How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?

Nah! Not in our imagination at all. Why is it that it is not good enough that some listeners find a certain truth in analog sound that eludes digital to varying degrees? We are talking about music, a key component of which is the emotion, expression, ability to engage, whatever one wants to call it. Yet, we insist on judging the effectiveness of a medium in conveying that aspect of it by using all sorts of technical criteria. A contradiction of sorts.

When was it established that we understand ALL that takes place during the record/playback process; let alone understand how to measure it? I think that the fact that all of those steps that degrade “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information“ still manage convey that certain truth to some listeners highlights, more than anything, just how much the digital process itself degrades “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information” in certain specific ways.

Re bias:

You wrote,

**** We need to understand digital ****

Why? I think that this highlights your bias. Sure, I like to understand how things work, but why does one need to “understand digital” in order to appreciate what it does well and not so well? What happened to just listening and judging based on what one hears first and foremost? 

Obviously, both mediums can sound very good. However, there are fundamental differences between the two which may or may not be important to each listener. I know what my ears tell me and it doesn’t need to “make sense”.

Regards.

+1 mikelavigne. Agree word for word, and NOT because I am “conditioned” or “biased” to the sound of vinyl.

**** digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. ****

Real world dynamics. Exactly. Of course, if one thinks that this refers only to the ability to play more loudly or even to make wider dynamic contrasts from softer to louder then that may explain the insistence by some that digital betters or even matches analog in this regard. It is the way that any medium does it, what happens along the way from softer to louder and from louder to softer that matters. A key element of “real world dynamics” is the sense of vibrancy and life that live music has and which projects the “soul” of a performance. More than tonal issues it is what determines the level of involvement with the music that the listener will experience. Good analog seems to make better musical sense of the difference between ppp and pp as well as the difference between ff and fff. A good musical performance is greatly about the constant very subtle dynamic changes that a musician projects to create a great rhythmic feel. Not just in a great 4/4 Rock groove, but also in how a great string section in gets from musical point A to point B while playing a very soft and slow phrase with great musical direction; the “soul”.

Not saying that good digital cannot do well in this regard, that would be silly, only that in my experience good analog does it better; often, much better. I’ll let others duke it out as far as the technical reasons why this may be so or why it “can’t be”. Frankly, I don’t care that much. I do care about what my “bias” to the sound of live music tells me.

Raul, somehow you have managed to miss, or ignore, the point I was making. Moreover, you are also being very selective and “political” with your disagreements.

No common sense? C’mon now, language barrier or not you must know that this will be a very provocative characterization. I will ignore it as it goes precisely to the point I was making and which seems to elude you.

The bias I referred to is your bias to what can supposedly be “proven” by way of measurements and by your chosen “facts”; by your definition of “common sense”. Whether the subject of the bias is digital or not was not really the point. With respect, you need to understand more about the nature of that which you often use as a “calling card” of sorts. The quality of Art is not determined by technical matters or measurements of such. In fact, the reliance on those criteria to determine the quality of Art is antithetical to the very nature of Art and to its appreciation.

Frankly, I’m not quite sure why you are arguing any of the points being made. You acknowledge that both technologies can sound good and that both can be enjoyable. I said so as well. You point out that both sound different in fundamentally different ways. Ditto. If they both sound different in fundamentally different ways then they can’t both sound equally close to the sound of live music. Right? They each have differences and each deviates from the sound of real music in different ways. For me, the best analog sounds closer in the ways that matter most to me. For you, apparently digital does. So what, precisely, is the problem?

Raul, for me it is not a question of what I “like” for the sake of liking it. I like what like in recorded sound because more than fifty years around the sound of live music for hours each and every day tells me which technology, when well implemented, gets closer to that sound in the ways that matter most to me. You then suggest I ignore what my ears tell me and to instead “SEE the reality”.....right.  

Btw, I know it pains you have a dialogue with someone with so little common sense, but why do you really no longer want to have a dialogue about this with lowly me? Could it be that the emperor’s wardrobe is not quite as extensive as is claimed?
Regards.