atmasphere wrote: "
My biggest objection to digital is the distortion in the highs which in
the digital world is known as aliasing. The ear converts it to a sort of
brightness. These days its not nearly the problem it was years ago so I
can listen to digital without much complaint. But when I play the LPs
for my girlfriend, she hears the improvement right away (extra detail
for some reason) and she hears the same things I do, so I think digital
still has a way to go. Her daughter, who is 30, can't listen to digital
at all; she says it makes her jittery and annoyed. She's not
particularly pleasant to be around in that state, so when she comes over
we have to have the stereo either off or on LP only.
"
I agree the high frequency problems in digital have generally needed to be masked by other equipment, or artially solvedwith big buck equipment.When I recently bought a $7000 SACD/DAC Marantz SA-10 it was for one reason. That DSD upsampling (even for CD data) almost completely solves the digital glare. (and a lot better than cheaper DACs)I still can hear some problems on a few less well recorded material,(particularly as I reestablish the clarity throughout the system, which had been set to hide the worst of the HF grunge) and I still use a glorified tube buffer to ameliorate the small issues. but now I can get my system to be more revealing and not wince!
I agree the high frequency problems in digital have generally needed to be masked by other equipment, or artially solvedwith big buck equipment.When I recently bought a $7000 SACD/DAC Marantz SA-10 it was for one reason. That DSD upsampling (even for CD data) almost completely solves the digital glare. (and a lot better than cheaper DACs)I still can hear some problems on a few less well recorded material,(particularly as I reestablish the clarity throughout the system, which had been set to hide the worst of the HF grunge) and I still use a glorified tube buffer to ameliorate the small issues. but now I can get my system to be more revealing and not wince!

