When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Shadorne I've taken the time to research the components you list, and as you say, they are pretty ordinary. The processors described in the reviews on the Anthem site are nothing to write home about. You appear to have drawn your conclusions without actually ever trying a high end two channel CD playback system. You really should make the effort.

Baddabob,

You make a good point and are quite correct about my pretty ordinary source components...I stand corrected. I have not made direct comparisons with anything approaching the $2000+ range (a high quality source). So in all fairness, my remarks reflect an opinion about high end digital sound based on my observations of a variety of products from low to mid tier that sound alike.

Since I do not find audibly distinguishable differences between these ordinary to mid tier DAC's (despite using three very different types of DAC), I am naturally a bit skeptical to pay big prices for even better quality components. ( I understand that the higher priced components will definitely be better quality/specification...but my concern is that, given the already good quality of even low to mid tier digital sources, I simply won't be able to hear the improvement of a high end digital source because the low and mid tier digital is already good enough for me...)

Thanks Baddabob for pointing this out.

Well you'll never know until you try. There must be some reason why so many people (including myself) are raving about their Naims, Wadias, Carys and Ayres. I've heard a number of lower priced CD players and you're right. They do all sound the same. The higher end ones are another league altogether.

Mmakshak,

Digital is too good for two channel playback, it reveals the short comings of not having a proper speaker setup. Two channel isn't very good now that we have pushed the envelope of source performance this far which is why some of the best LP playback equipment begins to sound thin and less "musical" when improved.

I will not argue if you only have a two channel system that LP's maybe the best source for music. Their technical weaknesses actually benefitting the two channel arrangement.

Its been known for a very long time that surround provides a more musically involving experience (60-70 years). The audiophile consensus is that two good speakers is better than 5 mediocre ones and a subwoofer, my experience is too the contrary, just fyi.

Analog specific companies have mastered the art of THD, compression and EQ, and "better" is not a word that can be used to measure the technical performance but simply the subjective sound.

Your car stereo experience is only hinting at the huge gap between 2 channel and multichannel playback for digital sources, don't ignore it. It leads a long way to where you want to go

As Onhwy61 and others directly and indirectly have indicated, without added distortion two channel is a step down in sound, requiring compression and harmonic distortion to make it sound meaningful and full. I have clients who have their noses pressed up against this very problem...more distortion or more channels? Because that is exactly the choice you have if you want to play digital recordings and "feel" it.

To address the typical responses to a post like this let me address two irratatingly thoughtless comments used as a rebuttle to such comments.

1. for the two ears, two channels comments---my answer is stop being a simpleton

2. for the mixed to be two channel crowd, name one commonly used microphone with a 180 degree pickup pattern? Its all I ask. Answer this one and then I'll consider your rebuttle as validated.

If the choice were simpleton vs windbag. . . I shall choose the former.