Digital Music Files Can Sound Better Than Analogue

I've noticed a lot of audiophiles bashing formats like AAC, MP3, even CD quality. Music Players like Pono and websites like HD audio is all the rage. Something that came to mind, an epiphany if you will. Now don't get me wrong, I still love recording on good old tape but when it comes to playback, anologue is prone to sound change over time as it degrades. I've come to realize its near impossible to tell the difference in resolution past CD quality. The mastering done over in the studio plays a major role in sound quality. What it truly is, is the mastering habits of engineers in the business and its nothing new. My friends it's called as you probably know, "The Loudness Wars". If a recording is pushed to its limits with no room to breath it's going to lack fidelity. The only reason digital is said to be better than analogue is their is a limit with how loud an anologue recording can be pushed. So yes the loudness wars did exist with vinyl but it wasn't as bad. When digital started to become mainstream engineers realized they could push the loudness limits far beyond what they could before. I understand that 24 bit audio is the standard in the music industry. The final product is great. Not until the engineers master it to CD does it seem to be destroyed. That isn't to say CD's ain't capable of producing great fidelity. You'll see in the CD's early years let's say the 80's to the early 90's softer sound but you can find some really ear melting stuff. It wasn't until the late 90's when the loudness started to pick up. To my point, if CD's or AAC files were mastered with sound quality in mind they can sound great.

Now, the problem I have with the so called HD sound market is higher resolution does not guarantee a good mastering. A lot of people wish HD Sound marketplaces added a dynamic range database number so you know the quality before you buy.

Here's a statement made by the man who mixed Taylor Swift's Fearless, Speak Now, & Red.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb11/articles/it-0211.htm

Here's also a great video that goes into the whole subject:



Now, I know the loudness wars have been covered on this forum before but I specifically wanted to say that in my opinion instead of worrying about the resolution of digital music we should worry about the mastering.

 

Taylor Swift's "Red" has a DR7. Some tracks are a DR5.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/32026
The man speaks with a forked tongue.

 

Could I just add a little "aside"? The analogue/digital debate will rumble on till the cows come home...especially the "hi-res" issue....many say the average ear cannot differentiate between red book and hi-res: perhaps not. I use both formats and greatly enjoy both,but with regard to "hi-res",there is one thing I have not seen mentioned yet,the facility to "snap" tunes into focus(if that makes sense). As an example,play a well known track such as "Heard it through the Grapevine"....nothing wrong with the vinyl original,nothing wrong the c.d issue,both equally enjoyable....play the same track via hi-res and the drums become somehow more prevalent,almost the focal point,adding a new dimension to the way you listen to an old favourite.
Not very good at expressing things,but hopefully someone will get my drift!

 

Really? I must have missed it...

 

How many times and different forms can we have this debate? Is there some new revelatory discovery that has changed the debate since.....yesterday??

 

I'm not debating the loudness wars, that's a fact. Just saying resolution is not nearly as important as we're making it out to be. It's hard to tell the difference between a 320kpbs AAC or a 24 bit FLAC. Not many own the equipment to hear the difference. You don't need hifi equipment to tell a good mastering from a bad one.

 

I bet you can hear a difference in the drums. Higher res audio really only improves the higher frequencies such as drums & bass. I'm guessing your not using ipod earbuds haha!

 

A well mastered 128kbps AAC will sound better to the ear than a badly mastered 24 bit FLAC. The fact that theirs no garuentee to what your getting anywhere makes it a risk paying a premium for so called "hifi" audio. It could be a hit or a miss. The debate I'm trying to spark here is weather Higher Res audio past CD quality is worth it. In my opinion not really.

 

Regardless of which is better, or whether we can hear the difference or not, I'm more than willing to support high-resolution audio in the hope that it will eventually result in a full-scale re-evaluation of sound reproduction and a sincere attempt at aiming for best possible results in all fronts, including mastering practices.

 

Mastered for ITunes is very often better than cd or LP.
Perhaps their hi res files will be even better

 

The title of this thread and subject of the OP are not the same.

 

I was just wondering this the other day and now I know for sure. Thanks for letting me know.

 

Sounds like a bunch of bullsky to me.

 

This whole bloodless, abstract discussion has been exhausted. It's become like a crazy-making crossword puzzle no one can ever finish, with anger sauce poured on top.

The only truly worthwhile thing to talk about in this realm are individual releases, in whatever format, and how they sound.

 

Since Digital is a sample of a particular Analog signal, it CANNOT ever be "better" than the Analog signal that Fathered it.

 

Agreed.

 

So this was your epiphany?

Thanks for the lulz.

 

Aren't the drums and bass at low frequencies?

 

I didn't see where he said digital is better than the original analog signal. He's talking about digital storage and playback as opposed to analog storage and playback.

 

Uggh. Why does this even matter? Pick your format and enjoy your music.

 

Can't paint with a broad brush. An album can sound better on one format than another for very specific reasons usually having nothing to do with the delivery format.

 

Well, at least no-one has mentioned the Beatles so far.
Oops!

 

I'm really glad that this subject has finally been brought up.

 

Here, here.

I am burning with curiosity to find out what the consensus is going to be about which format is the best.

I know that for my own use case it is settled - high resolution and analog at home, low resolution and streaming when on the go, but maybe there is some other there there.