Here's a fire starter: Analog is as good as SACD

Well, this is the other way, as you state.
Every time I hear that a digital player sounds as good as analog. Why would someone want their digital player to sound like analog? I have heard analog enough times at demos and dealers. But they are 2 different animals and let them be that way.

What I am getting at is have I hit a plateau with my analog front end; or my system as a whole.
I agree analog and digital are tow different animals. I should have said equal; not the same. Those of you who have SACD, DVD-A, etc and analog; which do you think excels?

Also that should read DOES IT MAke sense...
I don't know why I lose characters here.

LPs and silver discs are different media with unique virtues specific to each.  A very interesting thing to listen to are Stockfish DMM-SACDs where they find a happy medium between the media.😉

It depends on which format you want to listen to more. I can’t comment on your turntable setup but I know you can do a lot better than the oppo on the digital side for reasonable money.

Also, oppo players starting with the 103 and 105 models can stream Tidal and probably internet radio, giving you access to a vast amount of music and the ability to listen before you buy if you prefer physical media, and to listen to music you wouldn't ordinarily try. I think you can probably still do better than the more recent oppos for digital sound in that price range, but you would give up the universal aspect of the oppos.

So what do you think your main future audio direction is? Vinyl or digital?

Both. ;^)

The original ADC converters are invariably flawed. Some discrete ADC units sound pretty good. Anything chip based is suspect. It’s due to the complications of obtaining micro signal changes in an accurate way.

The essence of sound quality to the human ear, is entirely in micro changes to the signal, as a brutally complex set of near randomly intermixing harmonics, signals so complex..they easily exceed sampling rates. To add they mix across the two channels, not just their own reproduction issues, so the problem is multiplied - again.

Therefore Analog to analog, is good. As in -probably better than digital, in most cases.

and....ADC to DAC is almost inevitably flawed in a way that is irretrievable. This includes all forms of SACD, 384, 24 bit anything, whatever....as they are after the fact of the ADC conversion issues.

The first company to make and release commercial LP's from PCM digital sources was Denon (starting around 1972). These were classical recordings. I first listened to the in '76-'77 on high-quality playback gear ( Denon's TOTL TT, Denon DL103 mc into a custom clone Levinson JC-1 headamp, GAS Thaedra and Ampzilla with Snell Type A's. NONE of these LP's sounded good! Treble sound was hard and irritating! I can only attribute this to the digital source, as analog classical recordings (CBS, RCA, London, Philips, DG ...) sounded far better using this playback gear! So Denon's early attempts at PCM recording - not so good!

I see. Thanks for the comments! I think my conclusions are
a) My system is not capable of resolving the difference in sound quality between analog to analog and analog to digital. I kind of doubt that.
b) My hearing has deteriorated to the point that I won’t hear anything less than a sea change in my equipment. This is as good as it gets. That may be true. I know my hearing only goes from about 40 Hz to 11 kHz with some dips around 8 kHz.When I compare a good SACD or DVD-A or even HDCD to a good LP switching back and forth, I can’t quite be sure that I hear anything but minor tonal differences. Yet I can hear the difference between ICs (which I believed was pure snake oil 2 years ago) and cartridges. Still, I do prefer LPs for some reason. I just can't isolate it.

Often silver-plated speaker cables diminish the true sound of music.
It would be interesting to try a different speaker cable thats not silver plated to see if it makes a difference.

"a) My system is not capable of resolving the difference in sound quality between analog to analog and analog to digital."

I think you should upgrade your tonearm and you will hear a significant improvement in your analog reproduction.

@lak
That’s where I;ll probably go next. I’m looking at Zu or Canare 4S11.
There are good deals on both on the Bay. May as well get the 2 to 4 bis.

@jperry
I think I’d have to spend a pile of cash to better the Sumiko/Jelco. Any cost effective suggestions? I like to roll headshells and have cartridges from 4.8 to 6.8 grams and compliance from 9 to 22.

I would look for a used SME V or variant. I think SME made a SME 345 especially for the Oracle TT. The 345 had detachable headshells. Another thought is a used Basis Vector, a Graham, etc. The Vector has a fixed headshell and the Graham has detachable arm wands.

Don't underestimate how much improvement this might give you. 

I can’t quite be sure that I hear anything but minor tonal differences.

That’s the trick the ear is good at. Timing of transient function in the intermixing of harmonics... sorting out those intermixing bits. The high frequency extension may not all be there but the timing skills in harmonic intermixing is still there and will not really ever leave you. You are ’getting it’ just fine.

Running that incredibly complex ’tied to the world’s finest supercomputer’ (a human brain-fact) signal’s equation backward, reveals that the ear- brain’s analytical function FAR EXCEEDS the digital system’s resolution. Any extant or projected system to be.

Training the ear brain is another matter altogether and is also tied to the given various and individual Ear-Q of the given person. We are all different and we have dumb/slow ear-brains vs smart/fast ear-brains. It’s a physicality thing, it runs the range and gamut like all other human capacities as seen across the potential human ranges of skills in subjects.

There’s a bit more to it than that, but the next point is that you will get ’windmill tilting’ on the forums that is equivalent to a small group of individuals who don’t understand the complexity and the breadth of the subject. A small group... who angrily weigh in on it and thus tilt the given impressions of the situation to being that ’everyone’ seems to think such open and competent analysis of the scenario (analysis, orientation, direction and science which fits the data!) ----is crazy.

The reality is that they are a tiny minority of the population of people who could have and have read the given posts. Look at the number of views vs the number of angry deriding posters and you’ll quickly realize you are dealing with a very vocal tiny minority of detractors. The vast sea of viewers and readers are silent, as they pick no bone with the given analysis.

The science of what I’m saying is all out there and it is rarely shared by the electronic and audio oriented competent, as this is a part of their lore and intelligence - as tied to putting bread on the table. They owe the vociferous detractors exactly squat.

@teo_audio,
Thanks for the encouragement. Your neurophysiologic explanation resonates with some of my experiences. Perhaps the fiscally wise approach would be to stop the education.........Nah! ;^)

Besides, soon you'll be able to grow new ears. To painlessly, effortlessly..naturally....grow your old child like ears - the ones you used to have. As an early-mid teen.

Imagine that.

Except you don't have to imagine it. This is not a joke. It's here.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807120530.htm

It all depends on the recording.  Sometimes vinyl's better, sometimes not.

teo_audio

I hope your last post was "tongue-in-cheek. At least I think. Damage to inner ear hair cells (nerve) is permanent and irreversible. If said hearing loss is caused by nerve damage.

Restatement of a post above:
It all depends on the recording and mastering done by the sound engineers.

 Sometimes vinyl's preferable despite the snap, crackle & pop because the compression effs up the CD so much.

Sometimes the CD, SACD or HiRes online track is well recorded -- if so, it will not have the snap, crackle, and pop of vinyl, not will it wear out when you play it a lot.

I would suggest upgrading the speaker cables, followed by a better arm. If you can't hear a difference then, your speaker may no be as highly resolving as you want/need.
My 2 cents.
Best,
Mike

@randy-11,
I agree, except I have few if any CDs that sound as good as their LP counterparts. I do have a few SACDs remastered from the same tapes as their well made LPs. I suppose the comparison is not totally a controlled experiment. Remastering may have changed the sound significantly. What I am saying is that I am unable to hear differences that really matter when I'm listening for enjoyment.

@mrvordo 
I'm working on the cables now. 
Does anyone have any experience with Zu vs. Canare 4S11? I can actually get some Canares for about $75. The Zu Libtecs about $140 and Zu missions about $90, all bi-wire. 

Understand. In that case, after the speaker wire upgrade (which should be the number one thing so that you can hear the differences better), a better arm, phono, and or pre will make a difference. If you are satisfied with the sound from SACD, the the phono may be the unit to make the improvement you are looking for.

Good listening,
Mike

Thanks. I am satisfied with both, except for the impulse for more, more, more that we addicts feel. Is there anyone out there who has both LP and SACD playback in their systems who feels that one is a lot better sounding than the other? The answer to that, I suppose, would lead me to a reasonable conclusion as to what can be expected.

I really appreciate all the help.

My TT setup sounds waaaay better than my SACD, or previous CD setup.
So much so that I sold my 5 figure CD player and have gone to a more modest priced CD/SACD player. I seldom even listen to digital anymore other than for background music.

@mrvordo , very helpful information. Thanks. May I ask which phonostage you use?

You can check out my virtual system, but it's a modified Krell KPE Reference.

Update:
I upgraded to a Musical Surroundings Phonomena II. It is a significant improvement over the Emotiva with some cartridges; not so much with others. The Denon DL-301 II is back on top now. I'm very disappointed that the Hana is not able to keep up. But since I'm so happy with the 301, why complain. I am on that "I'm hearing things I never heard before!" pink cloud.

Upgraded to Zu Libtec speaker cables. Another nice improvement.

 I now get more enjoyment out of most of my LPs than all but my very best digital recordings. Life is good.

teo_audio

I hope your last post was "tongue-in-cheek. At least I think. Damage to inner ear hair cells (nerve) is permanent and irreversible. If said hearing loss is caused by nerve damage.

Not a joke, not tongue in cheek. Look at the link....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807120530.htm

Even newer (mo'better newest news):

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171116132800.htm

(Paraplegic rats walk and regain feeling after stem cell treatment The rats show significantly improved mobility and sensory perception, as well as spinal cord healing)

I think it depends on how much you listen to music on a daily basis.
Much over 2 hrs a day your brain prefers analog and lets you know it .

Another update:
I upgraded the Hana from EL to SL. I wasn't able to make a side-by-side comparison, so don't ask. I was afraid the SL would be too unforgiving on older, more worn LPs. Not so. I had been enjoying vinyl most of my listening time since getting the SL and a few more great LPs, like Gene Clark - No Other and Nicole Atkins - Goodnight Rhonda Lee.

I also got two more SACDs that make a great argument for digital sound quality: Jennifer Warnes - The Hunter and Patsy Cline's Greatest Hits. Both are wonderful!