On 30/04/2014 16:33, Steve Thackery wrote:
RJH wrote:

there's the possibility that
somewhere within medium and process, the alteration of the original
signal makes the sound more lifelike (preferable, better etc).

Hang on! That is two quite separate things. More lifelike (i.e. more
like the original live sound signal)? No, of course not, how could it?
Preferable? Why yes, of course, if you like listening to distortion,
wonky gain curves and noise. And I'm not being sarcy: people
(including me) often seem to prefer "sweet" treble and "warm" bass, and
even-harmonic distortion can be pleasing, too.

There has to be a reason for some quite respected musicians and
engineers sticking to analogue (over digital) beyond vanity and
fashion.

You aren't serious, are you? Firstly, they are just as human as you
and me, and therefore may prefer the sound of analogue-all-the-way,
regardless of it being less accurate, more noisy and more distorted
than CD. Secondly, like all humans, they are prone to irrational
thinking (that's why so many arty types buy Apple products), so they
will readily believe the nonsense claims that analogue-all-the-way is
somehow "better".

The fact that this "better" can never be measured or confirmed in any
audio laboratory makes them feel even more smug and special, because
they then believe they can perceive something too subtle for any
scientific instrumentation.

So no, there doesn't have to be a reason. At least, not a good reason.
:-)


I hear what you say :-)

I'd just add/finish by saying that I wouldn't say 'better'. Just for me,
preferable in some circumstances.

--
Cheers, Rob