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

as asked the question is not answerable.

there are so many levels of analog that you can't really say. i have what many consider to be the very tip top, bleeding edge of digital performance. yet, my best vinyl or tape easily surpasses it.

however; at more modest levels of analog there are cases to be made that digital can somewhat go head to head.

if you want to really understand where digital comes up short consider the limitations of digital recording, read this Stereophile interview from 1995 with the principles of Pacific Microsonics. especially read toward the bottom of the first page. you might think you know as much about music recording as these guys, but......you don't.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/hdcd-keith-johnson-pflash-pflaumer-michael-ritter

Geez...Is anyone going to address the OP’s simple question?

early in the thread, this was addressed. it’s basically unanswerable since there are so many levels of analog. maybe if you identify a particular price point of analog you can come up with an approximation of what it takes to compete with digital. but there is no general answer other than there is no answer.

and at the top it’s not possible for digital to compete for any amount of money. and that is where we are now.

you need to come early, then pay attention. :-)

there will be a test later.

what brought that 1995 Stereophile article to my attention recently was a private exchange i happened to be on the periphery of, between the designer of my Music Server, and an un-named iconic high fidelity techie we all would know. my Server Designer was lamenting that visiting my room he heard tape and vinyl do dynamics far beyond what any digital could do. and i have plenty of digital firepower in my room both hardware and files.

his question was why the difference? now. right now. November 2019. not 1995.

the high fidelity techie referred to that article and said nothing has really changed. and there is no push (or market demand) to change things. digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part.

i personally don’t claim any intimate knowledge of what is possible digitally except for what my ears tell me from the highest rez files i have. i’m not in the studio. but those Pacific Microsonics guys were, and this un-named person certainly is too.

my room was built for big reproduced music. and my system has been assembled to do it without limit. it is easy to compare formats and when you do that this stuff we are discussing is just so evident and obvious. and the bigger the music the more it is clear. analog just has so much more headroom to work with.

horsepower!

i wish i had license to I.D. this person i’m referring to; but i do not. we can leave it at that and move on. if you were sitting here next to me in my room i would tell you.

understand that the designer of my music server, easily the top server product on the market today, is hugely invested in absolutely top digital performance. he came into my room expecting digital to compete, and left bewildered. and went and looked for answers. hence the reference to that Stereophile article. i also referred him to a mastering engineer i know who has mastered all of the Reference Recordings titles for the last 20 years for additional data points on the subject.

your perspective of digital having technical superiority is unfortunately not correct. it might have greater frequency range but that is not significant. bandwidth and dynamic range is where it’s at. 1/2" tape kills any digital format. direct to disc vinyl is exceptional. 45rpm vinyl is awesome.

respectfully; the only thing wrong is the lack of listening to analog recordings. i've had 20 year veteran pro audio guys in my room doing recordings and hearing top level vinyl for the first time. they could not believe that their ADC's could not capture and play back what my vinyl was outputting. 

just listen.

i have 17 terabytes of digital files including 50+ dxd (352/24) and 50+ dsd256 albums on my server. the best digital can deliver. they do not approach what my analog can do. but i do enjoy listening to them. i am very invested in the best possible digital and it’s a big part of my listening as that is where new music is. love streaming especially Quboz.

my overall listening approach is to try and listen to any recording in it’s native format. tape, vinyl or digital format. even redbook 16/44 can be fantastic if that was the native recording format. i love dsd recordings, but if they were PCM sourced prefer that format.

of my 8000+ Lp’s likely 400--500 or so have a digital component to them in one form or another. certainly these are typically less ’robust’ in their sonics. less headroom for sure. but it’s not a one size fits all situation. there are many fine sounding digitally sourced Lp’s. but they don’t compete in the top realm of vinyl, know that great recordings can transcend any format. and during digital’s infancy there were many cases where there were digital recordings mixed and mastered to tape. pressing plants could not use digital masters initially.

OTOH i have over 7000 completely 100% analog Lp’s......and -150- 2-reel 1/4" and 1/2" tape albums.

the case of how vinyl compares directly is made like a punch in the nose in my system. it is not anything subtle. more like ’you got to be fu**ing kidding’.

ask Andreas about 2xdsd verses 4xdsd. not relevant to this discussion. i have plenty of 4sdsd files where i have 2xdsd too. meh. i like and appreciate the difference but it’s not profound.

ADC for some was a Modified Korg. others i think were a Merging Technology NADAC. i did not do the needle drops myself, but it was the same tt/arm cartridge i had and same front end electronics.

are there better adc’s? i would assume there are. enough difference to matter? not likely.

the digital <-> analog delta i experience is not marginal.

So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation.

obvious bias? really?

it’s tempting to get defensive with a comment like that. i will try to stay objective here in my response.

would a person who is at least as much invested in digital performance as anyone on the whole forum be somehow biased against digital? i want my digital to sound the best it can possibly sound, and have committed considerable time and assets acquiring the gear, then optimizing every aspect of it.

70% of my listening is to digital. i love it. i’ve got both files and streaming fully optimized.

i’ve spent 20 years with a focus on format optimization....all formats. so it’s a big important subject to me. i have digital, vinyl and tape optimized. i enjoy all three. i can fully appreciate digital, but i call a spade a spade when it comes to direct comparisons with analog.

so point out your evidence of bias here in my perceptions. i don’t see any.

i think it’s wrong to confuse theoretical advantages of digital on paper to real world listening realities. but unless you have the daily opportunity to compare the tip top examples of each one i can see how the theory might cloud your reality perception. that there is bias.

forget numbers and stuff. follow your ears and musical connection.

Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided.

 
please cite examples so we can all listen and comment. or come over to my room, bring your files and dac, and we can both listen and see where it goes.

or is this just more theory?

I own 15 IPS tape from Ultra Analogue Recordings. I also own the CD and Digital File versions. I listened in my room with Roger Ginsley the Canadian rep for Studer and the engineer behind the recordings. The digital was right there with the Tape. Done right Digital can do it. No they did not do vinyl so I can’t say.

can you tell us which specific recording this is?

I’m going to put the onus back on you.

Please record your analog material to digital - without clipping - so you’re using the same master as source material. Level match the two sources, and record the output from your system. Compare the waveforms. If you so choose, you can share the results here.

i do it every day.

i have 600-700 2xdsd needle drop files, and the associated Lp pressings to those needle drops. the 2xdsd files sound great. listen to them often when i’m not in the mood to change sides.

but......when i compare directly; game, set, match to the original vinyl. every time.

i don’t do waveforms. i can’t reach my ’zen’ state with them. :-)

i have dubbed many of my tapes, and my dubs are indistinguishable from my originals. i can tell you that a digital file copy of those dubs would not be......indistinguishable that is. but that is a Studer A-820 dubbing to another A-820.

as far as RTR tape deck references, a Revox would not be quite up to the task as a reference for what tape can do. solid tape playback deck though for sure.

Andreas Koch is a smart guy. has been to my room and stayed with me back in the day. i had the very first Playback Designs MPS-5, the first Playback Designs product. was my digital reference for 9 years.