Not wasting my time on new Digital

Rapogee: My DAC (Museatex Bitstream) is a bitstream design as well, and like you do your DAC, I enjoy the heck out of it... I have always attributed this to the lack of upsampling, as even the players I have auditioned that have a feature to turn upsampling on or off, I have prefered the off setting tremendously. Just a thought... ;)

Tvad,

Although I don't think we are coming from the same point of view, and records are dead in my mind and simply hanging on to them as a valid current source of music is beating a dead horse no matter how good it was. They are not coming back. But they were the perfect two channel source, their technical defects became strengths with a two channel system. A perfect marriage.

Digitals strengths are made weakness's within the two channel system.

But digital is like putting a aggressive racing suspension on your daily driver. Simply cannot be dealt with in a casual fashion. Audiophiles have been forced to be consumers of high end audio, and are subject to market forces like marketing and show me magazines with revenue building reviews. Where can you get the truth? Not here.

The percieved inferiority of digital has little to do with a bad format, although Redbook CD's should be long gone by now. And please note Any format from Sony should be rejected out of habit anymore by the public. When will we learn?

A 24/96 format is so vastly superior to ANY LP system it simply cannot be dealt with the alchemist trial and error methods of audiophile past. LP's leave a great deal of "play" in the system and it is very forgiving format like a regular street suspension. Digital is 1 and 0's and that means either you have it right or you have it wrong. That's why it is so polarizing. And yes if you're wondering I am implying that people still have very little clue how to build a digital system.

Just like NASCAR, being a good driver (audiophile, music lover) and rolling your car off the pickup for the weekend isn't good enough anymore. The precision of todays system requires more expertise not less. Just like having a racing setup suspension. If you don't anticipate conditions all the time you are more likely to wreck that car than a car with a standard suspension.

Just as the internet has swept in to knock the foundation out from under brick and mortar retail, audiophiles need technical help and REAL information more than ever. As improving your already very good systems can not be done seat of the pants trial and error anymore.

We've got a lot of baby boomers that cannot move on (old new trick) and let me tell you as a gen xer' this vast majority within the audiophile community has slammed the brakes on how we view home systems. Their 10 to 1 voices often overshadow advancements because they are content because unlike 20 something's today the music of their youth was actually released on LP's! No such luck for todays young people.

I see it all the time, I realize most brick & mortars are not setup to give the help audiophiles need (owned by baby-boomers too). But so many regrets with huge audio purchases. Why? Lack of knowledge at the retail level and amongst the internet help and advice. We have a 25 year old technology we assumed would be compatible with how we have done things in the past. I think there is long history of evidence this is not the case.

"is simply too damn good for the associated gear",

It's not too good for your gear, its too good for only having two channels of that gear. If you only have two channels you can't own a SOTA digital system IME & IMO.

I can beat any two channel digital system with a surround system day in and day out. Everything the tube/planar/analog diehard wants can be found playing Cd's back in surround.

Think about it, it's like having an awesome set of TV repair tools (LP system) but you need to fix your car (CD).

Like it or not digital is not going away so we better start addressing it and figuring the setup out, instead of avoiding it and playing aging and decaying records.

There's a number of issues to address here but in short no one component makes for a very dynamic, revealing, involving, and 'lifelike' system. There simply are too many variables involved.

(Although if there ever were a single component that could most drastically affect a system for better or worse I'm of the opinion it is the amplifier.)

For example, if one's system did not include 'proper' line conditioning and/or one's system included speaker cables and ics that induced much time smear(as many do), most always any good or better analog source would sound more pleasing to the ear than any good or better digital source. But some might also consider this scenario as applying a band-aid to cover certain shortcomings.

That said, there are a few digital units that given the right system can match or exceed the performance of potentially any analog.

The APL-modified and Exemplar-modified ucdps certainly come to mind. Of which I am an owner of an APL-3910 and will be putting my unit up for sale shortly (only for business purposes as I'm a dealer).

But to claim after one or two experiences with 'good' digital in a given system along with potential shortcomings in a given system (we all have them) should not be considered enough conclusive evidence that digital is simply inferior.

So let me start with three questions:

1. What, if any, line conditioners are you using?

2. What speaker cables and ics are you using?

3. What amplifiers are you using?

-IMO

D_edwards, what your argument boils down to is that, absent analog -- specifically vinyl -- distortions or limitations, stereo material should be played back in multichannel. Whether that's true or not, the alleged perfection of digital is beside the point.