An interesting Digital vs. Analog experience


On Friday I visited my local hi fi store where Garth Leer of Musical Surroundings was showing off the new Clear Audio Master Innovation turntable and Jim White of Aesthetix was on hand with a lot of his gear. The speakers were Focal Stella with dual JL Audio Gothom subs. Obviously, the point of the event was the turntable, but I'll have to admit that when the music was temporarily switched from the turntable to a labtop both my friend and I thought the digital sounded better.

I've heard A/B comparisons in the store before using identical recordings and in that case preferred the vinyl, but this time with the recordings being different I would have left with a very different impression.

I mentioned it to Jim White (I didn't discuss it with Garth Leer since because I didn't want to rain on his parade) and his comment was that the system was tailored for analog so I'd probably really enjoy a system that was intended for digital. I think the computer was using an Aesthetix CD player for the DAC.

It was the first time in a long time that I was blown away with the sound of a system in that room, it made my system sound very humble (as it is in comparison) in a way that I had not heard before. It was the first time that I've heard Aesthetix amplification making the Focal Utopia's shine.

I guess what I'm saying is that both vinyl and digital can be amazing, but the difference in convienience is astounding.

I could see myself owning a pair of Stella speakers, but I don't think I have enough organs to sell to pay the bill. I doubt my wife would be willing to chip in...
mceljo
Usually a demo rigged to make the analog stand out will use a subpar digital source for comparison, so it is interesting that this did not turn out that way.

You never know what sound any one individual might prefer so it is no lock that analog always sounds better for sure.

I do think good analog generally does have clear advantages mostly in regards to very high frequency resolution over good digital, but practically the difference will only be apparent with very high performing gear playing only the best and most complex large scale recordings, usually of orchestral works involving massed strings, choruses, etc., and also perhaps with solo instruments containing a lot of high frequency energy, like cymbals, etc.

Plus you have to have the ears to hear the difference in the high audible frequencies when it exists and most humans lose that ability gradually over time with age.

Of course there is no one best anything, so digital done well also can have the edge in other areas involving other types of distortions, etc.
"and also perhaps with solo instruments containing a lot of high frequency energy, like cymbals, etc." - Mapman

Can you recommend a good cymbal solo CD? Pardon the text jargon, but ROFL. I know that's not what you mean, but it's what I immediately thought when reading your post.
There are some cymbal only bridges in "in the Court of the Crimson King" that come to mind.

But, yeah doesn't have to be a solo but well recorded cymbals in general.

Honestly, its hard for me to make any absolute statements regarding superiority of CD digital versus analog except the best of each tends to converge towards a more uniform sound, just like SS versus tube amps and other common audio alternatives. The best of both are close enough that it really does not matter to me for the most part in practice.
I actually love the way cymbals sound on my system. I notice them and other small percussion instruments like the triangle a lot more with my new speakers than ever before.
Focals are good choices for those who really "focus" on the high end of the audible spectrum.

Not too shabby otherwise as well.