Analog vs Digital

Jeffiostarca, I couldnt agree with you more..digital is convenient, and as always I concur with Albertporter. As I rarely buy "audiophile grade recordings, I own several recordings both on vinyl and cd, many many times the cd's disappoint me, aside from some surface noise never am I unhappy with the vinyl version.

Well, there is no shortage of bad sounding and even amusical digital gear to be sure, but by the same token, there is some really great sounding digital starting to appear and the gap has closed substantially. Sometimes I play records and get surprised when the CD version actually sounds better than the LP. "Lightyears" difference--that's just nonsense--don't look in the laser boys...sounds are closer than they appear. :)

My CD50 is just as pleasing to me as my vinyl rig, and they are at similar retail price points. My vinyl rig is a VPI HW19 junior, AQ PT-8 arm, Benz Lo4 cartridge, Phonomena phono stage.....................Good CD's do remind me very much of analog, thru the CD50. It might not be "equal" to the vinyl, but my definition of "hold a candle" would be more generous than yours, perhaps. You might even say it fires a laser, a musical laser that extracts all the musical colors in the rainbow, from a mere 570 nm of reflected infrared...and extremely low jitter, and dual differential DACs, and an output stage that runs in full class A, and can drive any power amplifier anywhere DIRECTLY....and sounds like music...and ALMOST like my analog rig.

Good post Carl-- glad to see someone weigh in on the digital side as well as analog. I really like my Levinson digital front end (M37 transport, M360S DAC) too, but have limited experience with (good) analog. I do have a good vinyl junkie friend and have listened to his HQ system, but his room (vaulted ceiling), speakers (MG 3.6s), and music tastes are so much different than mine that I find it almost impossible to compare them. I don't particularly like his system-- even with "my" music, but of course he loves it-- as I do my own system with dynamic speakers. From what "good" analog I have heard, I feel that I am giving up little or no musicality by using HQ digital only. I do not like the various low level noises associated with vinyl, but also admit that I haven't spent the time, money, and effort necessary to achieve best possible analog sound. My VJ friend tells me that you have to "listen past" the various noises. But I really like the stone quiet of CDS. Cheers. Craig.

Vinyl can be very quiet, but the worn ones will never be quiet. But the music that's in that "quiet" is much more real with vinyl, than the CD format allows. I couldn't agree more, Craig, on how difficult it is to appreciate someone else's system, UNLESS THEY ALLOW YOU TO SET IT UP THE WAY YOU WANT (I'm implying that from what you said). I mean, I went to a dealer whose system was much more expensive than mine, but it was in an untreated room with the speakers on one wall, and the listening couch nearly to the opposite wall. Of course I didn't have the heart to tell him that his entire "reference room" was a total waste of mine, or anyone's, time...so I guess he is still demoing it that way. There was absolutely zero imaging specificity, and just a basic "honking" room echo (besides bass boominess). I have no patience for those who spend time listening in untreated rooms....Frankly, I feel that if I had those 3.6's of your friend's in my larger room, even with my semi-modest vinyl rig, you would be more troubled about what you are missing out on (with vinyl), Craig. But as you say, you have made your choice, and it's easier to live with "CD only", if you don't compare it to vinyl. That's why I enjoy both. I only have a few hundred LP's (most of which are the expensive reissues), and around 800 CD's, so I don't have a big collection of either one, yet. However, I have no problem listening to my favorites, often, so it doesn' seem like I'm lacking enough titles.