More convinced of analog than ever


Wednesday night I went to my local high end shop's "Music Matters" open house, which featured six meticulously set up listening rooms highlighting the best and brightest offerings from Wilson, Transparent, Audio Research, Ayre, Magnepan, Peachtree, B&W, Classe, Rotel, etc., with factory reps to introduce their products and innovations.

There were unmistakable improvements in reproduction of redbook CD, with jitter reduced to near zero, and holographic reproduction of images, soundstages, and the minute signals that indicate instrument resonance and hall ambience.

And yet... and yet... when the demos shifted from redbook to the new downloadable hi-rez digital formats in 24/88.2 and 24/96, there was an unmistakable jump in resolution around the edges of the notes, of sounds swelling, resonating, and decaying, of greater verisimilitude.

But compared to the turntable demos, I'd say the 24-bit digital got me about 80% there, whereas LP playback closed the gap completely. Once the LPs started spinning, there was a collective relaxed "aaaahhh" that went through the audience. It wasn't because of dynamic compression. Far from it, the Ayre prototype turntable was strikingly dynamic with a subterranean noise floor.

The sense of ease and relaxation I attribute to a sudden drop in listener fatigue. The LP-source music had so much more of what makes music musical. We didn't have to work nearly as hard to rectify the ear-brain connection as with even the best of 24-bit digital, which was still significantly better than redbook. The redbook playback always reminded me that I was listening to "hi-fi," even when played through multi-thousand dollar players from ARC and Ayre.

Even my local Brit-oriented Rega/Naim dealer asserts that the latest CD players rival or exceed LP playback.

I say nay.

What say you?
johnnyb53
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.
Hmmm. I wouldn't call Johnnyb's post snobbish either, however, these threads that seem to pit one format vs. the other are inherently contentious. I'm with Tvad in that I think it all depends on the recording as to what medium is better.

In the real world (playing all sorts of music with wildly varying sonic qualities) both can be very satisfying or disappointing. Ultimate sound quality doesn't much matter to me, playing only the best quality recordings would severely limit my music choices to the point I would no longer care about listening to my system. And so, I could care less about which format is superior.

I must admit I don't see anything in Johnnyb's post that disses digital in general, he is simply describing that evening's listening session.

And yes, I've sometimes felt very defensive about criticizing my analog sound and defending my digital sound, I feel I've been belittled by some analog fans. A tone of unbelievability has entered some of the threads I've initiated complaining about the sound of my analog rig. Some posts call into question my ability to set up a vinyl rig, stating there must be some obvious thing I'm totally missing, and then going into a diatribe about how vinyl just blows digital away. Please check my virtual system before dissing my setup abilities. I know some mean well, but others are insulting in their simplistic posts. I think some analog gurus have to extole the virtues of vinyl and trash digital in a manner way beyond the pale.

Having said that, I don't feel Johnnyb is trashing digital, however, Shadorne has some valid points in his post. Generalizations are always going to cause contentiousness, the digital vs. analog argument should be much more specific, comparing recordings rather than mediums.