Can digital files REALLY sound better than analog?

[Jubal]

Recently, I finally decided to try out the HD Tracks High Definition files. I've never owned a copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller album (just his "History - Greatest Hits). So I decided to try the 192/24 digital file.
Before you scoff, keep in mind that I'm not playing this over some puny little PC speakers. I have a pretty decent sounding home system, which lately has enjoyed a pair of EX SX200 pro monitors for the fronts.
I've heard most of this album on vinyl on a good system, and it sounds really amazing; probably slightly better than the redbook cd versions.
Let me say that neither of these can touch the 192/24 wave file. What you must realize, though, is this will not play on iTunes, and there are only a few software players that handle wave files properly. I use Winamp. It'ts not sexy, but it does the job quite well. Also, a typical album at 192.24 takes up about 2.5 G of hard drive space.
My M-Audio sound card is connected to my Pioneer receiver via the simplest analog connection possible- 25 ft stereo RCA cable.
Tried the CTTE 96/24 this week, and compared it to the Steve Hoffman mastered SACD recently released by Audio Fidelity. Simply put, the digital file is a full step up in quality.
In all fairness though, I don't believe the Audio Fidelity SACD used the original master, simply because they do not promote it that way or say it on the SACD.

The price of these two versions also vary. The 96/24 file is 18.00 The SACD actually ran about 24.00. The 192/24 version costs about the same as the SACD.
I have found that HD Tracks pretty much offers 96/24 when 192/24 is also available. Most audiophiles state that only the absolute best systems can provide enough detail for even a professional engineer/producer to be able to tell the difference.

I have decided to start moving toward opting for these files when albums I love are available. That means I'll have to buy ssome more hard drives. Oh well.
So my answer is yes, digital files can be substantially better than analog files, provided they are high definition files in a wide open format like wave. The cost though, is subtantially higher in some cases.

[BobM]

Sometimes it's less about the medium (CD vs vinyl vs high def computer files) and more about the mastering of the music on any of those mediums. Any of them can absolutely sound better then the other. To compare you really need to make sure the mastering is the same before you can really say which is the best.

That being said, many of those 70-80's recordings were just not mastered very well at all. Thriller was marketed to the "regular people", not audiophiles, so it doesn;t surprise me that the analogue version doesn't have all the greatness that is possible with a very good remaster these days, especially in a high def format.

So just enjoy what you've got there, but remember there are also bad remasters in hi def. Like everything else, some are better than others, and some are just worse (especially if they are adding high levels of compression which is so very common these days - ruins the natural dynamics fo the music).

[enpdllp]

Sometimes it's less about the medium (CD vs vinyl vs high def computer files) and more about the mastering of the music on any of those mediums. Any of them can absolutely sound better then the other. To compare you really need to make sure the mastering is the same before you can really say which is the best.

That being said, many of those 70-80's recordings were just not mastered very well at all. Thriller was marketed to the "regular people", not audiophiles, so it doesn;t surprise me that the analogue version doesn't have all the greatness that is possible with a very good remaster these days, especially in a high def format.

So just enjoy what you've got there, but remember there are also bad remasters in hi def. Like everything else, some are better than others, and some are just worse (especially if they are adding high levels of compression which is so very common these days - ruins the natural dynamics fo the music).

Agree 100%.

I would add that in a lot of cases, not much could be improved on the older recordings via hi-resolution digital files due to the condition of the master tapes.

[Gladiator1634]

This is the biggest problem for me when I'm ready to make a purchase. I too have invested quite a bit of $$ into my system. Besides the discussion here on PE where does one go to make sure they are getting the better versions?

[yogibear]

"where does one go to make sure they are getting the better versions? "

www.stevehoffman.tv

[rcarlberg]

Yes

[trurl]

Does a well mastered 192/24 sound better than an 8 track that was left in the back seat for 14 years? I'm thinking yeah, probably I'm going to assume the o/p is talking about the theoretical top end of both formats... (There's a reference to "analog" files- are we confusing analog with lossless/uncompressed or is that a typo?)

[BobM]

"where does one go to make sure they are getting the better versions? "

www.stevehoffman.tv

Also try reading Stereophile or The Absolute Sound (and visiting their websites) to gather info on the quality of new releases. They don't cover everything (actually, most of the stuff they cover is kind of esoteric and less than mainstream) but you can search for and find the names of pressing and remastering companies that do it the right way ... from original tapes. Those will certainly be better than trying to remaster from 4th gen tapes or digital copies.

[JeffCarney]

If the original source is analog and all other things are equal?

No.

[ronmac]

If the original source is analog and all other things are equal?

No.

+1

[trurl]

If the original source is analog and all other things are equal?

No.

I don't think the question is "Will a digital version of an analog source ever sound better than that analog source?", it's ultimately, "Will any digital version of an analog source you're likely to actually have access to be a more accurate representation of that source than any analog version of same that you're likely to have access to?" Which could certainly be yes.

[JeffCarney]

I don't think the question is "Will a digital version of an analog source ever sound better than that analog source?", it's ultimately, "Will any digital version of an analog source you're likely to actually have access to be a more accurate representation of that source than any analog version of same that you're likely to have access to?" Which could certainly be yes.

Why are you "certain" of this?

[trurl]

Why are you "certain" of this?

"Could" certainly be- I worded that awkwardly. No, by no means do I think it would always be the case.

[rcarlberg]

"Could" certainly be- I worded that awkwardly. No, by no means do I think it would always be the case.

Actually a good remix engineer (like Udi Koomran or Asaf Carmeli or Mike King) can take an analog master and using today's technology make it sound better than any analog master of the day.

[trurl]

Actually a good remix engineer (like Udi Koomran or Asaf Carmeli or Mike King) can take an analog master and using today's technology make it sound better than any analog master of the day.

Yeah, but I'm trying to go with the "all things being equal" concept and not throw willful manipulation of the original signal into the equation for any kind of subjective improvement- not that it isn't all subjective but you know what I mean.

[JeffCarney]

Actually a good remix engineer (like Udi Koomran or Asaf Carmeli or Mike King) can take an analog master and using today's technology make it sound different than any analog master of the day.

Fixed.

[ronmac]

Fixed.

+1