The muddy waters of Analogue vs. digital today


With new technology, everything is changing so fast it is hard to keep up with new recordings. I have had a turntable all of my audiophile life, although I admit I played mostly CDs for many years. It was only since I upgraded my analogue system to a certain degree in the mid-nineties, that I could hear that records sounded better than CDs. It wasn’t a very expensive upgrade, a used Rega 3 with glass platter, new Sumiko Bluepoint Special, and a floor demo ARC PH-3. Probably somewhere around $3K. Mid-90s remember.

Now my system is very upgraded and I can hear more differences between vinyl and streaming at high resolution. CDs have kind of been left in the dust. 44.1 resolution sounds kind of tinny and flat. I listen if that’s my only choice, but I can easily hear the difference. I credit myself with a decent ear after doing critial listening for 30+ years. My ear is not as good as most reviewers, but you'll understand why it’s good enough to write a forward to this thread.

I won’t go through the differences I hear between analogue and digital, because you’ve heard it all before. What I want to talk about is my confusion in this new recording landscape. 

I had purchased Roberta Flack’s "First Take" when it came out and I’d kept the record for more than forty years when I realized it had really seen its better days. Basically, it was unlistenable, even after a few washes in the Degritter. I looked at near mint copies of the record and they were quite expensive. Then I saw that there was a new pressing for a reasonable price.

I was listening to the new pressing of "First Take" a few days ago when I realized it sounded overly compressed at the high end. I asked my new audiophile friend chatgpt if the record was pressed from an analogue source. Nope. I was basically listening to a digital recording pressed into vinyl. Chatgpt says that most records made after 1980 come from digital sources. So, I found a reasonablly priced orignal pressing of "First Take." My grandaugher in college can have the digital one.

Today I was playing a fairly new recording of Gustavo Dudamel and Yuja Wang playing Rachmaninoff’s Variations on a Theme by Paganini. I live in L.A. and have been lucky enough to see Dudamel live many times and Yuga Wang several times. It’s a beautiful recording, wide and deep and detailed and musical. I pronounced it the best classical recording I owned. But it was put out recently. So, I checked with my audiophile buddy chatgpt. The record is from a very high resolution digital source. Chatgpt says that digital can sound more analogue on vinyl because the engineers roll off the high end a bit.

So, now things are more than a bit confusing. Do I buy a recording from before the 80’s on expensive vinyl or might it actually sound better streaming at 192 kHz? If you listen to Patricia Barber’s "Clique" at 172 kHz, it sounds pretty good. So good, i have not bothered to go out and buy it on vinyl.

Does anyone else feel a similar confusion in this modern market, and do you have any suggestions for negotiating it?

audio-b-dog

@audphile1 

" I was recently looking for Sonny Rollins “Saxophone Colossus” and man they’re crazy expensive. Then Acoustic Sounds released it in mono as part of their Analog Productions series."

Yes, the Mono Prestige 25 Series and the Stereo 25 Series is awesome as well. Max Roach and Tommy Flannigan are the perfect complement and Moritat, an awesome instrumental of Mack the Knife! I don’t think any other drummer in existence quite has the technique and impact as Max Roach!

@tomic601 

"You should get a Music Matters or three."

I managed to collect 96 of them starting with the Final Thirteen Series and got hooked. After several years of enjoying them, Joe Harley announced on another forum that he had been hoarding more than a hundred complete sets that he was about to dump into the marketplace and with all the marketing and pricing shenanigans that he and Ron Rambach had been up to with the series all that time I decided to dump my collection while the going was good and made over five figures on them. 

Since then, I’ve been replacing my favorite titles as they’ve been released as Blue Note Classics with Kevin Grey’s mastering and pressed at Optimal. I honestly think they’re superior to the MMJs which were only good at best (to many cooks during the production and mastering process except for the Final Thirteen) and the Classics are only 28 bucks! 

and a couple of RVG simultaneous mono and stereo works… not exactly a single variable analysis but very illuminating imo ymmv

From 1958 on, Blue Note recorded everything in stereo and folded them down to mono for the masses. Many Blue Note titles had never been heard in stereo until recently.

@faustuss Well then your assessment of MM is exactly consistent w muddy waters.. it all depends on.. I do value experience over repeating things I am thinking this conversation forms excellent basis for 3 LP shootout… MM vs Reissue Classis vs Tone Poet… probably have to wait for Spring for me  aside my MM collection doesn’t even number 13 as I was fortunate to pick them up at local shop which doesn’t mark stock to market…. 
best in music to you !!!!

@dogberry 

I asked about the xa5400es: YAY or NAY here, after advice found one, highly recommend it.

Your Sony SCD-1 was mentioned a few times, you might look for used xa5400es with low hours. I checked, they still sell replacement Laser Lens assemblies

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/sony-sacd-player-scd-xa5400es-yay-or-nay?highlight=sony%2Bxa5400%2Byay%2Bor%2Bnay

My research conclusion is that it is like a Salad, a mix of ingredients: how many of which processor; oversampling, anti-jitter; over-clocking, and a maker’s proprietary filtering. I liked the taste of Marantz and Sony’s salads best, but the Marantz didn’t read SACDs.

 

I keep this on my eBay watchlist, to remind me to check if still available

https://www.ebay.com/itm/360731502452