Hi '61; I am totally happy with my all digital system. I Don't want to turn this into a digital versus Analog thread, but I've got to disagree strongly with Sean's characterization of CDs as being "soul-less"-- that observation may be true when the CDs are played on cheap, low-fi systems. See my thread on the Jacintha XRCD2-- that CD is breathtaking, and yes this may be an exception, but there are still many very good CDs available.
Years ago, the same was true with 45s/LPs and cheap TTs and electronics. Of course there are a billion cheap CD players out there, just as there were TTs and records.
'61 is right on in asking "why would people do that to themselves". Every component, wire, and tweak I've kept in my all digital system has been chosen for it's MUSICALITY, and not for prestige, a great review, or other non-musical reason. To answer the question, I don't think many have developed good listening skills and are thus short-term impressed but long-term disappointed (in digital); are swayed by reviews of others; like certain prestige brands, and don't spend the necessary time and thought to put together and tweak for a really satisfying system.
I've sometimes considered starting a thread and asking "Do you consider high resolution the same as high quality music". I think some do, but I don't-- it's only one aspect of really good music, IMO.
GOOD DIGITAL SYSTEMS CAN BE PUT TOGETHER with a lot of care in selecting components, wires, tweaks-- and A LOT OF LISTENING. I've probably said this a hundred times on this forum, when done well, digital can be excellent-- just as when done well analog can be excellent. Please note that Albert Porter does not have a $259. TT including arm and cartridge-- and I don't use a $179. CD player either.
I'd say easily less than 10% of my CDs fall below the "poor-fair" category. Many, while not great, are still very enjoyable to listen to in MY SYSTEM. I'm too damned old to settle for something "soul-less" or unmusical. I'd just add that ZZ Top, George Thorogood, the latest CCR releases sound great on my system-- along with hundres of other CDs. I don't even like most "audiophile" CDs. Cheers. Craig.
Years ago, the same was true with 45s/LPs and cheap TTs and electronics. Of course there are a billion cheap CD players out there, just as there were TTs and records.
'61 is right on in asking "why would people do that to themselves". Every component, wire, and tweak I've kept in my all digital system has been chosen for it's MUSICALITY, and not for prestige, a great review, or other non-musical reason. To answer the question, I don't think many have developed good listening skills and are thus short-term impressed but long-term disappointed (in digital); are swayed by reviews of others; like certain prestige brands, and don't spend the necessary time and thought to put together and tweak for a really satisfying system.
I've sometimes considered starting a thread and asking "Do you consider high resolution the same as high quality music". I think some do, but I don't-- it's only one aspect of really good music, IMO.
GOOD DIGITAL SYSTEMS CAN BE PUT TOGETHER with a lot of care in selecting components, wires, tweaks-- and A LOT OF LISTENING. I've probably said this a hundred times on this forum, when done well, digital can be excellent-- just as when done well analog can be excellent. Please note that Albert Porter does not have a $259. TT including arm and cartridge-- and I don't use a $179. CD player either.
I'd say easily less than 10% of my CDs fall below the "poor-fair" category. Many, while not great, are still very enjoyable to listen to in MY SYSTEM. I'm too damned old to settle for something "soul-less" or unmusical. I'd just add that ZZ Top, George Thorogood, the latest CCR releases sound great on my system-- along with hundres of other CDs. I don't even like most "audiophile" CDs. Cheers. Craig.