analog vs. digital better ? or just different


ive recently been able to bring my analog set up to the level [at least dollar wise] to my digital rig. ill leave brand names out of it but my cd player's worth about 3000.00 and my table cartridge and preamp, about the same.ive listened carefully and love the way the turntable sounds, perhaps not the best there is, but certainly a taste. then i put in a cd, awsome sound very detailed. both seem to depend on the recording, my newer and remastered cd's , very impressive. on the album side age doesnt seem to matter much, some just sound much better than others. so i guess my question is, am i in the thick of it, or just at the edge analog wise, because i woudnt say my turntable sounds better, just different. your opinion?
jrw40
whether you like a particular album on cd or vinyl better is very subjective!

Generally, the cds that I have never particularly enjoyed listening to before I got a tt are the albums that tend to really benefit in analog.

Other times, there are cds that sound good but suprisingly the analog sound richer and more real.

Some times, the analog sounds dull or the bass is not tight enough and so the cd is better.

If you are not finding analog to be better to you than it could be you just don't like the sound, could be your tt, could be your cartridge, could be your tt setup, could be your phono preamp, could be your other equipment!

There are so many variables.....I would not give up on vinyl but try to tweak it and think of it as a compliment to your digital collection and not a pitched battle for supremacy!
I say just mention the brand names. I guarantee that none of them will care (or even see this post). That way we might be able to learn a little something about your post which is, in my opinion, what this forum is all about.
my question was raised mostly because ill read a guy like mike fremmer who will say his listening to a 500.00 analog set-up blows away just about anything digital out there. and im shure thats mostly bias talking , i just dont find it to be the case. like most who have answered i enjoy both, and like the tinkering aspect of the turntable. from what i can gather it seems digital has improved to the point of preference for one or the other, rather than the outright superiority of vinyl. ill continue to follow both, and see what the future brings. thanks for the time
Jrw40, my Stereophile subscription ended and I was happy about it. I think what pushed me over the edge with Stereophile was the recent issue where they spent pages and pages defending M.F. and his invitation to the million dollar contest of speaker cable comparison. I do not recall the details to the 'big event' but it turned out to be a publicity fiasco for Fremer. From what I gather, it is not his first.

When I saw the amount of page space taken up in that issue on that specific fiasco it sure felt like Stereophile jumped the shark. That issue went through my hands in under 5 minutes and straight into the recycle bin. From that point on, Stereophile lost all credibility in my book.

What was even funnier, was my subscription expired, and they kept on sending me 3 more issues stating that this was my last issue and I should re-subscribe.
Digital and analog have inherent advantages and disadvantages. Digital has no problems with feedback, tracking error, VTF, VTA, inner groove distortion, etc. Actually, analog doesn't have those problems if we're talking about analog tape. :)

Anyway, it's easy for digital to achieve low noise, high dynamic range, etc. But analog has advantages in musical flow, subtlety, microdynamics, etc.

What it really comes down to is resolution. In a way, everything is analog and everything is digital. A digital source is run through a D/A converter to create analog signals that translate into analog motion of the speakers. But analog is also digital in that the sound waves are made up of air molecules, and the playback resolution is limited by the oxide molecules distribution on the tape and the vinyl molecules of the LPs. Still, this is very *fine* resolution.

Even light waves are "digital" in that that light waves are composed of photons.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that when it comes to resolution, analog can resolve to the molecular level. 16/44.1KHz doesn't even come close to that. But DSD at 5.6MHz probably does. Digital isn't inherently bad; it depends on how granular it is. There is a threshold somewhere (I don't know what it is), where fast enough digital sampling will sound and feel identical to analog recording and playback.

That said, I still listen to analog for music playback almost exclusively. Even when I listened to an SACD sampled at 2.7 MHz on a 5K Linn player, it sounded bleached and threadbare compared to the LP version (bought at a used record store) played through the same signal chain and speakers.