Can Digital beat our Analog installations?

Jfrech,
I regard it as an enourmous improvement going via Dual AES. curently in my small solution (SUP and SCL will arrive maybe in a week about) I am able to enjoy DSD and upsampled DSD from the STT (Scarlatti Transport) This is much better than by the Firewire connections. Wordclocking is going Perf10 => Verona => everywhere. What is your experience?

Jfrech, I wondered how you could perceive that the Cardas cable reduced "noise" compared to two other cables, when the background is said to be better than -100db for any respectable digital playback system. I don't doubt your perception that the Cardas sounded "better", just the rationale for it. The brain is a funny thing.

Granny, I feel sorry for you if your vinyl is or was plagued by pop pop click click. It doesn't have to be that way. Blame your LPs, not the medium.

Well, the pops and clicks were not terrible by most standards, but there after cleaned properly etc....I guess I have a low tolerance due to my years of digital only...

Even according to Al, I still can only believe that quality of digital reproduction in the mathematical and scientific terms can only "approach" quality of analogue reproduction as close as possible when sampling resolution approaches infinity [aka Q(digital media/playback) --> Q(analogue media/playback) when sampling resolution --> infinity], but can't be any greater potentially and so practically.
Neo(aka Matrix movie hero) may certainly have a different opinion, but certainly not proven yet :-) so the analogue today and probably in far future has and will have the HIGHEST possible resolution of sound.

Despite my HUGE analogue library of near or more than 10k of vinyls/45's/7"/flexi/75rpm, I do have digital PC audio playback/great DAC simply because I love media and music more than any type of playback regardless of format. If artist I desire isn't available on vinyl, I'd never mind having it on CD or other formats or medias.

09-11-13: Czarivey
Even according to Al, I still can only believe that quality of digital reproduction in the mathematical and scientific terms can only "approach" quality of analogue reproduction as close as possible when sampling resolution approaches infinity...

Czarivey, although I understand your point I would respectfully disagree. If you are not already familiar with it, you may want to read up on the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem. While it only represents an approximation when the length of the sampled waveform and the number of bits per sample are not infinite, it can, at least potentially, be an extremely close approximation for bits per sample and sample rates that are achievable (and arguably that have already been achieved).

... sampling resolution ... can't be any greater potentially [than analog]

It doesn't have to be. The sampling resolution just has to be good enough to reduce sampling artifacts to the point of either being inaudible, or to the point where they are less audibly significant than the many things in analog that are not infinitely perfect either. Including tracking error distortion, offset error, azimuth error, VTA/SRA mismatches, anti-skating, VTF adjustment, cartridge loading effects, and noise and RFI pickup, not to mention less than perfect performance of the cartridge itself, the tonearm, the turntable, the phono cable, and the phono stage.

Regards,
-- Al