How good is it?
This is a familiar question. The extremist audio geeks love to go on about how good or even perfect digital recording-streaming-hi-rez anything is. Mathematically it may even be true. If the world is all about math.
I have two main issues with that.
First is that old recordings are usually better. Specifically before a generation of "mastering engineers" started to ruin sound by massive processing to compensate for bulk consumption of audio product through poor systems. In the era from about the 1950s when stereo was invented to sometime in the early 1990s recordings and mastering was done with great care and excellence.
New recordings of popular music (for streams), and remastering of older stuff has been compromised. Example, a remastered Dire Straits Brothers in arms was compressed and ruined and is just inferior to all previous media issues. So streams of it in any format are just not very good.
Another example is that Cat Stevens album I want a fresh copy of, but new issues were remastered into a poor state. Wherefore art though Mofi?
My point is old recordings were done very well. And it really does not matter if it was analog or digital. Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was recorded 16 bit red book and is brilliant. Almost any TELARC CD or LP is just about as good as things get. Old Taped recordings can be great too. There may be a bit of noise and even drop outs, but that Getz Gilberto recording is amazing.
In response to demand companies that make boutique versions of old albums are doing well enough to get giant labels like Universal to release artisanal versions of memorable performances. Example DG (Universal) and DECCA (also Universal) press new versions of brilliant taped performances on high end vinyl. Pure analog and all that.
I have the DG Rites of Spring by Abbado and the London Phil. It is wonderful. Pure tape to Lathe no messing about. The justly famous Jazz at the Pawn Shop is also wonderful, even if slightly technically compromised as it was not a studio recording.
The second problem is with respect to the mathematics any recording that respects the Nyquist limit and all that theory is good enough. Here is a link to an article that claims CD and SACD and High Rez are indistinguishable if the masters are good enough.
High sampling rates may benefit the DAC device output filter, but that is trivial. The circuit geeks have figured that out. Done well even CD is good enough for playback. For recording and mixing extra bits are useful to keep the noise down below audibility.
What we have is people arguing about numbers that may not be relevant. As an engineer I think that engineering and science are fields where choices are made based on numbers. At some point though the numbers do not direct one way or another. As an old school audiophile I also use my ears. I listen for ambience and resolution and clarity. I hear that in both CD and Vinyl. I miss that in many stream sources. Can a normal human or even one with record breaking hearing tell the difference between the better media?
I have several albums in both formats. They compare well. I generally prefer the LP version, which may indicate my CD player is not great. But my TELARC CDs sound awesome.
That brings me to my conclusion. If the best version of a piece of music is on an LP it is the best version. It is not a matter of handling a physical thing or even liner notes. If it is the best it is good enough. Anything with better numbers is not better if you cannot hear it.
To be fair the other extreme of pure analog or death is just as silly.
Grado Opus 3 cartridge
Yamaha CD S300
ARC SP14 Preamp
Nakamichi PA7 Amplifier.
Thick speaker cables.
Stealth Speakers.














