Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Zeal - No direspect intended. Please, kind sir. If your not gonna make a contribution to the thread, please refrain from making such statements.

Let me point this out, in case you haven't noticed, but your entire post did not answer the originally posted question.

"to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'."

"i could care less about any subjective reasons"

This is where things take a turn for the grey area, because that mindset, anything goes. This is why audio is in the state of disarray its in today.

"Music is art"

Mike, music is art, very true! Music reproduction is not!! If I were fortunate enough to purchase the Mona Lisa, get this painting home, hang it on my wall and decide I don't think her smile is big enough...do I pull out the water color kit and make the smile bigger? Of course not! I'm not Picasso. He is the artist, not me. So why then would I classify the manipulation of the Mona Lisa as art? Now lets apply this to audio. If the intended recording artist purposely put in a little extra highs or edge in the recording, or kept everything smooth and melo, then why would I want to manipulate the intended recording to suite my taste. The extra highs are removed, manipulating the intended purpose of the highs, or the smoothness is imphasized, this manipulating the recording to be overly melo. Now...lets apply this to the topic at hand. Analog more times than not will manipulate the recording to fall or work within its perameters, or those set by the consumer not the artist. This is true because you can swop out parts to better suite your taste.

"my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons."

Your wife is a wise woman. It wouldn't hurt to figure out those objective reasons either.

"the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME."

Mike... the thread question was not posed directly to you, nor was it intended to be answered based on your feelings at the moment. Its not about you, its about whether digital is actually better than analog. In order to validate statements, be it for or against, you need some sort of reasoning behind your resolution. This is where subjectivity is dismissed.

"digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty)."

Mike, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree again. Consumers don't buy CDs or vinyl for that matter because of market, ease of production or economics. They buy CD's because they want to or enjoy the artist they purchased. That being said, they want to hear what the artist has to offer on the CD, as the artist intended. Digital preserves that intent, without manipulation.

"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"

This statement is again subjective. When tube amps are tested and compared to the test results of solid state, do the tube results reveal they outpase SS amps? After all, IMO one of the few non-subjective standards to audio is testing. I can say you're wrong, and the next say we're both right. What standard can be applyed to both theories to validate some sort of factual result?

"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"

Which raises another question...why do all recordings have the same tonal reproductive charactoristics, even when switching tube amps? This can be proved by the battery of testing manufactors do to thier product prior to release to the public. In order to validate a manufactors claim of superiourity, they have to prove the claims via testing. Correct? This is where the subjectivity is ultimately reduced to a minimum.

"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!"

This entire statement is again subjective. I've heard a tube based system, Dali Helicon 700, Cayin tube amp and preamp, play a CD from the Bob James Trio, and only 1 of the 12 or 13 tracks remotely close to the intended composer and producers recording. Even a Jolida tube CD player, amp and preamp setup with MBL 101 Hybirds have a very difficult time with this. And the list doesn't stop there.

Care to tackle this explaination?

Bad equipment? Each time it was explained that this is how it was supposed to sound! Come again??! Sad part about it is every other recording sounded just about the same. These are recordings I have listened to countless times, via a number of studio grade headphones and SS systems, and the quality of the reproduction sounded similar but different ie better accuracy, larger soundstage, deaper soundstage, more detail and such, depending on the quality of the setup. I'm sorry but megabucks is an excuse why analog development hasn't progressed any further than what it has. 80+ years is a long time, but nothing has changed in the last 40, and I'm being generous.

"What the hell would you expect!"

I expect the best from both a technological and perfomance stand. This requires fact and proven theories which in turn leaves no room for subjectivity. Analog, truth be told, has yet to accomplish this.

"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"

One of the few non-subjective statement I have heard so far. This is why I love digital more than analog, because digital can only get better from here. Analog, in all its glory, can not advance but so much further...it at all! Even you said this yourself! And your did you reach this conclusion...factual assessment of both technologies and thier progress until this point in time. Fact!

"just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it."

Digital will advance even further...the very structural foundation of 3-D optimal will no doubt be digital. In fact 3 dimensional was in development since the 60's and 70's and is advancing even as we speak. Its called surround sound. But thats another conveluted discussion in itself!

Cdwallace, what exactly is the point of your ramblings? I see the 'Cd' in your moniker, so it seems you are a digital fan. Are you simply trying to convince yourself that you made the correct choices?
If it's that simple, you win. Digital is your preference, enjoy it.

I, and thousands others, prefer the sound of vinyl. It's no contest on many occasions. You're welcome to enjoy your digital, but OTOH, you cannot prove that digital sounds better either. So what is the point of this futile excercise?

Cheers,
John