2. analog
  3. 1279551421

When does analog compete with digital?

With vinyl becoming all the rage, many believe (perhaps mistakenly) that a budget of $1K will allow them to bring their analog front end up to par with their digital. I would like a reasoned assessment of this issue.

How much time, money, and expertise do you think is necessary before one can seriously claim that their analog front end can compete with their digital? What characteristics, if any, are simply incommensurable between these two mediums? Let's use my system as an example.

Personally, I tried to build an analog front-end that focused on texture/warmth (as opposed to dynamics), but I still feel as though something is missing. Trouble is, I can't quite put my finger on it. I'd be grateful for comments/suggestions (system in sig)
jferreir
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
I was just at RMAF and heard about thirty systems, half of which had both digital and analog sources. Though I never heard the same music in the same system in both formats, I can say that each time the vendor played both sources, I preferred the analog. And the difference was noticeable in both the weaker and stronger systems. The high rez files sounded closer than standard CDs.

The Walker and Dobbins tables were part of two very good sounding systems.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,200 posts
 
Petrayer,

I wonder how many vendors were out there with both vinyl and digital where teh message they communicate is that the digital is as good as or better than the vinyl?

I find high end vendors that demo both are usually biased towards the vinyl and the systems are configured to demonstrate the superiority of vinyl becasue that is where they stand to make more money selling to audiophiles. There is just not much market for expensive CD players these days but there will always be a niche for high priced legacy vinyl.
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
Mapman,

I can't answer that question or presume to know what motivates the vendors. I may be under the mistaken impression that vendors want visitors to leave with the best impression possible, regardless of source type.

The thread asks when do the two compete. They competed pretty clearly at RMAF. I personally preferred the analog systems in each case. However, I did not hear top SACD or files against top LPs for a comparison of the absolute best. I do think good analog is more expensive.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,200 posts
 
PEt,

I can't argue with your assessment. A vendor's goal is usually to make the best impression possible with the things that they want to sell you. Nothing wrong with that. Except that the comparison can sometimes be to other things that they are not selling and it is hard to know sometimes when an apples/apples comparison occurs.
inna
7,296 posts
 
Well, when some time ago I compared two systems, one consisting of a junk Pioneer turntable with no-name cartridge plugged in Yamaha receiver and another consisting of a very good CEC belt drive player and Audiolab integrated, the conclusion was obvious right away - analog was much better in the most important aspect - realism.
So, now I only buy CDs if I cannot get it on vinyl provided that the recording and mastering was analog. I have a few LPs where the recording was analog but mastering digital. They still sound a little better than CD but are actually quite close to CD.
More to discover