As long as you make the distinction between measurable quality aka absense of distortion and what your ears prefer to hear. Digital is measurably and objectively of higher quality, but analog (ie vinyl or tube amps) though of less absolute quality often has a sound characteristic which closer matches the human ear and what is perceived as pleasing sound.
Gijs
BMW R1100S |homepage |gallery
BMW K1200S 'tri-color ICBM' | ABS/ESA
throttlemeister wrote:As long as you make the distinction between measurable quality aka absense of distortion and what your ears prefer to hear. Digital is measurably and objectively of higher quality, but analog (ie vinyl or tube amps) though of less absolute quality often has a sound characteristic which closer matches the human ear and what is perceived as pleasing sound.
Actually there's more information on vinyl. CD and mp3 et al cannot compete with the wider range of frequencies that vinyl has. Of course your hearing needs to be good enough to hear it but the vast majority of people are able to. Apart from the obvious hiss and crackle of ill kept vinyl the sound quality issue does not really count. Most CD's these days are made to perform well in relatively inexpensive stereo's (note that I didn't use the words 'HI FI') as most people might only have a one box system designed as a compromise to be all things to all men. (and women). To get a CD to sound as good and to relay as much information as vinyl your CD player will have to cost considrably more than the equivalent turntable in terms of sound quality.
I like CD's, its a great medium, and I have an Ipod that I use on my commute but the sound quality of either will NEVER match that of vinyl.
Sorry, gone rather off topic there. Probably to be continued somewhere else.
