Okay, I over-reacted to Dev's post. But what got me going is also evident in Dev's last post-- that to surpass your reference digital system required a "new journey" into analog with esoteric equipment or set-up skills. (You are still a bit mysterious on how those "few individuals" you met along your new journey "changed all that." Can you share specifics?)
Your experience suggests that the "debate" between digital and analog formats is only definitive at the extreme margin. This is a reasonable conclusion that makes hay of blanket assertions often found in LP vs. CD discussions.
I happen to agree with you, but from the different perspective of customizing components. During a long process there has been hopscotch between RBCD and vinyl, up to the point that, yes, vinyl is more revealing(which is not to suggest that RBCD at this level is objectionable or background music.) However in view of the mutability of things I hesitate to post a Q.E.D. to the journey.
Mapman is certainly onto something when he suggests that the points of convergence between analog and digital in a system are remarkable. I've passed through a few such points, and when there is further divergence, the divergence is smaller than before but more meaningful, since more of what was wrong on both paths has been purged through the evolutionary process.
The remaining differences between formats on my system are fairly small but meaningful. TT has more subtle texture and truth of timbre, and(with a superb linear tonearm) tracks uniformly across LP. CD delivers on its original promise: dead quiet blackground, wide channel separation, LF heft that surpasses TT on some recordings, neutral across FR without a trace of the anomalies and tracking issues that dog all but the best cartridges. The spatial ECM LP and CD jazz catalog offers interesting comparisons on these points. Denser more dynamic R&R and classical material sounds more delineated and less confused on LP. Yes, for the most "serious listening"(whatever that means) one turns to LP. BTW, experimentation in CDP with the ESS 9018 32-bit Sabre DAC chip suggests that in digital, if not in analog, the latest is the greatest.
Your experience suggests that the "debate" between digital and analog formats is only definitive at the extreme margin. This is a reasonable conclusion that makes hay of blanket assertions often found in LP vs. CD discussions.
I happen to agree with you, but from the different perspective of customizing components. During a long process there has been hopscotch between RBCD and vinyl, up to the point that, yes, vinyl is more revealing(which is not to suggest that RBCD at this level is objectionable or background music.) However in view of the mutability of things I hesitate to post a Q.E.D. to the journey.
Mapman is certainly onto something when he suggests that the points of convergence between analog and digital in a system are remarkable. I've passed through a few such points, and when there is further divergence, the divergence is smaller than before but more meaningful, since more of what was wrong on both paths has been purged through the evolutionary process.
The remaining differences between formats on my system are fairly small but meaningful. TT has more subtle texture and truth of timbre, and(with a superb linear tonearm) tracks uniformly across LP. CD delivers on its original promise: dead quiet blackground, wide channel separation, LF heft that surpasses TT on some recordings, neutral across FR without a trace of the anomalies and tracking issues that dog all but the best cartridges. The spatial ECM LP and CD jazz catalog offers interesting comparisons on these points. Denser more dynamic R&R and classical material sounds more delineated and less confused on LP. Yes, for the most "serious listening"(whatever that means) one turns to LP. BTW, experimentation in CDP with the ESS 9018 32-bit Sabre DAC chip suggests that in digital, if not in analog, the latest is the greatest.