Digital as good or better than YOUR analog?


Just curious how many here believe they have surpassed the performance of their analog sources; aliveness, ease, depth, grainlessness, delicacy, scale etc. with their redbook cd playback. I'm closer than ever. I call my digital playback, power analogue, and with the latest technology for less and less money I would love to hear how others are percieving the measures of; palpability(music breathes with naturalness), seductiveness, shadings of recording room que's, vibrancy, etc. with their standard CD digital playback. Thanks
after_hrs
Email just sent to you. I've listed at least four of the CD / SACD units tested against the Sony.
Sorlowski, a CD/DVD's performance relies *heavily* on the quality of electricity being fed (including power cord) and the tuning system it uses (rack/shelving/cones and/or footers). Electricity and vibration induce jitter. Jitter causes harshness.

Albert's system is very well suited in the power delivery and tuning departments.

If you are not using any power filtration and/or audio grade power cords ( and cones/footers ) I strongly suggest you do so. Your musical presentation will change for the better. I have done this experiment w/ my niece's cheapo DVD player and the music changed from unlistenable to smooth and musical just using some Goldmund cones, an MDF board, Vibrapods, a PS Audio Juice Bar and my Jena Labs cryo'ed PC3 power cord w/ Highwire Wirewrap tuning device. True, all this gear was more expensive than the $99 DVD player--but it proved my point.

With psychic power and primal intensity,
Absolutely right Psychic.

Those who don't work at solving these variables have not achieved maximum performance from their player.

This has always been true of analog and in spite of their convenience, it's required in the digital domain as well.
Yes, I do not use any aftermarket PC, power filtration, cones, footers etc etc. on SONY, neither on Arcam.
You are saying that SONY "on steroids" would beat ARCAM.
Probably you are right. But who knows how good would sound ARCAM "on steroids".
So I believe I had given them equal chance. And I personally believe that it would be better to spend money on good cdp from the beginning, then thousands of dollars on steroids to make listenable "mediocre" player. But this is my subjective opinion not a fact. Fact is that "raw" Arcam beats "raw" SACD SONY in my judgement on my rig in my room. And I do not have any doubts about it.
Once I had put my Arcam on "steroids" (Perpetual technologies P1, P3) difference was not subtle, it was jaw dropping. Difference between SONY and Arcam is only subtle, Arcam warmer, SONY harsher and brighter. But I had to sold P1,P3 they were causing so much interference with my TV, that I could not watch it. For now I do not have dedicated audio-only room. So I know how much improvement I could get with "good" player.