Worth pursuing analog sound from digital?

cleeds2,434 posts09-11-2019 1:41pmelliottbnewcombjr

Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is.

It isn't clear what you mean here. Digital isn't perfect - and neither is analog - but neither represent a "broken chain." Of course, some people believe that digital data is missing because of sampling rates (which is false, as long as Nyquist is observed) or that the LP has infinite resolution (which is false, or you could install Windows on it).
.......................

ah, I used wrong terms, how about this: analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain.

mouth, mic, lp cutter = unbroken ribbon. mouth, mic, tape = unbroken ribbon. lp groove, stylus, phono eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. tape, tape eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. 

digital is bits, assembled into a chain, no matter how many, how manipulated, how quiet, .... 

after some 45 years, my simple summation is:  analog has unbroken overtones in perfect timing, relative strengths, decay strength, ....

Analog is definitely higher noise ...

Often true, but no inherently so. It depends on the analog recording and the digital recording to which it's being compared.

Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP ...

And of CD, too.

... amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is ...

Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Solid state amplifiers for hi-fi use are certainly analog.

....................................

yeah, I am wrong about that, audio transistor amps are analog, thanks for catching that.

given analog source, why do I prefer tubes to digital amplification?


they say tubes include warm distortion, whatever it is, given great speakers (high efficiency for tubes), properly matched to the listening space, both sound great.

When I do comparison testing, i.e. Sgt Peppers, CD; LP; R2R tape, I, and everyone, pick LP over CD, and Tape over LP, and, without fail, my 30 watt tube amps over my 300 wpc SS McIntosh. 

The LP has more noise than the CD, the Tape has more noise than the LP, yet 

I’ve had this debate with myself for years.
Finally after much changing of equipment I’ve got to the point where both analog and digital domains are almost equal in quality.
It is true there are variations between the two media, but now they’re both musical in my system.

I’ve had this debate with myself for years.
Finally after much changing of equipment I’ve got to the point where both analog and digital domains are almost equal in quality.
It is true there are variations between the two media, but now they’re both musical in my system.

Here's a thought. Anyone in socal willing to do an A-B comparison with his or her system to the available folks here on this thread? I'm sure hearing is very subjective so if we can all hear the same comparison, we may be able to come up with an agreement between digital and analog. You're all welcome to come to my house but my system is less than ideal although vinyl does sound smoother imo. 

So, for CD playback, and I don’t mean to be snooty, everything is broken. A simple comparison of cassette vs CD will confirm.

Broken lines, broken strings,
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain’t no use jiving
Ain’t no use joking
Everything is broken

Broken hands on broken ploughs
Broken treaties, broken vows
Broken pipes, broken tools
People bending broken rules
Hound dog howling, bull frog croaking
Everything is broken