The BLISS of returning to ANALOG: my experience

Well, in contrast to Lugnut's experience, I've owned a VPI Aries with JMW 10 arm that I had a real hard time getting to sound as good as my digital gear and since then, I've had better luck with my Michell Gyro and Orbe SE TT's with a $4500 AHT phono stage. I use the Wilson Benesch Act 0.5 tonearm and Benz Ruby 2 and Shelter 501 II phono cartridges. My analog sounds really great through my Monarchy Audio SE-180 monoblocks and my Audio Physic Virgo II speakers. There's no question about that.

But I also have an old Parasound C/BD-2000 belt-drive transport and a Boulder modified Art DIO, which I use in conjunction with the Perpetual Technologies P-1A (as an upsampler), and a Monolithic power supply. Now, provided that everything is adjusted and working 100% in my turntable system, when I get the digital gear set up just right, with my proprietary blend of digital cables and isolation treatment, well, it's a very, very, close contest in many areas. Each may enjoy a small advantage here or there, but it's really almost too close a race to pick a clear winner. Of course that statement is recording sensitive too. It sort of comes down to the merits of the recordings under scrutiny -- how well they were mastered in their respective formats.

Hey, if anyone wants to bring a Linn over to my house for a shootout with my digital, I'd be up for it anytime. I guarantee I'll have you scratching your head for answers...

Elizabeth,

Me too! Me too! :)

We bought a CDP in 1984 and stopped buying LPs, the whole sad story. Even sadder, around 1991 we nearly stopped listening to music at home for ten years, without really knowing why.

Paid off the house last year and started upgrading like mad, new speakers, new wire, new amp, nice CDP (Arcam FMJ CD23). Pretty nice, but still not right.

Dragged the 25 year old TT out and played a few records. Hmmm, this has possibilities. Did some research here and upgraded the analog rig nearly as much as Lugnut's friend, Teres 265/OL Silver/Shelter 901. (Thanks for the help, TWL!)

Long story short, and with no disrespect to Plato, there's more than a speed bump's difference. One format plays music, one doesn't. He's right about the R2R of course. Anybody have a few spare session or master tapes they want to sell me? ;)

Ah, S&G. "Bookends" was my favorite too Tom, wonderfully intimate recordings. Lost all those discs long ago.

Classic Records just reissued "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" on 200g vinyl. A little too much studio processing on that album, but still if it's anything like the quality of their classical reissues, buy it!

Hmmm... "One format plays music, one doesn't..." That's kind of drastic, don't you think, Dougdeacon? By the way, which one is which? :)

I guess I'm gonna have to take up lying for a hobby since telling the truth gets me in trouble. Whatever.

Lugnut, the beauty of this forum is that all of us are entitled to express our own views based on our own unique experiences. No one has called you a liar and you're certainly not in trouble. I totally believe everything you have contributed thus far. It's just that my own experience and search for the best gear (that I can afford) has given me different results from that of you and your friend and probably many others. It is through these kinds of differences that we learn and progress and I don't think that's such a bad thing. Heck, I used to be very anti-digital but with my present gear, I'm really enjoying it. With R2R tape, I now have 3 formats that are bringing me a lot of musical pleasure and if I can achieve that, then so can you and a lot of other folks. Why close your mind to another potential avenue of musical bliss? Just because you haven't found the "magical" combination for digital yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't have to be that expensive.

How many times have you gone to an audio demonstration where there are both digital and analog sources, both decent quality, and yet one blows the other away. I've seen it happen plenty of times. Sometimes, sadly, it is the analog that suffers in the comparison -- even when the equipment is good. Personally, I just chalk it up to someone not taking pains to optimize the performance of one of the formats and discount the results as meaningless. To draw concrete conclusions from experiments that are not conducted fairly, with strict controls over the variables is folly. Peace!