Half the information on CDs is analogue

Aside from RIAA equalization, lots of tricks are used to make vinyl sound good. The one I like is RCA "Dynagroove". We all know that the contact pressure of the stylus is huge, and vinyl is flexible. RCA figured out that flexure of the vinyl is predictable from the modulation being cut, and developed some kind of secret algorithm to compensate. Of course the cartridge compliance would affect the flexure, so their compensation would only be right for some "average" cartridge.

The point that i was trying to make was not that digital sucks ( it definitely can ) or that analogue is better ( it definitely can be ), but that i ( and several others ) could hear MASSIVE differences between the two. As i also mentioned, this was not just on one occassion or with the specific gear mentioned. I used that as a reference because it was still fresh in my mind. On top of that, i could easily reproduce those same conditions again using the identical equipment in question. Given that the other gear that i've done this with was not mine, i don't have access to it and / or the specific makes and models.

Please bare in mind that my comments about "digital", at least within the confines of this thread, pertain strictly to "redbook" CD and "redbook" CD standards. I do think that DVD-A and SACD are superior with FAR more potential for better sonics than redbook CD's, but i'm not holding my breath or believing that either will become industry standards. Until something like that happens, i will continue to believe that quality analogue recordings and playback remain the audiophiles "best friend". Sean
>

Sean,

The point that i was trying to make was not that digital sucks ( it definitely can ) or that analogue is better ( it definitely can be ), but that i ( and several others ) could hear MASSIVE differences between the two.

quality analogue recordings and playback remain the audiophiles "best friend".

It is all too clear that your meaning is "redbbook CD digital sucks", even though, in your round about manner, you pretend otherwise.

These beliefs fly in the face of engineering and technical progress. Clearly digital technology is everywhere in every facet of our lives....from cell phones to cars to business systems to most medical equipment in hospitals. If analog was MASSIVELY better then why is digital so pervasive?? Some kind of conspiracy perhaps....I don't think so.

Shadorne...For many, if not most, applications, a digital implementation is both superior in performance and lower in cost. However, one cannot jump to the conclusion that this is true for every application: eg: audio. (But I do agree with you, mostly).

Sean...Not all Redbook CDs "suck". I have a few that are really superb, as good as most SACD or DVDA. This has mostly to do with the skill and care (not to mention luck) applied to the recording and mixing of the program.
As to vinyl being "better" it all depends on the meaning of "better". (Sorry Bill). If one is distracted by pops, clicks, and surface noise, and annoyed by having to get up halfway through a side to clean a fuzz ball off the stylus it is hard to appreciate the sound.

I like the sound of LPs but there are just too many things about the format that frustrate me.
It is disappointing that Laserdisc didn't catch on. It was certainly the most user-friendly analogue medium and I really think it had the potential to sound better than vinyl.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't invented a new analogue medium since its demise. There has got to be something better than vinyl and magnetic tape.
I think I'll start a new thread.