What's wrong with SACD, and how to fix it

Actually it's sort of the opposite. Digital recording these days is focused on recording more information than we can hear (i.e. ultrasonics), simply because it's cheap and easy to do and sells equipment.

 

You seem to be defining "natural" as random error. Indeed, a key advantage of digital is that 100% error-free operations (such as copying) are possible in the digital domain.

A recording is not a musical instrument - there shouldn't be any variety. It should ideally sound exactly the same every time, no?

 

I agree that a theoretical system that produced a perfect and unvarying copy of an input signal is the ideal recording system.

This isn't the point of what I am saying though!

I was challenged about my assertion that analogue systems are fundamentally linked to the nature of acoustic waves whereas digital systems are not. I think I have demonstrated this to be true.

I think you are still reading my statements about the inherently natural properties of analogue as meaning I think this is always an advantage for analogue - I don't think that is always true. What I do think is that despite all of an analogue systems failings it will always benefit from being fundamentally natural sounding. In contrast, a system incorporating a digital component will only sound natural if the user understands and respects the finer points of maintaining an analogue signal's integrity in the digital domain. As long as the user understands these points this gives a system for acoustic wave recording/reproduction which has a digital component many potential advantages over a purely analogue system.

 

Luke, Yes there are digital recorders that record all the way up to 192 KHz for PCM (signal must be filtered to 96 KHz to prevent aliasing) and 2.82 MHz for DSD (must be filtered to 1.41 MHz to prevent aliasing), however, if the end product is a CD then all the data must be filtered to 22.1 KHz at some point to prevent aliasing and that is not very ultrasonic.

 

I'm not sure I see the point of this analog vs. digital debate. Surely the best recording is the one that can most accurately reproduce the original musical waveform. Whether that information is stored in analog or digital form is immaterial.

Now that's an abstract statement. Whether vinyl or CD (or DVD-A or SACD) as currently configured (on both the recording and playback ends) does a better job, is a different story. But if that's the issue, then that's what we should try to determine. Why we are arguing about analog vs. digital in absolute terms is beyond me. Empirical data -- i.e., measurement and listening -- are all we have to go on.

Given the very different strengths and weaknesses of the various formats, I don't think we can arrive at an absolute answer. But for heaven's sake, let's inject some facts into this argument, rather than arguing in circles about abstractions!

 

I wholeheartedly agree!!!!