Worth pursuing analog sound from digital?

To the OP, atm PS Audio has a promo going on that will allow you to trade in ANY PS Audio DAC toward the purchase of a new Direct Stream DAC.

They will give you a $2000. credit for your old DAC, no matter age, or model. I have a PSA NuWave DSD DAC that I purchased new, after they were discontinued for $800.  They will give me 2K toward the DSD. 

I'm very tempted to jump on a new DSD, directly from PSA for 4K. I would rather go this route than purchase a used unit for a few hundred less. Just my 2 cents.

Might be worth looking into...

mijostyn
All crap. Lets face it old guys. Digital is way more accurate than analog, you don’t have to deal with noise issues or the 10% harmonic distortion or the needle getting stuck

>>>>Accuracy is a tricky thing. On paper CDs are specified/promoted to have at least 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio and 90 dB Dynamic Range. Yet on CDs the tape hiss from the original master tape is almost never audible whereas it is on records and cassette. One wonders what else is missing. As for noise and distortion in CD playback it can be reduced significantly with vibration isolation and RFI/EMI countermeasures, etc. So, obviously there is considerable noise and distortion in CD playback to begin with, you’re just used to it, that’s all. So what good is the 90 dB spec?

As for the “theoretical” 90 Dynamic Range the overly compressed CDs these days kind of eliminate that spec for any important or meaning. As for the musicality by comparisons to the same recording on record or cassette the CD in most cases sounds like a poor facsimile in terms of bass articulation, sweetness, air and dynamics.

rauliruegas9

Let me say this about accurate.

First, I never said anything about accurate, analog or CD, and I did say Digital can be involving.

Your list of LP chain of distortions is phenomenal, OMG, thanks for that, I mean it.

How do we not hate LP after hearing accurate digital?

How can many of us find severely compromised LP 'more involving' than accurate and admittedly involving CD?

My answer, after 45 years of paying attention, by instinct (no evidence I know of), is analog's reproduction of overtones is somehow better than digital's, and somehow our brains perceive the difference.

My most accurate speakers were JSE Infinite Slope Model 2's. Measured and positioned using professional sound meter in my listening space, via acoustic designer, I moved my big efficient horns/15" woofers elsewhere and listened to accurate noiseless CD's and those accurate speakers via accurate McIntosh SS 300wpc amp for a few years.

I decided to move the horns/15" woofers back, Oh Happy Day, preferred them. Then, because they are so efficient, I moved my 30 wpc tube mono blocks back in. Oh Happy Day.

Then I resurrected my Thorens/SME/Shure MR back in. New LP's sounded terrific, more involving. Older LP's, too much obvious noise. I had to re-acquire my brain's ability to filter the noise to be immersed within those noisy LP's. Of course new LP's, especially ones recorded by people who knew what they were doing are preferred.

Gave the JSE's to my son, he came of musical age during the period of their use, he loves them.

Thorens 124 bearing's weakness was bass transferred from my springy floor (split level built in 1951), so I sold it, got a modern digital drive TT, it sounds terrific, as good as the Thorens/SME without the floor vibration transference problem.

And, here we are, advising OP, many of us who love LP's, that he will do better with TT/LP's than digital, IF, as he says, he desires the elusive 'LP Sound'.

OP mentioned digital mid-range preference, but like you, I suspect that is a speaker/room interaction issue unrelated to Analog or Digital.

Analog is wrong but I prefer it!

mijostyn

re: personal involvement in results is a part of LP preference I agree.

In the beginning, CD players were prohibitively expensive, acquired by people likely to already have excellent TT and acquired cartridge alignment skills.

Those skills, bit by bit (hah, that's a digital process)) steadily improved their existing LP sound. (and R2R as Tape was also a rich mans game).

CD took away all personal involvement in the results, 'threw away' the years of acquired skills. 

Also, early CD's were conversions of old analog masters. Incredibly, (I read somewhere back then) some LP masters, having 1st stage phono eq, were converted without 2nd stage Phono EQ. The complaint of harshness was true because those digital copies had exaggerated highs and cut bass. 

A switching DAC, alternating left/right processing was less desirable than dual Burr-Brown dacs. more bits, 1 bit, less jitter, OMG, green stripes on the outer edge of CD's, the string of what could be 'improved' was longer than the list of what is wrong with the entire LP chain.

Except for the green stripes, and placing barbell weights on top of your CD player, personal involvement was/is still missing.

Of course, every response here is based on the personal equipment of the poster.
How can there be any accurate judgement when everybody’s listening on different components?
Fruitless endeavor.