be able hear the difference
between analog or digital. And yes they are very happy with that. It's
just a simple fact. Yes, if you play a LP for them, they can hear a few
pops and clicks and tell which was the LP and which was the CD. Play a
analog recording on tape against a CD and you will hear a big
difference. My recording of Oh Brother Where Art Thou sounds completely
different on CD that it does on the LP. And those who have listened at
my house can hear the difference and like the LP better.
That difference is not due to the mediums, though. Take that LP and
record it to digital with a good soundcard. Burn an audio CD. I bet if
you test that CD against the LP, no one will tell the difference. What
does that say?

However, someone with a better "ear" can distinguish Red book from
Analog. Isn't that what High End Audio is about? If digital was better
than analog, why do studio's still record masters on Analog Tape instead
of DAT.
Because, like all things, there's good and bad. There's bad digital
audio and good digital audio. After 20 some odd years digital audio is
reaching its mature stage, if it hasn't already. We've had mediums like
DVDA, SACD, great DA converters like the DAC1 etc. Pretty soon
everything in digital audio will be great. The onboard sound of your
cheap computer will eventually sound every bit as good as a DAC1.

Why do musicians still want wind instruments recorded on analog
tape instead of DAT.
Pleasant euphonics of analog, that's all it is.
Analog is what the human ear hears. It's natural with all the 3rd and
4th order harmonics the brain senses yet we can not hear.
Thank you
Mike Mueller

Master