Half the information on CDs is analogue


I would like to argue that one of the reasons that some transports sound significantly better than others is because much of the information on a given CD is actually analogue (analog) information.
An excellent transport does not just read digital information: 1s and 0s (offs and ons); it must be sensitive enough to pick up the other information that has been stored as a physical property of the CD medium. This 'physical' information, like the tiny bumps in the groove of a vinyl record, is analogue information.

Before I say more I'd like to hear what others think.
exlibris
Axelfonze: I have been in studios and could sit here and pick apart your response, highlighting tons of flaws that take place in most every session, but that would only create further tension and debate. As a general rule though, i do agree with a lot of what you have said.

With that in mind, it is up to those that are "industry professionals" that still have some form of integrity to do their job as best possible and speak up about the matter. To me, this would mean taking the time to educate the performers, making them aware of the different methods used to make good and / or bad sounding recordings. I can guarantee that most every performer would rather have their records sound as good as possible, even it meant sacrificing some volume. If such weren't the case, we wouldn't have folks like Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc... making the comments that they are. If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers.

Those in marketing are the idiots responsible for the "volume wars" that the aforementioned article talks about. Getting through to them will be difficult, but we really do need to take steps to see what we can do. While i have a million projects going as it is, i'm going to see what we can do about this. Obviously, this will take a LOT of help from others, both end users and those within the industry. When i get some time and start to make some progress organizing some type of "protest", i'll surely post something here and at AA.

Obviously, this type of protest will meet with some within the recording industry, but my guess is, that most engineers want to be proud of their work and how their work sounds. As such, they might take offense to some of the comments made here and how they are perceived in the future, but the bottom line is that we both strive for the same thing. Good music that is well recorded and well preserved for a long time to come. Sean
>
If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers

There's no pressure from consumers.

Regards,
Metralla: You're absolutely right and we need to change that in a very organized, large scale and highly publicized manner. That's what i'm going to try working on sometime shortly. Sean
>
Again:
If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals".... to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers.
I'd forget consumers and focvus on performers. But then, you'd need stars with considerable commercial clout to set such a trend. I expect the sound engineers will follow and probably crack open a few bottles of champagne while they're at it.

So the question is, can we convince say, Madonna, to switch to 0dB fs recordings and talk about it too???
Jason, I've often wondered how to go about making some really fine recordings for my firends and myself. Do you know any resources on the web for amateur recording. I know that Manley makes a nice 8 channel Tube mixing board and I've noticed that many of the recordings of the 1950's and early sixties have the characteristic sound of tube equipment. But that's as far as I've gotten with that idea. Any help from anyone would be appreciated.