Mmmm analog...

[regebro]

Are you absolutely sure?

No, but I'm pretty sure.

An average person can hear the difference between a sinus wave and a square wave at 15 khz

This has been discussed at length, and the common agrement has earlier been that no tests have been done to verify if this is correct or not. If you have a reference to a test of this I would be very interested.

My Otari 2" machine records a 35 khz sinus without any problem.

But most tape recorders don't, so it's rather besides the point. If that was the reason, then 44.1 khz digital would sound like casette tapes and and 96kHz would sound like your otari.

Yes, a high-end tape machine will have a better frequency response than 44.1Khz digital will.

But even if that IS audible it all ends up on a 44.16/16 CD anyway, and then it's gone, gone, gone. And in that case, you are chasing differences in sound that are pointless.

Howerver, most analog freaks claim that analog will sound better even after it's been birded to CD. So, a better frequency response is NOT the answer.

 

[reel buzzer]

Analog freak here.

 

[Han]

But, and I've said this before, the CD format is at it's end.

SACD and DVD audio is on the way in and guess what are the best sounding SACD's available this very moment?

Right, DSOTM by Pink Floyd, Kind of Blue by Miles Davis, to name a few. And these were all analog recordings.

All the great music from the last twenty years that was recorded to early digital and mastered to DAT, will never sound as good as the Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, The Carpenters, Fleetwood Mac, or whatever of the analog era recordings, even on SACD or DVD A.

And that my friends, is not something to be happy about.

Listen for example to Frank Sinatra's "It was a very good year", which was recorded on april 22 1965 by Bill Putnam Sr. And listen to the vinyl version on a decent player. Your jaw will touch the floor.

And when you listen to the rare Direct Cut vinyl recordings, you'll probably faint.