View Single Post
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On May 2, 10:38=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:49=A0am, Scott wrote:





On Apr 27, 9:51=A0am, ScottW wrote:


On Apr 27, 7:45=A0am, Scott wrote:


On Apr 27, 6:03=A0am, rtweed wrote:


It seems to me that there's a very simple test to confirm or refu=

te
the "does LP inherently sound better than digital" question:


- take your highest quality LP that you believe sounds superior, =

play
it on your best analog equipment possible and record it digitally
(preferably using your best ADC and highest resolution you want).


Now do a DBT listening to the original LP and the digital recordi=

ng of
the LP.


My prediction is that nobody will be able to tell the difference =

and
the digital recording will exhibit all the same perceived qualiti=

es of
the analog original.


If this proves to be the case, any differences between the LP and
commercially-released CD (or whatever other digital format) must =

be
due to differences applied when each were created, or inherent ch=

anges
in sound as a result of cutting to and playing back from vinyl.


This is not a test of which sounds "better" but a test of transpare=

ncy
of digital. I have done this test both with hi res and with CD rips=

of
vinyl. The CD rips were not perfectly transparent. I was able to
reliably hear differences.


If you didn't rip at high rates and then digitally filter and then
convert to 16/44 you used inferior capture methods.


it may very well be inferior but it is still redbook CD which some
claim to be transparent. In my case with my rips they were not
transpent.


CD (16/44) is perfectly capable of delivering transparent audio
content for playback,
not recording.


I don't follow. somehow any redbook CD has to be "recorded"


But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. =A0 Recording at low sample rates
requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.
Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
rates appears to be the norm for recording today.

I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.
All I am saying is that with the CDs I have burned directly from
analog sources the results have not been completely audibly
transparent. Nothing more nothing less. Obviosuly based on my
experience I would opt for hi res capture.