Can Digital beat our Analog installations?

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

Grannyring, ticks and pops can be an artifact of the preamp where it exacerbates a tick or a pop that may have otherwise been inaudible.

I have seen LP surfaces that are as quiet as digital (IOW the electronics was the noise floor, not the surface of the vinyl).

While it is true that digital continues to improve, its not like analog has been standing still either. In the analog world, the limitation is mostly in the playback side, not the record side. Because of this the mastering engineer for any LP has to be aware of those limitations, but the cutterhead and the media otherwise has dynamic range that puts digital to shame.

One reason for this has to do with resolution. Digital files often have to be compressed so that the signal won't loose resolution in the quieter passages (in a 16-bit system, at -45db its only using 8 bits, which sounds pretty bad). Vinyl's limitation in this regard has more to do with the individual pressing (noise) than the overall media.

With regards to bandwidth vinyl currently has it all over digital. Anyone remember CD-4 4-channel LPs from the mid-1970s?? That employed a 50KHz carrier onto which the rear channels were encoded in FM stereo. That takes some bandwidth! Digital is usually limited to about 20KHz or so; the newer systems sounding better because of the higher scan frequencies, eliminating the need for the traditional brickwall filter. But even on such systems getting bandwidth is a problem- you can't have any signal exceeding the Nyquist frequency or you have trouble. If you don't have a brickwall filter that means you have to be careful about what the highest frequency to be recorded actually is.

So far the Stahltek is the best digital system I have heard- beating out the dCS pretty handily without much of a fight (although it is also one of the more expensive units I have heard...). I had the designer in my room at RMAF one year, and IMO it is his pragmatic nature that has resulted in the extreme quality of his product. He played a track for me which I realized I had on LP, so I offered to play for him, which he gladly accepted. After listening for 5-10 seconds he turned to me and said "Digital has *such* a long ways to go..." He plays analog at home himself.

Al, I clearly understand limiting factors of both reproductions. The number of variable in the matrix of analog reproduction is substantially larger than digital and that makes it EXTREAMLY sophisticated to achieve perfection, but in reality as even with digital...

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.

What theoretically said in terms of approaching an infinity certainly isn't practially done in one or another domain, but having the fact that digital domain is less depended on analogue imperfection factors it's definitely cleaner.

What about presence of overtones and subtones that harmonise with audible spectrum in analogue? We know that they're not audible let's say in most of cases after 14kHz, but they're being superposed with the audible frequencies. Isn't that gives a sound it's signature and naturality?
I think that these may be and are diminished during sampling processing.

Lewm, dont think of noise as like noise (hiss/hum). In this case, it allows more musical info to emerge. So maybe a better analogy is like a focus ring on a camera, allowing the image to be better percieved from the background when optimal focus is found...hope that helps...