Is Digital actually better than Analog?

"They all seem somewhat enthusiastic"

Some more so than others :-)

Do yourself a favor and do not skimp on the phono stage. That can make or break a analogue front-end.

Regards
Paul

Musicaudio,

I agree with Paul about the phonostage. Spend as much as you can on the phonostage. It's a worthwhile investment for now and the future. You don't want your foray into analog cut short because of a lousy phonostage.

From your post it sounds like your looking at getting a Music Hall turntable. I have never heard one personally but I have heard good things from them. Just keep in mind that you cannot upgrade the tonearm on them(at least not to my knowledge). If you really get into analog(as I suspect you might) you will find that the tonearm and the cartridge make a enormous difference in the sound you get from your turntable. Just something to think about.

Congratulations! You have just taken your first step into a larger world. Let us know how it goes.

Justin

I have a question...can any of the analog guys explain why they can only speak about analog, down digital and still pose as experts in on the related topic? Or is this just another "fear what you don't understand" moment?

Certainly not to offend anyone, but it’s apparent that analog is celebrated. One reason is because it somehow validates or justifies the stagnant position in the overall technological advances of your analog systems. It doesn't validate anything for anyone other than you. That’s the beauty of subjectivity though...facts just aren't important and pertinent...even in audio. ;(

I'm just a bit curious because no analog person has yet to explain why one would leave analog anyway...if digital is as bad as the consensus has spoken. Why would anyone even consider the switch, nevertheless post the question, if analog is so superior to digital? I'm only hearing and reading why each individual hasn't grasped the concept of digital. The answers are overly subjective and opinionated, nothing concrete and factual. Granted, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I would expect as knowledgeable and respected audiophiles, you have drawn your own conclusions based on fact and not "pseudo-emotional" playback, bad system planning and purchase, or a 3/4 moon in direct phase alignment with Saturn, Neptune, and the planet formerly known as Pluto.

Anyone care to explain?

CDWallace -- Like most things in this material world, it's about money.

On another thread, someone (not me) commenting on thee SS-vs-tube amp neverending story, made the brilliant observation that the sonic qualities of tube amps out-pace SS amps at a given price, until you get up into the megabuck range (Lamm, Levinson, Goldmund, FM Acoustics, darTZeel, Pass, and so forth) at which point it really becomes an absolutely moot issue -- really! It simply takes a lot of money before SS catches up to tubes. My guess why (and it's only a guess) is that folks have been working with tubes longer.

And I think the situation between analog and digital playback is similar. If you spend megabucks on digital, (Wadia, EMM, CDS, Esoteric, Aural Symphonics optics, etc) the analog/digital debate becomes moot again (assuming decent LP/CD software for each.) HOWEVER, if you spend less than megabucks for BOTH your analog and your digital gear, the analog is going to sound better than the digital for the same reason that modestly priced tube gear sounds better than modestly priced SS gear: Analog has been developed and refined for over 85 years vs. digital for barely 30. So of course a MODEST analog rig will smoke a MODESET digital rig. What the hell would you expect!

And though I own great examples of both technologies, and enjoy them equally, I know in my heart that analog has pretty much reached the peak of its development, while digital has only begun to be explored -- just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it.
.

Cdwallace; i mostly agree with Nsgarch.

it is a mistake to confuse preferring vinyl to being anti-digital. digital does not need to be better than vinyl. there is not a market justification for the musical performance of digital to equal or exceed the musical performance of vinyl. digital simply needs to be 'good enough'. when the market is there for better digital then it will happen (in other words; the record companies want to re-issue everything again and the technology has matured to make the delivery method cost effective......in digital it's all about the $$$'s).

why would one like/love both vinyl and digital? it comes down to the music (remember that?)......and also about one's listening environment. if you want to be able to access all the music that you want you need to be multiple format. there is lots of music on either format that is not on both. plus; it's fun to compare.....at least for me. also; there are times when i am not in the mood for the additional focus and hassel of vinyl or i need to multi-task (easier with digital). on vinyl many times the music totally 'demands' my concentration and devotion.

i have personally made a commitment to having the best possible vinyl (Rockport Sirius III) and the best possible digital (EMM Labs Signature) so i have a bit of experience comnparing SOTA for both. i also have 6000 Lps, 3000 cds and 700 sacds. i love them all.

even though i clearly prefer vinyl (it's not really even close) i totally enjoy digital.

i made an exception to my 'no posting on vinyl verses digital thread' vow to answer your thoughtful question as your question is neutral.

and BTW Ngsarch; i don't think Vinyl is done getting better.....although they are closer to their optimal point than digital (hopefully digital will improve anyway).