2. digital
  3. 1316967024

An interesting Digital vs. Analog experience

On Friday I visited my local hi fi store where Garth Leer of Musical Surroundings was showing off the new Clear Audio Master Innovation turntable and Jim White of Aesthetix was on hand with a lot of his gear. The speakers were Focal Stella with dual JL Audio Gothom subs. Obviously, the point of the event was the turntable, but I'll have to admit that when the music was temporarily switched from the turntable to a labtop both my friend and I thought the digital sounded better.

I've heard A/B comparisons in the store before using identical recordings and in that case preferred the vinyl, but this time with the recordings being different I would have left with a very different impression.

I mentioned it to Jim White (I didn't discuss it with Garth Leer since because I didn't want to rain on his parade) and his comment was that the system was tailored for analog so I'd probably really enjoy a system that was intended for digital. I think the computer was using an Aesthetix CD player for the DAC.

It was the first time in a long time that I was blown away with the sound of a system in that room, it made my system sound very humble (as it is in comparison) in a way that I had not heard before. It was the first time that I've heard Aesthetix amplification making the Focal Utopia's shine.

I guess what I'm saying is that both vinyl and digital can be amazing, but the difference in convienience is astounding.

I could see myself owning a pair of Stella speakers, but I don't think I have enough organs to sell to pay the bill. I doubt my wife would be willing to chip in...
mceljo
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,836 posts
 
Hatfields vs McCoys-----sounds a lot like Irish Alzheimer's:
They forget everything but the grudge.
Too much baggage from past audio relationships.
One must treat the new with an open eye (ear).
paulfolbrecht
603 posts
 
It's a safe bet modern Hatfields are digital aficionados.
tmsorosk
1,013 posts
 
Charles , I agree , but after a while you get tired of hearing how much better analog is and are baited to respond . The last time I got into a debate with an analog lover , I checked his link and found he had a very nice analog rig that was well setup and easily worth $20,000 including phono stage cartridge ect , and a 15 year old $700 Rotel CD player . I'm sure we would all agree that analog would be superior under those circumstances . A friend has a very high end system with excellent analog and digital front ends . we both have trouble distinguishing differences , there that close .
To me it doesn't matter what source you prefer , we are all music lovers , just stop telling me that digital sucks .
paulfolbrecht
603 posts
 
Tmsorosk, you cannot assume that a person's current system is reflective of their experience in a format. What I mean is that a person who has decided (perhaps via a great deal of listening to expensive digital gear) to make vinyl his main source is likely to invest much more heavily on that side of things. If serious listening is vinyl and digital is for background music then one needn't spend much.

Another thing is that there are some older/cheaper digital sources that are quite musical. Much more money brings more hifi but not always more music. I have a $200 MHDT DAC that is quite good.
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Tmsorosk,
I agree with you, to each his own as either format can work very well for me. For some reason though, vinyl advocates are more likely to use the soapbox and preach to digital users more so than the other way around it seems,strange.
More to discover