i agree that these threads seek some sort of objective result, but that unless you are weapons free to approach these questions with unlimited resources we are going to have multiple "valid" if "not too useful" anecdotal based viewpoints. which is why i qualify my views.......and that your mileage may......and likely does.....vary....from mine. not many crazy enough to take my approach, even though many have that option.
Cleeds Asks;
This could be true, and it’s sometimes how digital sounds to me. So please tell us @mikelavigne : What is digital objectively missing?
objectively the things digital misses are the tonal and timbrel completeness of musical parts, the focused dynamic power of the music, and the inner musical pace and flow. the data density of analog is much higher. the continuous-ness and tonal density are better. the ability to separate musical parts and retain air and dynamic shading is better......especially when the music gets very dense and complicated.
this is what i hear when i compare my best analog to me best digital.
and you can add multiple channels of digital, and the analog still comes out net better. i have a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos separate home theater system and honestly, even with all that firepower digital high rez still falls short of the musical connection of two optimized analog channels.
when i add a big screen i love my movies. but for music i’m out in the barn.
