Tonearm recommendation

Dear friends: Please think a little on this:

For years analog audiophiles expressed that: digital experiences sounds/performs " lifeless " ( overall. ) against the analog experience.

Why is that?::what are we missing in the digital alternative?:

well, we are missing several " things ". In no order we are missing: two eq. RIAA processes, at least 3-4 amplification processes ( with multiple parts on each one, at least two input/output connector and the IC cables ( 1.0’-1.5 m. and soldered joints, fragility of the audio signal more prone to be contaminated for air electromagnetic pollution, we are missing the TT, cartridge, tonearm and the like, the LP anomalies and friction and cartridge " problems " to the LP ridding, effect of the SPL from the speakers through the analog rig, etc, etc.

In all of what we are mising the audio signal has to pass through and at each of those single steps that signal is heavy degraded and " walking " on with accumulation of all kind of distortions and that’s only part of what happens on LP playback but there are other " things " we are missing on the recording process too.

So what we are missing is just DISTORTIONS. That many of us like those distortions is not the subject and it can’t does nothing to help on all those signal degrading distortions that we have not in the digital alternative.

We are not accustom to purer audio signal and that’s why we don’t feel good when listening to it. All our audio life we are listening to more distortions than pure music information so our reaction is against the sound that has a lot lower distortions and we have not to be scientist to understand that, just common sense as I posted " over and over " in this thread.

That's wy we have to " overdamp " that signal at each system audio link.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R..

Raul, Is it your thesis therefore that you and we ought to be listening to digital sound reproduction?  But the digital process, both A to D and D to A, brings with it its own set of distortions, ones that apparently are far more noticeable and irritating to the human brain.  That's the brain we are stuck with.  In fact, the whole premise that measured distortion ought to be a determinant of what we listen to and how we listen is flawed, because we already know that most of our methods for measuring distortion, starting with THD and going on from there, do not describe what it is or isn't that makes an audio system sound "real" or not real.  So, while I admit it's an imperfect way to go through life, subjective judgement is relevant, especially when there is collective majority agreement on the subject of analog vs digital sound reproduction.

My private thesis is as follows:
(1) Real instruments and voices in real time produce harmonics.
(2) Microphones fail more or less to pick up these harmonics in their fullest extent. More is lost during processing of the resulting signal, and some irritating distortions can be added, too.
(3) Reproduced music from which such low level harmonics have been stripped sounds less real because of the loss of harmonics.
(4) Thus, a little bit of added harmonic distortion at the end of the chain results in music that is perceived as more real than if no or less harmonic distortion is present.

And again, digital does other things that are not favorable.  That said, "modern" digital reproduction is certainly become very excellent.  I don't close the door on anything I would otherwise like.

My teacher would have said, "you have lost the point"