SACD produces analogue like sound?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't appreciate your accusations of me lying. So much for civil, eh? I really don't see how you got to be a moderator. I've thrown a few digs in, myself, but they were meant to keep things light. Accusing me of lying when I was making one of my main points (and I was not lying) was just plain rude, and there was nothing light about it. Scumbag.

When you don't tell the truth, that is called what? How I became moderator is not relevant to the discussion at hand. In making one of your points, you didn't tell the truth, so what is a person who doesn't tell the truth? Spreading misinformation (i.e analog has more information than digital) is also rude, and if you thrown in a few digs yourself, then you deserved to have them thrown back! Scumbag, wow! More compliments like that and we'll be best friends

You keep claiming you're throwing facts around, when I'm trying to stress the differentiations when I'm talking personal opinion and personal experiences, and you're throwing around your personal experiences like they're facts. I don't care how important you are, how much experience you have, and how many times you've done something, your opinion never becomes fact.

Here is a fact. If I record digitally and transfer it to analog vinyl, it will have no more information than digital master. That is a fact, and happens to be my opinion.

Fact. Vinyl is not a tranparent playback source. Its euphonic to some, but not superior to digital at all. That fact just happens to be my opinion.

Fact. Not ALL vinyl will sound better than digital even on a subjective level. It highly depends on the quality of the mastering, and which domain it was done in. This fact happens to be my opinion.

So based on your thought process, your doctors opinion on your health is irrelevant. Its just an opinion even though his knowledge and experience supports that opinion.

This argument started because you made the statement: "Actually you cannot say the LP's clarity and range of sound will never be touched by CD on certain recordings." (Notice: CD, not SACD.) It is an opinion, and I stated mine to the contrary.

What I stated is a fact. You cannot assume that an LP will ALWAYS sound better than a 16/44.1khz CD. There is nothing mechanically better on vinyl than on CD. To those who PREFER vinyl, it sounds better to THEM than CD. To those who have been exposed to good digital (i.e high quality digital converters in a studio environment), CD done well is just as satisfying to the ear as vinyl would be to analog lovers.

I'll get back to you later about some of your other points -- there's obviously at least one or two misunderstandings going on. The fact that I could hear the difference between 24/96 recorded vinyl and 16/44.1 recorded vinyl on the admittedly inferior (to dCS and EMM Labs) Masterlink should only prove even more that the difference is there. I wasn't talking about the different masters of I, Robot in which one could also hear the difference -- I probably shouldn't even have mentioned those, as it confused you (or you used them to act confused).

Can you tell me the name of the source that was recorded in 24/96 and 16/44.1khz and pressed to vinyl. I have never heard of a 24/96khz digital project transferred directly to vinyl, however I have heard 16/44.1khz digital project that was eventually transferred to vinyl. It had different EQ than the CD(as it should) and that makes any comparison apples to oranges. As a matter of fact the times that I have heard sources were the EQ was optimized for vinyl, and that master was used for CD as well, the results were disasterous for the CD. And visa versa. I know for a fact that nobody in my industry records in digital to be released exclusively on a vinyl source. That is why we have analog tape. So you are now saying to me that you have personally recorded 24/96khz and 16/44.1khz digital and personally cut the vinyl yourself? If not, then you do not know what path the sources passed through before you heard it. It may have been recorded digitally, but mix and mastered in analog which would render it a analog source and not a digital source at all. This practice you mention is so unusual, that I would have to see proof that it really happened

[Dusty Chalk]

When you don't tell the truth, that is called what?

A liar is more than someone who doesn't tell the truth. People who don't tell the truth are in two categories -- ignorant (the truth was unknown to them) and purposeful (the truth was known to them, and they chose to speak otherwise). Lying requires malice aforethought. If I haven't told the truth anywhere in here (although you'd have to point out a specific instance, because I have told the truth to the best of my knowledge), it wasn't on purpose.

In making one of your points, you didn't tell the truth...

That is not true, and you know it. Hence, you are the liar, and not I.

Spreading misinformation (i.e analog has more information than digital)...

That's not misinformation, and you know it. There is more information in an analog-mastered analog recording (or even on a digitally mastered analog recording, as long as it's greater than 16/44.1) than on a CD. So you are the one spreading misinformation. You even said above, when you were explaining why the I, Robot masters would sound different, that there's "bits between the bits" -- well, analog is just the full extension of that. Where do you think they get the extra bits from? They were digitizing from analog.

Here is a fact. If I record digitally and transfer it to analog vinyl, it will have no more information than digital master. That is a fact, and happens to be my opinion.

Agreed -- but only because you said "digital master", not CD -- you go back and forth between the two as if it were identical. It's only identical if the digital master is 16/44.1 -- worst case scenario. But if you digitally record at 24/96 and transfer it to analog vinyl, it will have more information than 16/44.1 CD. That's a fact.

Fact. Vinyl is not a tranparent playback source. Its euphonic to some, but not superior to digital at all. That fact just happens to be my opinion.

It can be just as euphonic or transparent as digital. You're perpetuating myths. Whether or not it's superior is entirely opinion, and I wish you would stop conveying yours as fact. You said so yourself -- you cannot speak for what I (and many others) will find superior. It depends on what we hold dear. I prefer phase accuracy, and I can deal with the occasional pop and click

What I stated is a fact. You cannot assume that an LP will ALWAYS sound better than a 16/44.1khz CD.

Let me turn this back around on you -- you cannot assume that 16/44.1 CD will ALWAYS sound better than LP. It's personal.

There is nothing mechanically better on vinyl than on CD.

What the L does this mean?

To those who PREFER vinyl, it sounds better to THEM than CD.

You know, you qualify these statements perfectly when you're trying to state things from my perspective, why is it so hard to make the same qualifications when you make your wild sweeping statements about how much digital is better than analog.

To those who have been exposed to good digital (i.e high quality digital converters in a studio environment), CD done well is just as satisfying to the ear as vinyl would be to analog lovers.

Yeah, like that.

Can you tell me the name of the source that was recorded in 24/96 and 16/44.1khz and pressed to vinyl.

I was going to do some research this weekend, but I haven't yet found the article, but Pink Floyd's Echoes was mastered digitally and pressed to vinyl from the digital master. Yes, that's right, it happens all the time. You keep telling me that the best way is to press a record from an analog master, but you know that everyone records in ProTools these days. Why should they record twice? They just press different formats from the same multitrack masters. When they master master, yes, some tweaking goes on, but they're not wildly different on new recordings (look at the DSOTM article). So if they're using a contemporary version of ProTools, then they've got either 24/96 or 24/192 masters -- which is more information. They press it to CD by downsampling it, but they don't have to for the vinyl version. Hence, more information is there. This happens all the time, and to say that no-one does this nowadays is willful ignorance. Or lying.

I have never heard of a 24/96khz digital project transferred directly to vinyl, however I have heard 16/44.1khz digital project that was eventually transferred to vinyl.

You haven't been following the news, then.

I believe in Pink Floyd's recent vinyl release of Dark Side of the Moon was the exact same master as the one on SACD. Here is an article. In this case, they're both analog, but that's probably because they wanted the additional information.

It had different EQ than the CD(as it should) and that makes any comparison apples to oranges.

Look, that comparison is so last century. Nowadays, they rarely make a significant difference. And no-one except bedroom boffins like me who can't afford better record in 16/44.1. And I record my individual tracks in 16/48, mix in analog, and master to my Alesis Masterlink.

I know for a fact that nobody in my industry records in digital to be released exclusively on a vinyl source.

Agreed, but only because you threw in that arbitrary qualifier "exlusively". People record in ProTools all the time, and people release stuff on analog all the time, and they do so without recording in analog.

So you are now saying to me that you have personally recorded 24/96khz and 16/44.1khz digital and personally cut the vinyl yourself?

No, I'm saying I digitized an analog recording (I recorded to hard drive from vinyl) in both 24/96 and 16/44.1.

If not, then you do not know what path the sources passed through before you heard it.

I know exactly the path the signal went through from the record to playback, and other than choosing different bitrates, they were exactly the same.

You've explained earlier why I could hear the difference -- because there's more information there, I don't know why you have such a hard time with admitting this. What are you, delusional?