How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?


I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although  they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?

tzh21y
Mike, thank you for taking the time to respond, and for others keeping this civil.


I was on a Facebook forum yesterday, and someone whose opinion I value, and is certainly accomplished in this field, said something that I have believed for a while, but have not tried to prove .... that you have to voice your system (room treatment + speaker placement) for vinyl or digital due due to inherent differences ... i.e. cross-talk.

As tzh21y said, perhaps it is just what we are used to?

In other areas of perception, like light, our preferences change as you change intensity, and we know that in sound, the Fletcher-Munson curves define how intensity impacts our perception. Perhaps inherent dynamic range limitations in vinyl coupled with aforementioned dynamic compression creating the ideal results for our interpretation of music and dynamic range from a perception standpoint, not a measurement standpoint?

Back to the thread, best answer as pointed out ... is no answer, as it is deeply personal it appears.




I thought I replied as asked. I said $35k. That said, I suspect the $13.5k dCS Bartok would rival it as well. Sound the same, no, of course not. Sound equally awesome in a different way, yes!
I have a new favourite answer, "Sound equally awesome in a different way, yes!"
Dear @mikelavigne @david_ten @atdavid and friends:

No one here is a stupid person but gentlemans with good common sense and that’s why I invite all of you to read a simple explanation :


"" digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. """

just forgeret if we are biased one way or the other , I respect that statement but explain nothing on the main digital/analog issue and I don’t agree with. Look:

starting at the recording cutting step and followed by the LP pressing is where starts the true degradation ( step by step ) of the LP recorded signal.

All of us know and even own LP test pressings samples ( expensive ones. ) that if you compare against the " normal " LP differences are not tiny, we can aware of the degradation in the normal LP pressing. After 200 pressings of the same recording that degradation ( maybe before. ) goes in increment.

On that LP pressing and before the LP playback process the LP were pressed with off-center and full of micro and macro waves in its recorded surface that makes a huge degradation to that recorded signal.

Now, during playback process the LP signal has to figth first with the unstability ( short time. ) of TT speed that degrades the recorded signal, after that it has to figth with all the TT micro-vibrations/resonances in the TT that arrives not only at the surface where the LP is seated but through the arm board too. Just before we listen nothing degradation of the signal is there ( no matter what. ).

Then comes the transducer job that’s the foundation of the LP playback technology ( arcaic but it’s what it’s. ).

The phono cartridge must follow the LP grooves modulations ( mimic it. ) and this just is imposible to achieve for any cartridge any where: so here not only exist more signal degradation but the lost of critical signal information that we can’t recovery in any way !!!!.
This cartridge must follow the modulations but each cartridge has different tracking abilities ( betweedn other things by its compliance characteristics. ) where we follow losting signal information but things does not ends here because exist a " natural " tracking error developed by the tonearm shape and this tracking error follows degrading the " soul " but the degradation goes on and on because many feedback resonances/distortions generated at different stages/sources between the TT/cartridge/tonearm: we have a feedback ( degradation-negative. ) from the TT/LP surface in between that the cartridge takes as a groove modulation adding information that just does not exist in the recorded grooves then exist feedback between the cartridge and the headshell with the same kind of added unexistent information and we have to remember too that exist the overall terrible feedback between the tonearm it self and the cartridge.

What next? the cartridge signal now pass through the soldered headshell connectors that are a degradation source and follow the degradation through the tonearm internal wire. Till this moment we are listening nothing yet and the signal is just a charicature of what was recorded. We have to remember too that due to that off-centered LPs characteristic exist signal degradation and where stays all the changes through the LP surface that suffers the VTA and VTF due to those micro and macro LP surface waves??????? !!!!!! and we have to remember all those micro micro jumps by the stylus tip when tracking the groove modulations that are as a car tires on a stones road where not always is in perfect touch and even by ms. does not touch the grooves.

Now the signal goes inside the phono stage and goes inside passing for input connectors and additional cable for the phono stage can work with ( obviously here exist more signal degradation and we follow losting signal and adding non-existent recorded information. ).

What happen inside the phono stage?: exist to main functions on it one is to amplify the carrtridge signal and some times 10K times only in this amplifier step the signal is added of different kind of noises generated by the phono stage gain stages ( not only one stage but more than one only to amplify the signal. ) then the second function that’s that the recorded signal must pass through the inverse RIAA eq. curve that between other things no one can say coicide/mimic the RIAA eq. that comes in the recording ( here exist losted and added information. ) and after that the signal mus pass for output connectors that are soldered and that continue the terrible signal degradation.

I can go on and on with what in reality happens in the LP signal but it’s useless, enough with what we read here.

Now, whom of you still think that through the LP exist that " soul " or those " nuances " that we have in live MUSIC?. How any one of us could think that the whole playback process can preserve the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information?

Makes sense to you?

Certainly does not makes sense to me.

Soul, nuances and many other adjectives we use exist in our imagination because we want it exist that way. Believe or not we are biased to, it can’t be in other way because we " born " with LP not with digital ( I already explained this. ).

Remember that I’m not talking of what we like but what is happening in reality not what we like or are accustomed to.

Btw, all of us listen ( through our ears-/brain. ) through an ADC.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONs,
R.
Nah! Not in our imagination at all. Why is it that it is not good enough that some listeners find a certain truth in analog sound that eludes digital to varying degrees? We are talking about music, a key component of which is the emotion, expression, ability to engage, whatever one wants to call it. Yet, we insist on judging the effectiveness of a medium in conveying that aspect of it by using all sorts of technical criteria. A contradiction of sorts.

When was it established that we understand ALL that takes place during the record/playback process; let alone understand how to measure it? I think that the fact that all of those steps that degrade “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information“ still manage convey that certain truth to some listeners highlights, more than anything, just how much the digital process itself degrades “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information” in certain specific ways.

Re bias:

You wrote,

**** We need to understand digital ****

Why? I think that this highlights your bias. Sure, I like to understand how things work, but why does one need to “understand digital” in order to appreciate what it does well and not so well? What happened to just listening and judging based on what one hears first and foremost? 

Obviously, both mediums can sound very good. However, there are fundamental differences between the two which may or may not be important to each listener. I know what my ears tell me and it doesn’t need to “make sense”.

Regards.