Most experts agree that tape is still the desired final mixing medium when possible. But it is not a perfect archiving format, since it degrades over time, and the potential for players to remain in existence for decades to come is unlikely.

Multi-bit PCM produces good results, but it has not caught up to the 5 Hz - 50 kHz performance of tape. And it is not easily transportable to other formats when considering future possibilities.

Taking a current 16-bit / 44.1 kHz file for use in remastering the project in 24-bit / 192 kHz format will produce little perceived benefit, or improvement. You can’t improve on the quality of the archived material unless it has captured all the nuances and accuracy of the original audio. This is why serious remastering of classic recordings always goes back to the original master tapes – they have the best dynamic range and frequency response and don’t require sample rate
conversion of already manipulated data.

IMO, with 1-bit recording, you can choose to capture the audio with the best resolution and accuracy available, and archive it without the manipulations that must occur in the decimation and later interpolation processes. Your archive is not colored by these steps, and you can choose the desired conversion process for your current project.

As converter technologies continue to improve you can go back to this archive and remaster the project starting from a “pure” source. In this way you’ll only be manipulating the audio one time, through the system of your choosing.

Research in the music library at the Danish state radiophoni and at BBC shows that tape is more stabel storing media than digital storing.

The finest I can find of releases in these years are the Tape Project 2. g masters taken directly from analog source without any digital links anywhere.

They choose to go back to analog, judging it as the best just like I do.

Just my opinion.

Why talk about interpolation and upsampling?
That does no good for any tune.

It is for sure more profitable to store, edit and publish stuff digital.
But I try to focus on quality here.

"dolph"

Talking about bits.....there's a new DAC in town.
Not Multi-Bit, not Bitstream but something entirely new : Hyperstream!

Has built in DSD/PCM input interface, SACD input, built in SPDIF interface, built in OS Filter, built in Jitter Reducer and the output can be configured as a Mono DAC (all 8 channels in parallel), a Stereo DAC,a 4-CH or 8-CH DAC with a claimed performance increase wih each decrease in output channels.

Finally, a truly new thing in digital audio without an "i" in front of it.

Things are moving fast in these past few days...134 dB SNR and -118 dB THD are quite impressive....here's some links:

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2008/011008ess/

http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC

Every day a new digital device is released getting the digital resolution closer to the Analog Reference.
They will never get there, though.

One day it will be 480 Bit / 38.4 MHz sampling and they are not arrived yet anyway.

And what's the point of trying to get even better S/N specs than real life invorements can compete with?
Removing the noise floor completely on digital encodings, getting an even "blacker background", also distances from the superiority of analog sound where microdynamics are to be found just above as well as within the signals in the noise floor.

The human hearing are raised and trained to distinguish the "noise floor" naturaly to be found in the inviroment from microdynamical sounds of importance, which makes it possible to hear the phone ringing even though they ar sweeping to pavement outside you house or flat.

The best Reel to Reel machines still with 1/4'' tapes and reasonable tape speed like 7.5 or 15 ips, have practical no tape hiss, even without any NR system in use.
So noise floor kept intact on the recording is supposed to be there.
It's noise from the enviroment at the concert or in the studio.
A very small part is generated in the chain of equipment from microphone through preamp and console to recorder. But in this gear-created noise are details from the music performance that we would not like to be without if the listening experience is supposed to be felt as natural as possible.
This is one of the key points of mistakes the digital advocates and developers make.

Another one is the pumping sound of compression.
First the compression of removing the natural noise further.
Second when trying to tailor their masterings according to todays radio broadcasting station demands to the level of average power in the music.

There are a lot more mistakes to be mentioned, but why bother before they figure out that the noise issue was and still is a huge mistake.

"dolph"

Post deleted as a personal favor to one of the moderators.

Some feelings may have been hurt, apologies were made and I think we are way, way past the name calling. lets get over it and move on please.

elroy

I wonder why you post this.
Is it personal intrigant reasons or do you really have something to contribute with related to the discussion?

I don't think I misunderstood anything.

Did you read everything I wrote here in the thread?

"dolph"

This discussion will probably not go anywhere good, so I am closing it until further notice. now its open.

elroy

this has been a VERY interesting thread! here's something to chew on; technical aspects aside, there is one very important singular item of interest that the redbook CD possesses that SACD is all but guaranteed to never possess: CONTENT. to my knowledge, the compact disc possesses the largest catalog of titles next to the LP, and there is something that CD actually has that not even the LP possesses: hundreds, if not thousands of titles that were not released in any other format, and will likely never see the light of day on SACD or any future format. PINK FLOYD, THE BEATLES, and THE ROLLING STONES are NOTrepeatNOT the only bands that ever existed. one man's junk is another man's treasure. the point i am trying to make here is that of the singular concept of VARIETY. and no other format has a larger worldwide variety of material than the Compact Disc. so, in the end, the point is, is that the CD is here to stay. most people, at least those that lack the detestable habit of reinventing themselves as often as DAVID BOWIE, will always have a need for the CD. let's try to develop an attitude like that of the Japanese: to keep one foot in the future, and the other in the past...

I just couldn't let that statement go, because it's based entirely on somebody's fantasy opinion of what the audio world should be. Digital music has not only survived, it has prospered and crushed all before it due to one and only one factor: convenience.

How old is the CD? And the medium still goes on strong. When the industry can produce a 8Gb mp3 player and sell them at WalMart for $29.95, the medium of digital music HAS survived and prospered. The virtual death of analog sources (tape, LP) was never an argument about what sounded better, it was a battle over convenience. All mechanical forms of sound reproduction were steamrolled by digital music. Soon, even the venerable CD will disappear as straight digital music (download your mp3's) prospers and soon begins to be released on flash media like SDHC chip-cards or some new format.

Does a well maintained analog cassette deck sound better? There's an endless argument for you. But the public has voted with their wallets and they don't want the hassle of a cassette deck. They want instant tune access, access to Gb's of tunes to carry along with them, tunes on their cell phones, portability of tunes via an iPod or similar device, and so forth.

Just like all other attempts to make digital music survive? Really. Reality check, buddy. It's here already.

I've stayed out till now but, I was struck by a thought, Stradavarious (sp) for centuries many tried to copy that sound, that tone, that only a Strad could make. it's a colouration of a note, sweet but, coloured nontheless...my Pilot console with el84's and ancient caps 50yrs old for God's sake, solid mahogany plank cabnetry captures my soul...

I'm all for any digital rigs that can pull me into 'the zone', I'm sure some of the above mentioned could do just that, I've just not heard any (or could afford to) at this time, I'm drifting here, sorry!

Craig

There will always be niches for those fond of quality.

Did Rolex, Jaeger Le Coultre or Vacheron Constantin dump out of the market when quartz came and stayed there from beginning of 70's till now?

LP's as well as tape recorders are having their revival now.
The sale of LP's are so extremely rising, not in price but in numbers that CD's now are behind.

No doubt that convinience of the low-end sound downloaded from the net for the trip with your bring-along player of the time will be the $$ market but as a niche for quality lovers, analog sound reproduction are here to stay - and has always been.

"dolph"

Not only convenience and portability but also I believe that profits may be greater now in the recording industry because costs are so much lower. It was expensive to record and produce LPs.
Now bands ship digital masters to the record companies,who sometimes need do no more than have CDs printed for centsa piece, and market them. So was there a lot more money to be made in the recording industry in 1990 than, say, 1970? Did anyone get as rich in the recording industry in 1960 or the 70’s as David Geffen got in the 90s?

Now if we talking about sound quality…that’s another matter.
Natural sound is by definition analog and also by definition a digital
recording doesn't include all the sound information.

But, don’t get me wrong, because I love all things digital.
Even my last buy was an USB DAC… and I have my Pro-Ject TT connect to Super T-Amp (a digital amp)…
I’m using and abusing all audio formats and I came to a conclusion that all of them have pros and cons, but imo quality lies in analog.

Your last statement here contradicts your first. You originally stated that "all attempts to make digital music survive" have failed, yet you now state that it's the money market. Sure as heck it is, it's what drives the industry. Not any advance in niche analog audio. Are LP sales rising? Sure. Compared to CD sales though, they're a drop in the bucket. Are CD sales falling? Sure are, because you can download an album digitally off iTunes, Amazon.com, eMusic, Napster or any host of other digital (yes, say it dolph, "digital") music sources that are growing with every CD that isn't sold any more. Buying used CDs has become the cheap way to get music because so many folks have digitally copied them off to music servers, PCs, and portable devices and then sell off their CD collections.

Is digital music in any danger of being overtaken by any advance in analog sound anywhere? No, and to think otherwise would be delusional.

Formats can survive as a commercial product or it can survive for the respect of quality.

Think about that.
;-)

"dolph"