More convinced of analog than ever

02-07-09: Chadeffect
I wonder when this debate will finally die? I am guessing soon.

Digital is getting better almost every year... at this rate analogue will be
confined to the history books quite soon with only the most stubborn of old
audiophiles staying with it.

02-07-09: Shadorne
Then I suggest you re-read your initial post starting from the title
"More convinced of Analog than ever" with its description of how
you heard the latest best possible digital has to offer and found it wanting
and fatiguing.

02-07-09: Brauser
I am convinced that analog hangs in there for ... two reasons. First, it can
sound amazingly good in a best case scenario when everything in the system
is properly addressed. Secondly, analog can 'look awesome' with these over-
the-top turntables, J-Corders, record cleaners, etc. I suppose I should also
add that audiophiles may have large collections of LPs and Reel tapes. Bottom
line though is the question of overall absolute performance being on the
analog or digital side?? My experience is that DIGITAL IS
BEST...

I posted this in the Analog forum because I
was relating a subjective experience to like-minded individuals. So why are
digiphiles responding with such vehemence--to set the rest of us straight?

What's your point, really? It's subjective. Sound reproduction is imperfect and
we all respond in our own ways to the parts of the reproduction that are
significant to us. My experiences do not fit the oversimplified amateur
psychology theories expressed here. As I said before, I listened to digital
exclusively for 20 years. I had no big LP collection to protect as I'd lost it in a
flood 30 years ago. My "impressive rig" is a Technics DD
turntable. All the wiping and cleaning and dusting and prepping, and jumping
up every 20 minutes to change sides is counter to my personality. But I do it
for one reason: a lot of digital-sourced music sets my teeth on edge and LPs
don't. The one exception in my house is ALC-encoded CDs played on my
iPod Touch. Those don't irritate me, but they still don't match the way I
respond to LP.

02-07-09: Johnnyb53
I posted this in the Analog forum because I was relating a subjective experience to like-minded individuals. So why are digiphiles responding with such vehemence--to set the rest of us straight?

Generally, new topics just appear lumped together in a list.

As a result, I believe people just respond to the topic without paying any attention to the particular forum into which a topic is posted.

I think it's the snobbish tone of your original post that caused any defensiveness.

There are probably more great sounding digital rigs out there than great sounding vinyl rigs even if the absolute best rigs are vinyl. It seems that Lp lovers have to frequently remind us that their preferred format is the best. People just get tired of hearing it. No offense intended, but you asked.

Personally, I fail to see anything remotely resembling "snobbish tone" in the original post.

I agree that this subject has been debated here (and elsewhere) ad nauseum however I had an experience recently that may be worth sharing.

I had the opportunity to compare two different analogue front ends in the same system as a way of seeing which I might prefer as an upgrade to my current rig. Both were based on the Linn LP12. One system was a full out Linn front end--an LP12 with the most recent upgrades, an Achiva cartridge and a Linn Linto phonostage. The other was a Linn/Naim setup--an LP12/Armageddon without the Keel (but the other upgrades favored by Naim) an ARO tonearm and a Lyra Titan i cartridge driving the new Naim phonostage (I forget the name of it). All this fed Naim amp and preamp which drove a pair of Wilson Sophia II's. While my main purpose in arranging the demo was to compare the two tables (I preferred the Naim centric one) I did bring CD and LP copies of one title to see, after deciding which analogue front end I liked best, how IT would compare to a good digital front end (in this case a CDX2 without an XPS). I had owned a CDX2 for a while and so was familiar with the sound. The recording was the MFSL version of AKUS "So Long So Wrong" on LP and the standard Redbook CD of the same title. So, after listening to the two tables for about an hour we ran the Naim centric analogue front end against the CDX2 and what I found was very interesting....

The CDX2 easily held it's own against the vinyl rig. Which did I prefer? Well, both. The digital sounded better in all the ways you might expect and the analogue was better where that medium is typically strong. I could easily see how someone might prefer the sound of the digital setup or visa versa depending on what they value in sound reproduction.

Now, I understand that there are many, many variables involved here but without getting too caught up in the details it seems to me that if a 6K CD player can compete with a 20K analogue front end digital can't be all bad. In fact, this experience ended up really opening my eyes to the potential of digital playback having spent the last 15 years squarely with the "vinyl rules" squad. My next purchase ended up being a new SACD/CD player, not a turntable (an Esoteric X-03SE) and, due to other system changes, have been without phono capability since the holidays. Do I miss my LP's? Sure. But I am getting really good sound from my digital setup and don't feel any rush to get my turntable back in business. If anything, I realize that I am going to have to save some serious coin to upgrade my analogue set up so that it won't be embarrassed by my CD player. Yeah, vinyl is great but I have found that really good sound can be had with digital sources and probably at a comparatively lower price point than a compareable analogue rig.