Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Nsgarch,

You couldn't have been more accomadating in demonstrating the incorrect assumptions associated with this part of our hobby. Your education and experience only highlights how little is understood, and I will apologize for some of the information I share as it does not put your comments in the best light. People like Pauly and Queg may not realize it but they do have a great deal to learn about audio, and I hope that's a truth they can handle. Spending money is not experience, listening is poor experience and yet that seems to be all the qualification anyone needs to be judgemental about who knows what. Its ok I'm used to it.

1. All of your expirements where in analog and FYI a full decade after the multichannel expirements by your school and Harvard? Were you in the psych department or audiology?

"the first controlled study of human stereophonic perception" I have conflicting data, in the 1930's stereo was being tested on human beings. By 1950 Discrete surround was available in the theaters with some of the greatest orchestral recordings being 7 channels? Your tests were irrelevant and decades obsolete as it regarded audio and human perception. Sorry to inform you.

2. The fact that you have TRIED to use and are familiar with all of the algos of surround simply does not impress me because you still call it a "ping pong effect" and that is IMO unnacceptable results, and I although most people who don't know what they're doing listen in "ping pong", I don't and won't! Most audiophiles cannot discern when they are listening in surround on my systems to recordings they know very well. And they are shocked by how pathetic 2 channel sounds when the surround is turned off, but that's just hearsay let's get back to facts.

It unfortunatley appears you have never heard a properly set up surround system atleast one set to my standards.

3. Since you have the science background, explain to me how a two channel system (which you do not own one BTW, you have a 4 channel system) recreates the 360 degree algorithms present in all reverb and harmonizing equipment used by professional studios to make recordings?

"I don't understand. Maybe you could elaborate?"

try to answer question 3 and you'll have 1 of my anchors to that comment in my previous post.

4. "I got bored with multi", no you still own a multichannel system which having been an owner of Martin Loagn CLS's I can tell you that you don't have a natural soundfield, you're stuck with one that you accept as the truth and for a few recordings maybe its close to "natural" but for all of the others you simply accept it as truth. Dipole speakers like ML and Apogee and Magnepan were the gateway to my surround philosophy, which was born out of necessiity since I often lived in places that would not allow proper set up of Dipole speakers.

5. "However, in a properly designed live-end/dead-end room and optimum speaker/listener placement, a two channel playback system will accurately re-produce an original (i.e. recorded in a real space) sound field."

Your dreaming and even though that may be the best 2 channel can do, and let me remind you once again you don't own a 2 channel system. To believe as you do you are ignoring microphone pickup patterns and other fundamental noise and signal issues.

So you need to rethink your philosophy a little to accomodate the truth of your reality. I'm not making a judgement about how your systems sounds, I am giving you facts about what your system can and cannot do.

Think about it. Why do you have a 4 channel system with fixed reverb and you're climbing all over me when your 3/4 the way to thinking the way I do? Just need to move those effect channels a little tis all. ;)

D_edwards, I'm not sure what you mean by:

"If you listen in two channel only, you are not getting the best digital has too offer. Infact you're getting the nasty end of the stick."

unless you're referring to multi-channel SACD.

However, I have experienced every derived-ambience/multi-channel processing technique that's been devised, including all those created by the film industry. Everything from the old sum-difference technique Newbee described thru SQ and Quadraphonic records (and tapes) and all the various permutations of "surround" starting with the first Lexicon 7.1 processors. In the late 60's, I participated in the first controlled study of human stereophonic perception while studying psychoacoustics at MIT (pre-multichannel of course, but we all had at least two ears;--)

After all that (and my reason for returning to a purely two channel source/playback arrangement,) it became clear to me that multichannel, from the simplest home surround to the most complex 500 channel arrays used now for computerized concert hall design, does one thing: it produces a virtual sound field -- it can reproduce a real one, or create a "designed" one. Nothing wrong with that (except for all the additional hardware,) and most effective when done in an anechoic space.

However, in a properly designed live-end/dead-end room and optimum speaker/listener placement, a two channel playback system will accurately re-produce an original (i.e. recorded in a real space) sound field. What it won't do (very well) is create virtual sound fields: computer games, HT surround sound, or "studio created" multi-channel. I did find "designed" or "studio mixed" multi-channel stimulating for a time. But for me, it added absolutely nothing to the performance -- the Art of music, or the impact/realism of the kind of movies I usually watch at home. Eventually the novelty of the "ping-pong effect" wore off. My listening room provides an excellent natural (as opposed to virtual) sound field without all the extra hardware, so that's where I wound up: I got bored with multi. Others may not.

Your comment:

"there are toher factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way."

I don't understand. Maybe you could elaborate?
.

Hey Nsgarch, it seems we both need to learn a lot about audio. Where did you get that silly notion that sound reflection and refraction should occur naturally when you can have it done artificially? ;-)

Good thing we both spell correctly, otherwise we would really have looked like idiots.

Regards
Paul

Aren't there already enough phase problems with 2 channel stereo?

I've never heard a multi channel system that didn't sound less artificial or incoherent then most 2 channel. It's fine for "shish, boom, bah!" noise making.. but I'm into the reproduction of music in my home. If I want something else I can go to the movie theater or club (I've heard psychedelic trance produced for a surround system and played back in a club specifically set up to do it. Awesome.)

Pauly,

Harvard University School of medecine (early 50's)NEJM
Bell Labs
MIT
USC
repeating Harvards study---THX
A few more that have simply confirmed earlier Bell Labs findings in the 1940's

Scientifically proven. Its the information that motivated serious companies to spend serious money to try Quadraphonic, the boat anchor of home audio.

As for your overly simplistic view of what surround does for the audio signal, Well ten years from now you'll undertsand finally.

Nsgarch,

Nevertheless, a good two channel system in an acoustically adjusted listening room will produce all those secondary waves accurately and from the (seemingly) appropriate directions using only two speakers.

Sorry absolutely wishful thinking, counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers. And there are toher factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way.

no time to elaborate you won't believe me anyway.

Well Mike, there was a (dark) time when certain major recording companies were trying to get the most onto vinyl instead of the most out of vinyl -- i.e. Dynagroove (and don't think RCA was the only culprit) but thank God for Mercury! My point is that a lot of old mastertapes which were never really properly cut onto vinyl have received new (and better) lives on XRCD.

Would they sound even better if transfered to properly cut and stamped discs? Probably. As a matter of fact, I recently heard a couple of those classical (RCA) releases on R2R 7ips tape, and except for a little hiss, the tape sounded way better than the LP. Better than the XRCD? I couldn't say, too close.
.

Nsgarch wrote.....

"However I have several (Redbook) HDCDs and XRCDs whose sonics equal my best LPs.

So anyone who has really great gear of both kinds really should try some of the XRCD releases -- especially the orchestral ones made from the old RCA and Colombia mastertapes which you can (if, like me, you have them) compare with their original LP counterparts. I think you'd be very surprised at how much great sound never made it onto the original vinyl ;--)"

gosh. there are times i wish i had not vowed to abstain from posting on digital verses vinyl threads.....like right NOW!!!

Interesting observations Nsgarch. I gave up on multichannel attempts at recreating a concert hall at home many years ago. I also agree that there is a lot of information on the disc's to be recovered, much of it is the out of phase information present in the recording venue, which unfortunately is hard to reproduce at home unless you have a perfect acoustic.

In a less than perfect acoustic, there is an old fashion method of getting that 'hall sound' which is cheap and easy to set up (so long as your not too anal about absolutes). I can't recall off hand the name of the designer, but the idea was to place two small speakers in the rear of the room, or preferrably one on each side of the listening seat. Connect the speakers in a loop with one wire connected from the positive post of an amp to the speaker A, then from speaker A to speaker B then back to the hot positive post of the other channel in the amp. You insert somewhere into this loop and attenuator so you can balance the sound with the main system. The side/rear speakers output is kept very low and only produces out of phase info but the room sounds energized and more like a concert hall. Using a seperate amp you can turn it on and off at will, but its possible to wire this into the main amp (I'm to anal to do that).

This type of ambiance extraction existed before Yamaha and some 'other outfit long gone' (I had one of 'long gones' units) produced a unit which did the same, but added digital delay's so you could select hall size and all that other stuff. I think the extraction you are referring to comes from equipment made by suceeding manufacturers. Got to be too fussy for me and actually never sounded as good as the cheapo way. Although from all I've heard maybe ARC got it right in their unit.

Fun stuff if you've got the space, and I think I'd find this much more interesting that the new multi channel recordings and the replay requirements.

FWIW.

There are secondary (reflected) sound waves which come from the sides and rear of concert halls and other large venues that do get recorded onto two channel formats. And with proper processing can be extracted and redirected to additional channels/speakers, even though in an actual concert hall setting, I never noticed sound as coming from anywhere but the stage -- reverberation is all enveloping; only echos seem to come from "somewhere" and are greatly frowned upon in the design of concert halls ;--)

Nevertheless, a good two channel system in an acoustically adjusted listening room will produce all those secondary waves accurately and from the (seemingly) appropriate directions using only two speakers, and it's not clear whether the necessary information is captured any better by analog or digital recording techniques. With a purly digital recording/playback process (DDD), my sense is that it's a tough thing to achieve using plain ol' Redbook, and maybe that's the attraction of SACD or DVDA for some. However I have several (Redbook) HDCDs and XRCDs whose sonics equal my best LPs.

So anyone who has really great gear of both kinds really should try some of the XRCD releases -- especially the orchestral ones made from the old RCA and Colombia mastertapes which you can (if, like me, you have them) compare with their original LP counterparts. I think you'd be very surprised at how much great sound never made it onto the original vinyl ;--)
.

“its scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it.”

Really? By whom?

I have listened to many an opera, recitals and live jazz/rock performances. Never had anybody walk off stage to sing/play an instrument behind me.

Seen Stars Wars and that had sound emanating from all over the theatre. Very impressive if you actually want Star Wars. Me, I’d rather have Stravinsky.

Regards
Paul

You want to love the music and be swept away by detail and emotional involvement, its scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it. :)....and ten years from now you will actually believe what I just said.

Ten years from now?

Ever heard of quadraphonic?

Ever heard of the evil of rear speakers in car audio?

***

"The Esoteric, you can make out every detail with ease but I really feel that such a detailed machine takes away from the enjoyment in music."

If you listen in two channel only, you are not getting the best digital has too offer. Infact you're getting the nasty end of the stick.

For years I have been listening in trifield and now PLII two channel is purgatory. ie. Digital is too good for two speakers, and no amount of EQing and sound shaping with tubes and cables will overcome that.

You want to love the music and be swept away by detail and emotional involvement, its scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it. :)....and ten years from now you will actually believe what I just said.

You're welcome.

Thanks to everyone and their responses on this forum. It's interesting to see where sound reproduction has evolved too. I stopped by an Audio Store today in NYC and listened to a Vinyl set-up. I am not sure if the salesman knew what he was doing but listening to it, it brought back memories of why digital was such a huge hit in the 80's. You could hear the pops, the hissing, and even a skip. The thing is I am not sure if we are heading in the right direction either. The Esoteric, you can make out every detail with ease but I really feel that such a detailed machine takes away from the enjoyment in music. At that level, it is no longer about music enjoyment. It is about analysis. So in summary, I think I will actually end up trying to get a later model CD player such as a Sim Audio Eclipse or a Sony SCD-1. Once again thanks to all.

Good answer Raul.

Dear Musicaudio: +++++ " I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's alive for so long after the digital revolution ..."+++++

Many people, like me, already own hundreds/thousands of LP's when start the CD technology and we already own our analog system. There are a lot of music that we can't get in other way but LP, it will never a realese in CD's.

These between others ( about quality sound reproduction ) are some of the reasons why still alive the LP.

I don't think that your question: +++++ " Is Digital actually better than Analog? " +++++, could have a precise answer because both mediums are totally different and you can't compare apples with bananas or a car with an airplane: it does not have sens.

Today, both mediums have its own advantages and disadvantages and both can live together in an audio system and we can use it often depending our CD or LP priorities.

95% of the recorded music comes through CD technology and this fact tell us that it does not matters about CD vs LP if we want that music then we have to buy CD and we have to have a decent CDP, no question about.

Now, you don't own a single LP: stay where you are try to make upgrades on your digital audio system ( btw, in your audio system ) and buy every single CD you like. The today 24/192 ( upsampling ) technology makes that we all can enjoy the music through CDP. Of course that if you have the money/time/patience to buy the software and analog hardware then is your call.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Funny,
Highend equipment's ability to expose faulty or "not as talented" musicianship is the primary reason why I spend the bucks for the equipment in the first place.

I'm referring to the minute "human" element in a performance. Variations in delivery, such as a voice slightly cracking.. held notes drifting off-key.. retarded or rushed tempo's.. these qualities are often responsible for more emotional content then the composition itself.

Granted, these qualities are usually undesirable in classical music. But in that case, good equipment helps expose more of the conductor's interpretation (via tempo, dynamics, etc) as well as the dimensional, vibrant and colorful (why is "color" a bad word to audiophiles?) presention of a well orchestrated composition.

Vinyl to my ears delivers all of the above.

Vinyl wins here. I have no ceedees that sound better than vinyl. I have some that sound as good. It has been this way since I stepped up to a good turntable. When I first got back into vinyl, I had a Dual TT. There were ceedees that sounded better then, but there were some titles on vinyl that blew the ceedee away. This is what got me back into vinyl. I moved on to an MMF-7 and since then have never heard a ceedee outperform its vinyl counterpart. I now have a ScoutMaster which is a very good table.
FWIW, my cdp is a Theta Miles. It is a good player which I enjoy. The differences in vinyl (analog) and digital are subtle in my system. There is a sense of smoothness in the vinyl that the digital lacks. This is not a glaring thing though. I discovered it when I put the vinyl down for a week and played ceedees only. They sounded good and anyone would have been happy with their performance. However when I put a record on after a week of no vinyl, it took about 20 seconds to realize the difference. The word smooth came to mind. That was with the MMF-7. I haven't tried a/b ing the ScoutMaster. No need to IMO

If you only use two channels it really doesn't matter.

so why worry about it?

ROTFLMAO. What a great sense of humor. Love it!

Is anyone else getting mental images of Audiofeil physically giving a rat's ass? "Here, Joe. Have a rat's ass." And Joe says, "No thanks. I'm trying to cut back on rat's asses."

In our audio groups is a fellow with a monster Goldmund table running into Lamm phone and preamp, VTL Siegfried driving Kharma Midi Exqusites and Kharma sub.
Despite many great things this system does it left me cold emotionally.

First time I really enjoyed that system was when a friend brought over his AA Capital MKII player. Suddenly my feet was tapping and I thought this is the way a system of this caliber should sound.
Still remember the very surprised look on the face the owner of that system had.
He immediately ordered the AA.

I usually listen to cd's but vinyl is fun to mess with, and since I grew up on vinyl I think the memories help the experience. Some records do sound absolutely wonderful though. I find I sing along with vinyl.

the interactive nature of record collecting and listening just can't be beat.

Audiofeil you got my vote.

Not everyone is the same as you.

Hey Pawlowski,

I probably do need to relax, I probably should be concentrating more on getting dates for your sister.

If a Scoutmaster is entry level for you,please buy and send me your second choice!

Ok here is all I know I have a very modest vinyl system and a somewhat more expensive digital system. I enjoy them both. Telling the difference between the two is a toss-up for me. I honestly feel that to achieve what vinyl is truley cappible of I would have to atleast tripple my cash outlay. Since my vinyl collection is small (150 or so albums) I can't justify this. Also it is the convience of digital that keeps me headed in that direction.

I own both high end analog and digital front ends as I find strength in both formats.

I'm not a technical person by education. That being said, I don't give a rat's a** about sin(x)/x filters, molecules, valences, ions, bandwidths, upsampling, downsampling, oversampling, undersampling, quantization, broken stairsteps, broken barricades, broken fences, etc. :-)

What matters to me is the sound. I agree with Mike in the sense that I don't care what anybody else thinks. My gear is assembled to please my ears. So buy and listen to what best satisfies your own needs. Both formats can sound superb and we'll never agree on this issue. Trust your own ears and get a few laughs from threads like this.

Nrchy, you are wrong. Digital is only a broken stairstep if you ignore low pass and in particular sin(x)/x filters. Analog no more has infinite sampling or quantization than digital does, as it too is limited by its medium, which imposes a limitation on bandwidth, dynamic range, and signal to noise ratio. Only in bandwidth is analog even theoretically superior to digital.

This article is an interesting examination of how the size of the vinyl molecules means that LPs are actually quantized in a similar way to digital audio.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html

Digital IS better than Analog because it's newer and uses computer chips which have proven so effective throughtout the world in multitudiness applications. If analogue was better they'd still be using tubes in computers and they aren't.

Sean, it seems to me that Ncarv knows the theory very well. Everything he said is true! Proponants of digital have been fighting against these basic design flaws for over 25 years. They are getting a handle on the design flaws and digital sounds much better today than it ever did, but it's hard to ignore the OBVIOUS FLAWS of the format!

But, we certainly don't want to resort to facts while we perpetuate this tired debate!

Well, Digital became better but it is still like having a shower with thousands of little ice pieces, while listening to Analog is like having the shower with water.

Another thing: analog cannot be said as infinite sampling, there is no sampling in the analog process, it is more like carbon-copying.
I submit human being being basically digital, our resolution to perceive is also limited, at some point, the discrete sampling of digital becomes indistinguishable to analogue. The technology available to produce and reproduce redbook CD IMHO has made this discussion down to personal preferences.

"Digital is a broken stairstep; analog is a continuous curve.
Digital samples at a finite rate; analog, if you will, is infinite sampling."

Posts like these serve only to highlight that the poster knows nothing about the theory and implementation of sampling of signals, quantization noise, digital signal processing ... the list goes on. This is the reason why it's almost impossible to have a straightforward discussion of digital vs analog on a hifi board.

Ncarv, from the basic DNA level, I guess it could be argued that human being (and all living being) is basically digital - yet not binary - constructed from extremely long sequences of genetic code. I think time and spectrums (frequency, color) are continuous (i.e. analogue).
Audio-wise, I love digital and I am too lazy and too cheap to take care of LPs and its playback system and accessories without any advantage I can perceive.
Musicaudio, if you want a taste of analogue from the digital realm, get a Zanden DAC.

Digital is about convenience, not musicality. LP is a compromise, too . . . more convenient than reel-to-reel tape, but still -- analog.
Human beings are analog. Human beings are not digital.
Digital is a broken stairstep; analog is a continuous curve.
Digital samples at a finite rate; analog, if you will, is infinite sampling.
I like my digital gear and sound; I love my analog gear and sound.

I love the vinyl sound. In my opinion we hear in analog and vinyl never leaves that domain. I also love the convenience of CD's. I think it all comes down to how much you are willing to spend on either format in equipment to maximize playback quality. The only real pitfalls to vinyl is: no auto/remote playback. i.e. the ritual of cleaning and flipping over after 15-20 minuits can get old (for me), and the owrt is the fact that even new vinyl can have pops and clicks that are annoying. But once you listen through that I find that I can spend more time listening to vinyl than CD's with out ear fatigue. For some reason CD's just get to me after about 2 then I go do something else for a while. Probably just me.

No. They are just different formats. One is NOT superior to the other and you need both if you have any real interest in music.

Both formats have serious plus' and minus'. Which set you happen to prefer will more likely be the one that fits your personality best.

I happen to have a hard time overlooking all of the warts in vinyl play back (sonic's) and the fussiness involved, and love the simplicity of digital, BUT I have found it more difficult to set up a system that does justice to digital. You just need to tune your system to take advantage of the best that both have to offer, which is not and easy task by any means. IMHO, YMMV, etc etc etc.

The answer is yes and no. Some vinyl is better than the same recording on CD and visa-versa. Much of the early vinyl was poorly translated to CD and the only really good format available in on vinyl. For many, myself included, vinyl is a ritualistic tie to the past and creates a zen like state in the user. That, and there is an organic rightness to vinyl that conveys the spirit of the music, its soul if you will, that comes through even when the recording/sound is not the best.

Part of the vinyl experience is searching and finding gems from the past for mear pennies.

Vinyl does take work i.e setup, cleaning, etc. If you have little or no time or just hate the mechanics involved, pass.

If you would enjoy a format that takes time and care, vinyl seems to take your full attention thus shutting off the world and mind clutter if only for 22 minutes a side.

FWIW

Musicaudio; point taken. if i could remove the "who the hell cares' sentence i would. it's not 'like me' to post in that way.

i have posted likely a few hundred posts just here on the 'goN regarding this subject. if you are interested just search my answers and you can read what i have thought about this subject. my opinion is well known.

i hope you get the constructive feedback you seek.

Up until a month ago I was a firm believer that analog vinyl was vastly superior to Redbook digital, but that was before I encountered HyperAnalog™. HypeA™ is actually a digital format and it takes vinyl playback beyond the proverbial next level to the next level raised to the power of 3. HypeA™ is still in its prototype stage, but I expect it to be picked up by one of the major manufacturers by the end of the decade.

In a nutshell HypeA™ starts with a vinyl record which is then "photographed" using a side scan, thermal activated, deep tissue with Aloe penetrating electron microscope (this is the same instrument physicists use to look at the bottoms of top quarks). The image is then analyzed by proprietary software and this is what make HypeA™ so special. The software synthesizes a virtual stylus that rides through the digitized record image and generates a virtual cartridge output. The software also performs the RIAA equalization and click and noise removal. The required computing horsepower is enormous, a typical recording takes 96 hours with file sizes greater than 69 petabytes, but the results are well worth it. Since the virtual stylus is not bound by physical constraints it can instantaneously response to the undulations of the groove walls. Playback distortion is completely eliminated. It sounds better than all known digital or analog formats and is virtually indistinguishable from real.

The HyperAnalog™ process came out of research originating in the Soviet Union that was later developed in Khazakstan with the assistance of Pakistan's AQ Khan and the North Koreans. It came to the U.S. via the brilliant mathematician/religious philosopher Sascha Moo Butane Stern. Always an enigma, Stern is best known here as the guitar tech/bus driver for Tim McGraw. Hopefully Stern will recover from his country music related mental illness and get back to bringing the HyperAnalog™ process to market.

Musicaudio, in defense of Mike Lavigne, I really don't think there's anything negative about urging people to "have fun" ;--) Nor did I get the idea he was suggesting we not care what others think, only that he didn't anymore.

I believe your interest in learning more is genuine, but the most you will ever get from these forums are reports. Or maybe even reports of REPORTS! These are indeed valuable if they give you a direction to pursue, or and area you could investigate, but in the last analysis, actual learning can only result from your own first hand experiences and experiments (and BTW, there are no "bad" experiences, we learn something from all of them.)
.

Mikelavigne,

What kind of response was that? I do care what people think. That’s what a forum is about. It's about learning through other people's experiences and opinions. If you don’t want to give your insight on Audio equipment and help guys like me that want to learn more about this hobby, that’s your preference, but don’t bring negativity into it either.

It's really a philosophical difference. I describe the differences below without making a case for either one (I hope!)

In analog, the soundwaves are literally captured in the groove "verbatim" so to speak. And they need only be gotten back into the air to hear them again. A process, I may point out, which doesn't necessarily even require electricity to implement (talk about organic!) The only real problem with analog (as with all things organic) is that the storage medium (the groove) and the stored information (the wiggles) are inseparable -- damage to the medium means damage to the information stored there.

Digital storage is completely inorganic. The information that is stored is not sound but rather a coded "blueprint" for creating or REcreating sound through electronic means (there are no hand-crank DACs!) The sonic information in its "coded" form bears no resemblance whatsoever to the entity (sound) that it represents -- in other words, you couldn't look at a list of ones and zeros and say, "Gee, that looks like some kind of wave form!" And therefore, the resulting de-coded sound is "virtual", and not "real", in the sense that it doesn't come from any tangible object that looks the same as (analogous to) the sound wave.

From the foregoing, it should be obvious that a principal feature of digital is that one can create "code" from scratch, process it, and hear it as "sound". Sort of like making a "test tube" baby. (I'm not talking about sampling or making actual sound, and then processing it -- as with the early synthesizers.) This possibility may not qualify as "music making" for some, because it isn't a "direct" way of producing sound with the human body (singing being the most direct) but therein lies the philosphical difference I mentioned at the beginning.
.

I went from digital-only to analog-only about 4 years ago. It started off when I bought a relatively inexpensive analog rig to see what the hubbub was about. As time progressed I found myself listening more and more to vinyl up to the stage where I just never put the CD on anymore.

I cannot really explain what it is about vinyl and to be honest, I probably wouldn’t be able tell the difference in a blind test. What I can say is that over the past three or so years I am spending more time listening than I ever have, so there must be something to it.

As far as vinyl (and tubes) being more 'laid back', I respectfully think you are quite wrong. My analog/tube rig has been described as 'startling' by more than a few digital/transistor owners.

And yes, I would recommend you try out the scoutmaster. You may just find you like it more than you imagined you would.

Regards
Paul

i recently swore off digital verses vinyl threads. i took the 12-step 'cure' (compared 12 Lps to digital). who the hell cares what anyone thinks anyway.

you guys have fun.