Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

Universe was created and is maintain by a sound .... Even the prime numbers series is a sound pattern, in music conscious ears rules equations not the reverse....

Then i cannot contest your experience even if i am happy with my digital implementation....




«At the end acoustic is consciousness itself»-Anonymus Smith

My own experience is that audio S.Q. is proportional to the rightfully embeddings controls and treatment in the mechanical, electrical, amd acoustical dimensions way more than solely the choice of an electronic

component....

On the other hand with an ordinary system not rightfully acoustically embedded, i think analog is more robust and able to give a more truthful experience of timbre than digital in the same quality level system and conditions... But for superior system and very good embeddings i dont

think so.... But here it is also my limited opinion...

Dear Mahgister, we all know it is a pain to set up analog. I am not able to get all the vta , sra etc. right. Listing again and again to small changes makes me start to hate analog :-). All I do is roughtly to get the setup work o.k.. But still at the end I always prefer analog over the years - mainly in terms of tiring free listening. Although I had several equipments which played in serveral rooms during the years.

You are saying that analog is more robust, if the system is not acoustically embebbded good enough, which in my case has been always true. For example the place for my speaker has always been the place where the speakers have to be placed from a visial point of view.Additional I assume that most people like me do not have the skills to set up a system perfectly and let the system work with the room and not against. Because of this would one not expect more people prefer analog? And why you believe an analog system is more robust.

Dear frogman,

I trust my ears and they tell me that ON BALANCE, well implemented analog gets closer to the sound of real than does digital. Not always by a lot, but enough for it to matter to me based on my sonic and musical priorities

Summarizes my feeling what I believe too. And this although digital has so many advantages. All that all I come up is that it does not help to compare single parameters. In this respect digital wins always hands down.
But there might be at least one criteria which lets down the superity of digital. But fortunate for the industry it effect less people. Whatever they might be, still has been overlooked in their performance or they are still unknown. All I can express are some words which I used to explain why I still prefer analog over digital, words which I did use in earlier posts. But whatever describing words be they "ambience" or "drirectness" I come up with the digital community will tell me immediately that digital is also better in this respect now by a large margin. I am lost for (describing) words. :-)

@audio2design, to my knowledge you can not remove distortion with digital processing. You can adjust frequency response and timing (delay) and you can remove some noise. You are quite correct. You have to optimize the rooms acoustics for your speakers, bass acoustics being most important or you will waste hundreds of watts trying to correct it and possibly pin your subs against their bump stops. 
Aside from getting you to perfectly flat response and all your speakers time and phase aligned the single most important benefit of processing is in making the in room response of the main speakers perfectly identical. The result in imaging is thrilling. No two speakers are identical and no two positions are acoustically identical. You can easily have 5 dB variations at some frequencies between even the most expensive speakers and I have measured Wilson's and Avalons. Most people do not realize this because they have never measured their systems. They think they can "tune" it by ear? Not possible. Your system can not image at it's best without digital processing. People just stubbornly think they can. They can't
audio2 design, you keep saying I need active loudspeakers. First of all I do not think there are any internally active line source ESLs at this time.
My ESLs are one way. No crossover. My processor handles everything including the crossover, check out my system page. The graphs are there. What is the difference between doing this outboard or doing it inboard? My processor does all the measurements with a calibrated mic and automatically generates filters.

mijostone,

My ESLs are one way. No crossover.

Well than you are pretty well off. If you point the ESL to your ears like sanders recommends with his speakers than you do not have much room influence abouve 100 HZ at all especially for esl line source speakers. Probably that is what you doing anyway. In this case when it comes to timing and correct phase you are already ahead of all speakers which use passive crossovers. Whatever the speaker manufacturer comes up with they start from a loosing point and can at best only accomplished what your no crossover speaker does from the start.

I am aware of the differeneces which between left and right speaker could accour. Of course I never experienced what it would meand to have exact same speakers. But Is it really benefitical to add a AD/DA additional calculation only to squeezed out the latest bits and pieces of the speakers? I wonder.Additional some authors said that our ears get used to the room the speakers are in and to correct what the brain already corrects may not be without disadvantages. mean above 100 Hz.

But I would like to hear such a solution - for sure :-)