@noble100
You seem to have a lot of opinions.
However, taking you at your word, the analog systems you have heard had noisy bearings--hence rumble, poor speed control--hence flutter, etc., were playing dirty records--hence annoying surface noise, inferior phono electronics--hence poor dynamic range, and poorly adjusted cartridges--hence poor channel separation. That seems to be your vinyl experience . . in your own words.
You claim to have "discovered the true potential of digital," your own words. However, your digital "reference" is an Oppo 105. I have a 105, and it comes nowhere near to revealing how good digital can really be, and that is readily and easily demonstrable.
You say you have never compared comparable digital to analog, but yet you have "impressions." Have I got that right?
Enjoy your system, as you obviously do, but are you sure you want to go on pontificating?
@junzhang10
@geoffkait
The great, and best, SACD releases of analog material are AAD, not ADD.
You seem to have a lot of opinions.
However, taking you at your word, the analog systems you have heard had noisy bearings--hence rumble, poor speed control--hence flutter, etc., were playing dirty records--hence annoying surface noise, inferior phono electronics--hence poor dynamic range, and poorly adjusted cartridges--hence poor channel separation. That seems to be your vinyl experience . . in your own words.
You claim to have "discovered the true potential of digital," your own words. However, your digital "reference" is an Oppo 105. I have a 105, and it comes nowhere near to revealing how good digital can really be, and that is readily and easily demonstrable.
You say you have never compared comparable digital to analog, but yet you have "impressions." Have I got that right?
Enjoy your system, as you obviously do, but are you sure you want to go on pontificating?
@junzhang10
@geoffkait
The great, and best, SACD releases of analog material are AAD, not ADD.