Digital as good or better than YOUR analog?

I agree with Bomarc and Ptmconsulting (okay - Bob). We're at the point where, given decent gear for both anolog and digital playback, the mastering and manufacturing quality of the software is often the larger determinant in terms of ultimate sonic quality (although digital will always enjoy certain inherent advantages in the area of lowest noise).

But as for my own rig, I can't really say. The few recordings I own in both formats yield mixed results for overall superiority, some going one way, some the other. The fact that I play analog much more often than digital has entirely to do with my collection, and nothing to do with audiophile considerations.

What does "better" mean? For me I was always annoyed by LP surface noise and rumble, and the inconvenience of constanly cleaning away dust. Therefore, for me, CD's were an improvement from day one.

Today my digital playback equipment is considerably improved (as is my LP gear) and there is no comparison, audiowise: digital wins. Perhaps if I invested more than $10,000 in LP playback equipment the contest would be closer. But that is not about to happen.

I don't know! My goal is to make my analog and digital rigs sound *closer* to each other--not one better than the other. I am doing more mods to my Technics 1200 and my belt drive transport is in the hands of Dan Wright for a very serious modding job. When everything is set I'll find out how close I got one to the other...

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Are we not considering the trade off between one set of artifices and another and forgetting that the real reference standard in both domains is live acoustical intruments in the air spaces of performing venues?

I did it! My analog is sounding like digital. YES!