Jazz for aficionados

Paul. sometimes less is more. 
Like I said, I have had few systems and not long ago I had Dcs Puccini with clock,as source, with Arc Ref 3 and Avantgarde Acoustic active speakers.
With music that we discuss here (all older production) I have discovered that many recordings have become less enjoyable, meaning that I could hear all the 'details', including the limits of recordings and masterings.
Usually I know all the players on some record, than I had to remember the mastering engineenir as well.

I think that trend in industry (as I listen to different systems that my frineds have) is such that many new gear is 'less musical' and 'more analytical'.

My choice now is all tubes, p.single ended amp and preamp, together with speakers that have higher impedance (8ohm min)

Like I said, if I could find and get all music that I like on vinyl, I would not look for anything else.

Frogman, have nothing to add. Perhaps only that I have many Verve remasters, usually great sound, much better than RVG last edition of remasters ( older Blue Note editions sound much better to me)

I'm glad we're having this conversation here; "analogers" are prone to exaggeration, but I believe and trust my fellow music lovers.

I always had to spend more money on analog to equal CD, and now I know why; all CD players are not created equal, and my "Marantz" is evidently better than most. It's taken me years to come to that conclusion, and it answers the question why I have to spend more on analog to equal it.

Alex, I have a PC "Guru" who is worth his weight in gold, otherwise I might not have it either because I don't understand computers. What's funny is when I call him over, and ask a question about computers, he gives me that look that says, "You wouldn't understand it even after I explained it". That look means, just tell me what you want accomplished.

If you had Burmester, what you call modest might be better than what the "exaggerators" call modest.

My description of sound is "Either the thing produces "Holography" or it doesn't" I don't know what "natural" means.

While we agree on old and new CD's, I'm not sure about this statement for me; "If I could afford it, I would buy only records and would have only analog set up".

Rok, I know you're taking this all in, and since you no longer have records, I don't suggest you buy any. If you have excess funds, I suggest a DAC for your PC output, and upgrade in CD player if you still have loose change.

Back to Alex's "If I could afford"; I would most certainly have a very expensive "analog rig", but in the meantime, it's flip a coin as to which is better in regard to what I have presently.

I have three systems in one rack. I have three Marantz CD players. One cost 350, one 500 and one SACD at 900 dollars. I also have a Onkyo SACD player at 369, and an Oppo SACD player at 500.

I have all this connected to three amps. I play each ’system’ for a week or so at a time, then change to the next one for a week or so.

All play thru the same speakers.

What differences do I hear between the different amps and players?

No difference at all. Between CDs, yes, there is a difference. Between SACD and redbook.

Timbre is the most important thing.
All forms of noise and distortion were defeated long ago. Including the ones the marketing guys made up.

In classical, there is a slight difference between different Orchestras. Bigger differences between conductors.

Cheers

Btw, DACs are the new wire, or bricks, or cable lifters, or directional fuses   etc.........   Spare me Indeed!!

Tube, or SS is not about the quality of one over the other, it just that as an objective "music lover", tube pre is the only way to go. I listened to SS Audio Research and rushed it back to the dealer, while I considered Tube ARC the best.