2. analog
  3. 1159837156

Is Digital actually better than Analog?

I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music.
Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
128x128musicaudio
pauly
1,012 posts
 
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion"

How bizarre. It is unfortunate that folk's appreciation for music is subjective?

Clearly you want us to like digital, but sadly I don't. I sincerely apologize. I strongly suspect my preference for analogue is because I attend recitals very frequently, and since I am intimately familiar with natural music, I want my system to match said music in the most accurate way possible.

I guess had I no reference to what natural live music sounds like, I would have been a happy clam with a surround setup ... Man, I am really losing out due to the fact that familiarizing myself with real music.

Regards
Paul
cdwallace
216 posts
 
Paul -

Its done. Everyone else is convinced. From here on out, you're only convincing yourself. Let it go!

Artizan - Sorry the analog experts couldn't answer your question. Three whole pages and still no definitive answer. I do feel bad.
cdwallace
216 posts
 
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

This statement should not be taken partially or out of context. It is a complete statement. Referencing one part without the other is even more unfortunate.
cdwallace
216 posts
 
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
11-11-06: Cdwallace
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
Cdwallace (Threads | Answers)

It's also what makes digital, digital. For you haven't come up with any proof that digital sounds better.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?
More to discover