"Analog" = bloated, rolled off, soft and mushy?

If there's one thing to say about digital, it's that you can't have it all. That is why I find it ridiculous that people want to know which is the best CD player without any mention as to what they value when listening to music. What we have right now at the high-end are super-specialized CD players. When you are spending this much money, you need to know your own tastes and what you are looking for in music.

For me, I know that I have an analytical approach to music. I like to hear all the detail and neuance. I am willing to sacrifice some of that mid-range bloom so that I could hear the color of the instrument, the musician's technique, and the ambiance of the venue. I could totally understand that this is very user and music dependent. If I listened to jazz CDs from the 50s and 60s, then I would want something that makes these aggressively dehissed and thin-sounding CDs into a more full sound. It's all a matter of taste and music preference.

In the meantime, I say let the debate continue. That's what makes this hobby fun. We are all neurotic creatures that get that little twinge in the back of our head when we hear that our toys are not the best. And then that little voice starts back up...

I wonder who will make the best CD player in 2005?

Robm321, how do you fit those ducks in your CD player :-)

The tubes are MULLARD not Mallard (a duck). Also, be careful of people selling "mil-spec" Mullards in the white boxes circa 1980's (tubes are not branded Mullard, but will have a month and year date code). These are modern junk, and will not come close to the genuine NOS Mullards from the 1970's and earlier.

My digital rig is all solid state and sounds wonderful. Tubes are not needed--proper power filtration is, though...