...So digitising one's vinyls in one's home using non-pro devices, and doing an A/B with a professionally made CD, is not fair and puts too much onus on one's limited skills and limited equipment. The whole advice is valid if one has a high standard rig at home that will do as good a job as a professional rig. And the do-er knows what he is doing.
Actually, the opposite is true. To begin with, even low-price sound cards give amazingly good results (refer one of Ethan Winer's audio experiments). My budget would be aprox 8,000 to 16,000 for a sound card: the fact that I would happily spend more if I had it is as much gadgetphilia as audophilia! Many, many people with demanding ears are happy with the results that they get digitising LPs.
Don't overestimate the skill involved. The skill and patience comes in cleaning up the result of digitising old vinyl. Possibly, having connected the right things in the right way, the only skill really necessary to digitise clean vinyl is knowing that the wave mustn't hit 0dB. Probably easier than the old days of putting stuff on tapes and cassettes.
You at home set out to digitise an LP. The result that you want is something that sounds as like the LP as possible. Ideally, you don't want to be able to tell the difference at all. You digitise, you listen, you check. Hopefully you are happy.
The mastering engineers may indeed know vastly more about sound and the equipment that they use, but their criteria is not necessarily the same. As has been said over and over, many CDs of the "same" album are simply not the same: they have been remastered.
You can also make your digital recordings at 24/96, or even higher if you have the equipment and believe that it makes a difference. Even I do that, because, though I can not tell the difference because, one day, someone might listen who can, all it costs is disk space, and hey, why shouldn't I keep the local bats happy?
No, we cannot take old master tapes, doctor and restore, remix and remaster them --- but yes indeed, we
can make entirely satisfying, if not identical, digital copies of our vinyl or tape.
PS: I am still not clear what Clearcut is trying to understand. Is it difference between analog and digital amplification? Or is it analog music format versus digital music format? Or what??
Amplifier, I think... so we are following two subjects in this thread. Now I have to go back and see the posts about amplifiers
Well I didn't have an audiophile nit-pickers approach in mind when I said that, rather one of a consumer of music CD's who just wants to go about living life enjoying the substance of the music on a day to day basis, and not get neurotic about the gear or source material.
Ahh... that would be why you are carrying equipment around and doing AB testing, eh? :lol: Sound like audiophilia to me. Sounds like
healthy audiophilia
Remaining 2% have joined HFV. :lol:
And are arguing endlessly:lol::lol::lol:
:lol: ...But the two percent includes those who are
interested in the whole thing
Sound after reproduced(Player,Amps and Delivering in Speakers) can be termed as Stereo, but Original Sound is in MONO, and this was i tied to explained, (Hope should have used different words) As i haven't hear any top singer doing live show at Stereo Effect.
Live=Original=MONO, But ears are Stereo
Wrong word maybe? If you are listening to a single instrument/voice/point of sound then maybe you could describe it as "mono," but even then, you are only able to locate it with your eyes shut because
you are listening in stereo.
Stereo sound reproduction is a brilliant and wonderful illusion. But we do not live in a mono world.
hyeah:
