How Good Can Digital Get?


I've read these threads on the EMM, Exemplar, DV-50, etc. with interest. Last year the "best" digital was the AA Cap II or Wadia/GNSC or MF Trivista or SCD-1 Modified Kern, or whatever. Now we've got a whole new crop of contenders.
You don't see debates like this in any other forum -- standard setting speakers or amps or turntables do not pop up every few months.

This suggests to me that (a) digital audio, like computer processors, is a rapidly moving techonology in which it's possible to make significant advancements quickly and successively; and (b) digital audio still leaves a lot to be desired (when compared to analogue).

What I wonder is will digital ever (really) get as good (or even better) than vinyl? My last comparison was my Audio Aero Cap 2 against a VPI Scout and the turntable truly did "trounce" the cd player. It was a difference in kind, not degree. Given that redbook CD is just a sample of the analogue wave form I have trouble understanding how it can ever sound as fluid, natural, and, well, musical as a properly matched and calibrated table, arm and cartridge.

That said, I have not heard the EMM or Exemplar gear. Am I missing something?
bsal
newmanoc - quite a reasonable reply. thanks! i tend to be more or less in the same camp as your wife.

but, iffin yer a psychiatrist, shouldn't you go by newmanDOC?

:-)
Lazarus28:
Peace and happy listening. By the way, your username has an abstract-cool kind of thing going on. Mine is unimaginatively composed of my last name and initials. Now that maybe is something to analyze. :)
As owner of EMM Labs gear, I will say that digital has come a long, long way, and that people who blindly declare it inferior to vinyl are SADLY misguided. To me, digital and analog are two radically different formats with radically different methods of sound reproduction--and they produce radically different results. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. As I said before, digital has come a really long way since the dark days, and now I have a hard time choosing between the best digital and the best analog. They each do different things well--and not so well. For me, in the EMM gear, I finally found a digital component that I didn't have to apologize for in front of my analogue buddies. In fact, it's converted a few of them back to digital. And if you knew these guys like I knew 'em, you'd know that was no mean feat!
In some respects digital will never be as good as analog and in some respects analog will never be as good as digital.
Unless the sample rate approaches infinty analog will always hold more information. For volume resolution
cd's 16bit allows for 65536 discreet steps (24bit about 2.5million) analog allows all the steps in between as well. So in information content digital is seriously flawed. But when it comes to noise levels and channel separation digital will always be better than a mechanical or electrical (ie analog) system.
So if you can hear (not everybody can, just look at all the people who cannot hear the difference between cd and mp3) and don't mind the noise go analog, if you can't or you like the convenience go digital.
I use both but wish digital would go to 24bit 96kHz or better yet 24bit 192kHz so I don't have to keep turning the treble down. Theres nothing worse than the treble that comes out of a (well any) cdp. But having heard a 192kHz system I know it doesn't have to be like this.
But since the general public seems to be happy with mp3's I don't hold much hope for the future and I keep buying cd's if I can't get it on vinyl after all its the music that counts, not the format it appears in. Much rather listen to good music on a bad system than bad music on a good system!
I would hazard a guess that about 50% of the audio world is about enjoying music and sharing the path to that enjoyment with others.

But, humans have an inherrent need to self-actualize. The dark side of this is the need to feel superior to others. Thus, humans have a tendancy to form cliques, clubs, and secret societies -- all for the purpose of feeling, "special."

Sadly, audio enthusiasm is often an outlet for this same sort of impulse.

Thus, the audiophile world can be somewhat like a secret society. Like all such societies, there are rituals, slogans, and beliefs one must profess in order to maintain membership.

Slogans like, "digital can never sound as good as vinyl" and "solid state can never sound as good as tubes" all the way to "my amplifiers sound better on maple platforms than on mahogany" and "silver sounds better than copper."

Part of it is just the old schoolyard taunt brought to a new medium, "my auditory prowess is bigger than yours" or "my ears are better than yours."

There is an audiophile who roams these forums who has a megabuck vinyl rig. He told me on the phone that his Emm Labs equipment sounds better than his vinyl rig and that if he were just getting into audio today, he would bypass vinyl altogether.

But, I see him on these forums and when the discussion turns to vinyl versus digital, he murmers the slogan, saying something like, "Emm Labs gets me about 60% of the way to vinyl and that's a revolution in digital, much better than anything before it."

Excellent way to split the apple and still belong.

It is sad. The guy can't admit in public that he likes his digital gear better. Why? My guess he doesn't want to risk his membership.

Another aspect is that in any hobby, there is a fine line between enjoying the hobby as a diversion and using the hobby as an obsessive/compulsive ritual.

Vinyl, with its attendant fears and rituals, and demands for dust fighting, record cleaning, tone-arm tweaking, and vinyl preserving is tailor made for the obsessive/compulsive.

What's my point? My point is that often this hobby is about enjoying music and sharing the path to that enjoyment with others, but just as often it about something else, having nothing to do with music.