Analog vs. digital

@itsjustme

I suggest hearing digital from a great, old analog recording, well mastered (interestingly, most will be red book, not HD) such as the old verve, blue note or Mercury stuff.

I have to say you nailed it with this observation. This has precisely been my listening experience. Many of the jazz labels from the 1950s-1960s if remastered with care and skill will sound natural and wonderful. So much sucess is dependent on the recording itself. For an example, Contemporary Records (Old school west coast jazz label) Prestige, Riverside etc. Just to mention a few to add to your list.

Their Redbook CDs sound absolutely beautiful and engaging via my CD transport and DAC pairing. I think some digital components chase the detail aspect too much and miss the forest (Naturalness) for the trees (over emphasized artificial detail)). But without question there are some very capable and well implemented digital components that will get the job done in an exceedingly musically -realistic accomplished manner.

Charles

Looking at your components, it’s not hard to see that the SQ may not be converging as between digital and analog as you may wish.

What you haven’t told us is which sounds more to you like real instruments in real space. After all, that's the real test.  I’m guessing from your various posts that you listen to unamplified music a lot.

I do find enough convergence in my own set-up that it is hard to choose for SQ. But the advantages on the digital side are undeniable.

Highest resolving and natural systems I've heard were multiples of $100k, practically that much on vinyl setup alone. Those systems and my aural memory of them has long been the reference for my home systems. IME not extremely difficult to get pretty high levels of resolution, transparency from digital, the issue is attaining the same level of natural timbre, timing, spaciousness that I've heard with the very best vinyl. At the level of vinyl I'm speaking of you're getting every bit and more of the resolution and transparency of digital, but you also get a certain feeling of relaxing into the music along with the extreme resolution/transparency. While digital is closing rapidly on this front, I still think some work needs to be done.

Another issue with determining a general sense of digital's potential is how highly variable streaming setups can be.  Streaming noise floors and systematic induced jitter may hinder dac potentials. I fully expect with further innovations in streaming hardware and software, digital will continue to close the gap on the finest vinyl setups.

As for my own vinyl setup, I fullly expect I'll never reach the level of vinyl reproduction I'm talking about here, digital is the future for me.

melm,

That’s a very good question.

Although objectively the space around the instruments  is better and sharper with digital, I can’t say it sounds more real than records.  I get a fuller sound and more sense of involvement listening to records. And, paradoxically, a wider soundstage with records as well. 
‘So, it’s a tossup.

My preamp has the ability to run both a standard rectifier and full wave rectifier. I tried the standard one first then tried the full wave. I initially preferred the standard rectifier. It sounded more detailed/etched...cleaner? Actually sounded digital-like.

The full wave rectifier sounded smoother, softer and less etched and detailed. I put on a familiar track and note carefully listened to the sound and every bit of high detail was present in the full wave rectifier. It just had a level of density and smoothness that the standard rectifier didn't.

After some time, I realized the full wave rectifier was better for me.

For me, LPs are like this. In my system digital is quite good sounding and sometimes better sounding than my LP playback system. But overall, with digital, I'm never alarmed by the realism during certain musical moments. I only get those occasional surprising moments with LP... despite the many issues (noise, pops etc).