2 ms·

> Studio-quality analog has had better than CD-quality audio since the late 50s (lower noise, more headroom). I'm not sure what you mean by "studio-quality ana

> Studio-quality analog has had better than CD-quality audio since the late 50s (lower noise, more headroom). I'm not sure what you mean by "studio-quality analog". If you literally mean playback from professional studio gear, what's the relevance? What consumers could buy was records. And records are temperamental. For decent sound quality, you needed expensive turntables. Also a clean environment. If you used mass-consumer turntables, you'd destroy high frequencies. And if your records got dirty and/or scratched, there'd be noise. Also, if you didn't have space to put the turntable and speakers in different rooms, you'd get low-frequency feedback at high volumes. Which could damage your speakers. So I did have a decent turntable. And I only played new records once or twice. To record on reel-to-reel tape.

derefr 8y ago
> what's the relevance? What consumers could buy was records. This subthread, starting from the GGGP, is about digital vs. analogue in the recording+editing+mastering process, not digital vs. analogue in the dubbing+reproduction process. The relevance is that, despite the introduction of studio-side digital sampling, it made sense (and still makes sense!) to keep to analogue "working copies" (or at least higher-sample-rate lossless digital "working copies") as long as possible in the process, because the point you dub over to 16-bit LPCM ("CD-quality") digital is the point where you throw away information—and audio engineers in the 70s and 80s who didn't realize this are responsible for a fair number of these awful-sounding releases.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Ah. OK. Thanks.