| |
| ▲ | bluGill a day ago | parent [-] | | Maybe not anymore, but that used to be a thing. I suspect some are still left, but I stay away from the places where audiophiles hang out. | | |
| ▲ | voakbasda a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s still a thing, but it is no longer based in objective reality. | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady a day ago | parent [-] | | I can understand thinking analog sounds nicer or more nostalgic, but it is strictly worse than digital | | |
| ▲ | bluGill a day ago | parent [-] | | That is false for reasons that have nothing to do with analog vs digital. Analog doesn't allow all the tricks the loudness wars required to win, so often analog really was better than digital. That is garbage in garbage out, and analog got less garbage on the input side. When someone who cares about good music in a perfect listening environment mixes and masters everything to the best of the technology, then digital is better. (but note that perfect listening environment is rare in the real world so good experts are compromising anyway to try to correct for the bad environment people listen in, this can be done well or bad) | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady a day ago | parent [-] | | I feel like mastering shouldn't be a factor in this, because yeah some CDs where obviously terribly done to sound louder but that isn't a quality of the format itself | | |
| ▲ | bluGill a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What matters is the final result not the parts. | |
| ▲ | dsr_ a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's capitalism making things worse again. CDs improved over LPs in dynamic range, frequency response, error correction, replayability, stereo separation, and noise floor. They also, at scale, became much cheaper to manufacture and distribute. But if the engineers, producers and marketers insist on not using the technical capabilities, or deliberately degrading them to chase perceived loudness, there's nothing the purchaser can do except complain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
