You might want to read some of Mark Waldrep-Dr. AIX's-newsletters. Vinyl has limited dynamic range, frequency response and other compromises to make sure the needle stays in the groove withot too much trouble. Tape, from which we get most of our digital remasters, is also compromised and subject to diminished quality due to wear. Complete digital recording at a reasonably high resolution, is in his opinion, superior. I don't know for sure. But, I for one do not miss vinyl, nor will I ever go back to it. I like xtal clear sound without the masking of so-called warm sound of analogue. Infirior all the way Xter.
Hello, I don't miss vinyl either I have loads and loads of good LPS in my collection. The best choice I have ever made in HIFI was NOT to fall for the early digital CD is perfect forever hype.
But yes things are maturing with digital.
Like I said I am fully aware of the many limitations of vinyl and tape. I don't need to read what Mr Waldrep has to say on the subject. I have my own references and masters.
I use my own ears to judge which limitations I find it easier to cope with,those of analogue or those of low res digital.
But one thing is clear to me both from being at sessions and hearing mic feed and both analogue tape and digital at recording sessions. Digital is still not perfect!
At one of his seminars at Canjam in Singapore Rob Watts said he hoped that in the future nobody would use 16/44.1 any longer. 24/768khz would be the new and in his opinion new reference digital recording standard.
But I enjoy lots of both current well recorded and mastered hi res digital and vinyl in my home system.
Vinyl mainly for its often more accurate instrumental timbres and tonality of strings. And digital for increased dynamic range to sum things up quickly and without getting into too much discussion.
Yesterday after having tested Qutest with some rbcds and one mid 80s rbcd recording of Debussy's La Mer in particular, I went through the best of my recordings of that work in my collection and the winner was definitely not on LP.
Although Karajan and the BPO are inimitable purely musically on their 1960s DGG LP recording.
They sound worse and quite digital in the negative sense of the word DIGITAL as hard and low res, on rbcd hard and not very resolved in comparison to for example the SSO on a BIS SACD via my large electrostatic speakers and lots of watts powering them.
One of my references by the way where I know exactly how things sounded in the hall
The DGG rbcd breaks up and sounds hard opaque and uncomfortable at a much lower volume level, than the SACD and the LP was not exactly anything to boast about SQ wise either.
But via Qutest and the same speakers/amping and at 1V setting for gain my Chandos Deneuve/RSO 24/96 download sounded very nice effortless warm and realistic indeed.
Even better than the SACD.
With good and well mastered hi res recordings Qutest is quite a little gem,still though, NO DAVE nor DAVE/BLU 2.
With those two in combo I think the gap between the best of analogue and digital is so close or even nonexistant that there isn't that much to argue about more than the price of entry into that Exclusive Club.
But maybe the 24/768 Davina will push things digital one step further towards the real thing.
Because one more thing is absolutely clear to,me NO recording system I have ever heard can capture acoustic instruments exactly as they sound live.
And certainly no system would cope with the live BACH Lizst organ recital on a BIG Church organ I heard live last night.
The more often one exposes oneself to live acoustic music the more obvious the different shortcomings of both digital and analogue manifest themselves.
Unlike some here who because they have not heard digital sound as good as say H2 before, they mistakenly think it is perfect. I know it isn't!
But so far I am only willing to pay the price of Qutest to get digital reproduction at this level in my home.
But I know for sure that good as my Qutest is it is NOT the best by far.
Cheers Christer