Is Digital actually better than Analog?


I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
128x128musicaudio
Audiofeil -

"They're both superb if done correctly."

IMO, I think this is something that should be looked at by both enthusiest of analog and digital. What is optimal for both methods? Vinyl for analog? Surround for digital? Uuhh, moving right along...

"No question that analog isn't going much "further" and digital as Yogi said "has most of its' future in front of it"."

Then I would assume for the sake of analog and its enthusiest, its good this question was raised now, and not 5 to 10 years down the road.

"I enjoy all of it and simply let the chips (no pun intended) fall as they may."

I wish I could say the same, but my budget is limited as for audio, and every penny needs to be spend wisely and optimally for performance. I can't afford to buy based on emotion or a whim. Not that you are, I can only speak for me... I can't. Realistically speaking, how many people can, beginner, advanced, novice or anywhere in between?

"As Raul says relax and enjoy the music."

When I relax, which one will relax me more to allow the original recording and artist be effectively reproduced? Hence, the question and topic at hand...even with the other questions it will no doubt prompt..."Is digital actually better than analog?"
Cdwallace; i will respond to your points;

you write;"I agree completely. However, I must point out that personal preference for vinyl (subjective) should not be passed as knowledge of the topic at hand, is digital actually better than analog. To appropriately answer this question, I would assume it would require knowledge of both pro's and con's of both analog and digital (non-subjective). Again like I said before, everyone has and is entitled to thier own personal preference. But how can one provide an unbiased answer unless preference is removed and factual pro's and con's are processed (facts). Intepretation of the result is then left to the question poser (subjective)."

to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'......would all be ways i would describe how i view vinyl in relation to digital. i could care less about any subjective reasons. music is art. i eat organic fruit and vegtables because they taste much better. my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons. i don't care about that.

the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME.

i say....JUST LISTEN.

you wrote; "Would this constitute suffient explaination of why CD sales alone almost unreachably exceed vinyl sales, when factoring sales of CD's and vinyl outside of the perameters of "high end" or audiophile reproductions?"

digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty).

you wrote;"This speaks volumes to me, care to be a little more specific, based on your experiences?"

the whole culture of vinyl (buying, the 'art' aspect of album covers', cleaning, diferent pressings, tt set-up, taking the vinyl out of the sleeve, putting it on the tt, cueing the arm, dropping the needle, un-muting the preamp, then waiting for the music)....is all like foreplay. there is a small element of that with digital but it is truely different. anticipation is part of it. then the much more involving musical experience; which many times is soooo immersive as to 'demand' attention'. the relaexed nature of vinyl causes your body to be at ease. it is difficult to not pay attention. my body knows when i have listened to vinyl. it is physical. one of life's true pleasures.

OTOH digital gets a much lower portion of my attention; i need to concentrate to be immersed into digital and the level of calmness and serenity is greatly reduced. it is there....digital is not to be dismissed...but it is limited sensually.

with vinyl you are concentrating on the event.....digital is a little more about the sound.

you wrote; "Much appreciated but still subjective to some degree. Being experienced in both areas, can you help me understand how you came to this mindset, based on factual information and results?"

if i were making an objective checklist of what the best vinyl does better than the best digital (and now we can use the word 'better').....

--much more bandwidth...lots more information....dramatically so.

--much more dynamic.....particularly micro-dynamic.

--much lower noise floor. there are many Lps where you can easily hear music that digital only vaguely hints at. noise on digital....musical content on vinyl.

--continuous. no gaps.

i realize that my above interpretations of my perceptions fly in the face of some widely accepted opinions on digital. on previous threads regarding this subject i have attempted to discuss these issues. at a certain point i decided that it was not productive to do so....and i simply did not make the points again. i could care less what some measurements say. anyone that has heard the comparison in my room would easily ageee with my points.

it is clear to anyone that listens...at the SOTA.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"......wellll, I jus' don't know" -- Lou Reed
.
Does any digital step in the recording process ruin music forever? What about digitally recorded music that has been mastered to Analog (Vinyl) - is this better than straight CD?

(I guess my question is directed to those that claim Analog is always better than digital. Conversion to Vinyl should, in theory, raise the noise floor and add back some of the distortion that is missing from a digital CD, due to the inaccuracies in the mechanical cutting, presssing and cartridge needle pick up process. Apart from hiss and clicks - most of this added distortion is probably harmonic in nature, and after all, that is what a tube amp does and this effect sounds very good to many people)
Cdwallace, you will not find any objectivist charts to show you the difference between digital and analog. If that is what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. If you would rather not be bothered with analog, that is fine also.

I concur with Mike, music is art, and cannot help but be judged subjectively. There are no charts to explain why someone prefers a Van Gogh over a Picasso. No charts to show why someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. No graphs will show why one prefers a convertible over a hard top automobile. If someone claims that driving with the wind blowing through ones hair is the best way to drive, should he have to provide scientific evidence?

Loosen your collar, live a little. If you do not have the funds for both, choose the format that suits your lifestayle best. Then just relax and enjoy it.

My system is not nearly as SOTA as Mike's, but I do have a fairly balanced budget between analog and digital. My digital rig is about 2/3 the cost of my analog rig. I also listen to digital 75% of the time. However, I, and everyone who has heard my system, even non-audiophiles, believe the analog sounds better, more-involving, than digital. I have no charts, but I and others talk less and listen more when analog is playing versus digital. I have no color charts to prove this, or explain why, it just is.

So why do I listen to what I claim is inferior sonically 75% of the time.....good question, Iask myself that often.
The answer is two fold, first, digital has analog beat handily in the convienience factor. I'm either busier (multi-tasking) or just lazy sometimes (70 min play times vs. 20 min), or sometimes it's software that I don't have on vinyl. Secondly, my digital system does sound very good, it's not exactly a Best Buy special. One only notices the shortcomings when comparing directly to analog. I'm only dissapointed in my digital system if I try to switch to digital immediately after listening to vinyl. If I'm just in the house, and reading or working, and fire up the rig with digital, it sounds great.

Maybe you are best just to go with digital. Many do, for the sake of convienience and/or $$$. If you don't have the analog to A/B for yourself in your own system, you will probably never know any better and save yourself some dough.

Cheers,
John