Fascinating

Quote:

there are not enough 1's and 0's to capture ALL of the source material



Okay, now we're getting somewhere!

I'm not trying to belabor this or make it unpleasant, I really just do want to come to a fuller understanding of the various points of view.

Do you think it is ALL digital media that is deficient, or just the CD delivery mechanism? That is, if there is a high enough resolution or sampling rate (or whatever voodoo is applicable), is there a digital methodology that could capture and deliver a live performance as well as, I don't know, Tape at a high rate? Is Tape optimal for masters?

I don't necessarily disagree that digital recordings could be inferior to analog ones, but I don't fully understand the science of either one.

We could agree - I think - that second-generations of the original recording are likely to differ in an analog world. While it may be technically possible to replicate (to my ears, for sure) the master tape, the equipment and process required is not economically viable for mass market. With digital mastering and distribution, the consumer gets an exact replica.

So, if we take economics out of it for the moment, I guess the issues are twofold:
1. Is there an optimal ORIGINAL recording method (digital, tape, ??). In what cases would one be technically superior to the other and why? I mean, in what cases is converting the sound at the microphone into electrical impulses (for tape) or mechanical patterns (in vinyl) "better" than converting it to 1's and 0's?
2. Is there a technical reason why an analog master can be more faithfully transferred to an analog medium (vinyl, high speed tape, etc) than to a digital medium (like - but not necessarily limited to - CD)?

Again, to Larry especially, I'm not trying to quarrel or engender any negative vibe, I'm just really interested in discussing this issue with smart, civilized people.

bibere usque ad hilaritatem