This thread started from an article describing technical aspects of analog that can, in some conditions, add warmth to recordings. From there the false dogma that audiophiles prefer analog because of warmth was immediately built. But IMHO audiophiles who prefer SOTA analog choose it due to its ability to preserve, in their opinion, a more natural presentation of acoustic space and dynamics, creating a more "real" and enjoyable experience. The "warmth factor" appears mainly in opposition the to the edgy and antiseptic sound of many digital recordings and systems.
"Warmth", "edgy" and "antiseptic" are not a problem of the great majority of recordings played in current SOTA analog and digital systems.
My take is I don't hear these exaggerated qualities in either my digital or analog sources. I have some recordings that are horrendous and sound as such. My system is what I think is GIGO. Garbage In Garbage Out. I definitely do not have a SOTA system by many of our forum members standards.
Even my 'only' very good, but non-SOTA Berkeley DAC extracts sound from a great digital recording that is fantastic, very involving and immensely enjoyable to my more or less audiophile ears. SOTA digital can do even better than that.
are digital recordings inherently capable of audiophile approved sound?
My take is I don't hear these exaggerated qualities in either my digital or analog sources. I have some recordings that are horrendous and sound as such. My system is what I think is GIGO. Garbage In Garbage Out. I definitely do not have a SOTA system by many of our forum members standards.
Von Schweikert VR5 Anniversary MKII. This is exactly what I have but those are not mine. My listening room is way too cluttered to use it as an avatar pic.
Von Schweikert VR5 Anniversary MKII. This is exactly what I have but those are not mine. My listening room is way too cluttered to use it as an avatar pic.
I bet they sound good. Have you ever compared them with the Joseph audio pearl 3's? Looks like they use the same Seas Excel woofers. But yours are in a transmission line enclosure.
I have the Joseph Audio Pulsars, the Von Schweikerts bumped them to my speaker pile. I have heard the Pearls in not so great show conditions and I think the VR5s with a Scanspeak tweeter are much better.
I have the Joseph Audio Pulsars, the Von Schweikerts bumped them to my speaker pile. I have heard the Pearls in not so great show conditions and I think the VR5s with a Scanspeak tweeter are much better.
AL M, you have mentioned that you have heard really good analog systems, do you think that if a digital recording was made of the output of one of these really good phono amps that you would be unable to distinguish the digital recording from the analog output?
I am not sure if the digital recording would be completely transparent, but with the right equipment I bet it would come close. How close? There might be surprises on the upside.
That has been my experience, with my gear, which is as resolving as the next guys, including using headphones as well. Of course, you will have to test it out sometime, if you get a chance I recommend do it and then it may provide you with more insight on the mechanics of the analog TT and cartridge and phono amp chain which are the only differences as the rest of the way is shared by analog and digital out to the speakers.
The only distortion I've heard when so called digital was played.
Let's say we installed 20 turntable last year, all of them have digital set up as well. All of them prefer analog. That tells something. You might not get it but we don't persuade or try to tell you differently.
I would be careful with that conclusion. Some who prefer analog have invested a lot of effort to get their digital right.
But some indeed don't. I know of at least several guys on the boards that have turntable set-ups that are of a clearly much higher caliber than their digital, which is rather run-of-the-mill, quite obviously far from what could be the grounds for any fair comparison. Of course they prefer their analog. Duh.
But then a few of them constantly say it's "so much better than digital", in absolute terms. Pathetic. So much better than their digital, maybe.
I would be careful with that conclusion. Some who prefer analog have invested a lot of effort to get their digital right.
But some indeed don't. I know of at least two guys on the boards that have turntable set-ups that are of a clearly much higher caliber than their digital, which is rather run-of-the-mill, quite obviously far from what could be the grounds for any fair comparison. Of course they prefer their analog. Duh.
But then they constantly say it's "so much better than digital". Pathetic. So much better than their digital, maybe.
The problem I've found with many digital setups is they simply don't have things setup right. Even in dealer showrooms. It takes much more than just throwing a pile of money at something to get good sound. There's so many options out there to get way better sounding digital for much much less money than some of these guys pay. Might not have the big name's on the front panel that everyone is familier with though.
HQplayer combined with a $1000 DAC will outperform many $10000 DAC's using Jriver as a front end.
I guess you are the guys Ron is yelling at as it seems the analog guys are being gentlemen and retain their equanimity under stress . A post such as the above could be construed as trolling
