The character of analog and digital

Yogiboy,

Based on the minuscule sales of classical vis a vis pop and rock in the general public, I think it’s a safe assumption.

@ghdprentice:

"When we go to choose audio equipment we go into analytical mode where we direct our minds eye (ear in this case)... to listen for differences flitting from sound to sound. Spend too much time picking out equipment like this only and this becomes how we appreciate a system… instead of being drawn into the music and making your decision from the perspective of the music."

I couldn't agree more! When doing serious seat-time with various components, over the years, those I've always come home with are those that have always drawn me out of critical listening mode and into pure music enjoyment quickest, often without me even realizing it, at first.

The directness of R2R tape is not captured by digital atm. Vinyl is inferior to R2R period. Vinyl has it own drawbacks (pops, crackles, noise, channel separation, sub bass) but is the second best analog source. Digital is getting there (for example MSB/DCS) . In the CD-era (80's & 90's) 70% of the analog qualities were captured. With Hi-Res we are getting at 80-90% I think. It's enjoyable and easy to consume though.

@lalitk, there are devices that avoid the need to "babysit" vinyl if one has a fully manual TT. For example, the Audio-Technica tone arm lifter works quite well and doesn't cost an arm & a leg like some others. Because of this Audio-Technica, just as with CDs, I also sometimes play LPs when I'm entertaining, cooking or what have you. I often play CDs, too, when I'm just relaxing in the living room and focused on pure music enjoyment. I certainly wouldn't say that digital sounds "inferior" to vinyl. However, as I've previously said, all things being relatively equal in a good audio system, to my ears, vinyl is definitely "better", for lack of a better term in this respect.

I've had many friends visit, audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike, had them sit in the sweet spot on the living room couch, played well recorded CDs and LPs of the same work or performance, at the same volumes, flat out and then asked them to tell me which sounded "best" or "better" to them. Without exception, the determination or preference has always been the vinyl recording. Typical comments include:  'more bass and it sounds more real'; 'sounds more real'; 'sounds more like being there'; 'everything is clearer; 'frequency response up & down the ranges are clearer, crisper, more accurate'; 'vocals sound more real or natural'; 'I could tell right of the bat'; etc.

I feel the same and this is not something one needs to listen long or hard for. Most of my friends are contemporaries in age. However, some are veritable youngsters who could be my children or grand-children and they all like vinyl "better".

As the French would say:  "Chacun so gout!" and "Vive la difference!" The important thing here is love of music!

" I listen to classical 95% of the time. I think it’s safe to say the majority of Agoners don’t. "

And how did you come to that presumption?

@tomic601 , @david_ten , @audphile1  in case and if 'all things should be equal' (from reproduction side of things, if that is possible at all) than everything comes down to the mastering. Judging by what people who are actually doing the masterings have to say (will post this again) it seems that their consensus is on analog side. The rest is all about our personal preferencies which are caused by quality of our system, analog or digital and because of it that the 'discussion' is pointless. Perhaps if the discussion is about the principles of analog or digital domain, we might have something to discuss. Without knowing how 'the original source' and consequently all other versions of some recording sound, we all, in fact, make our judgments by listening final product (analog or digital) which has been heavily 'manipulated' and has little to do with inherent quality of some format, but more of 'craft' of the person who made it   

 

 i have never heard [via closed-back headphones] what some here refer to as a "black background" on any analog recording [tape or disc], there is always some background noise/medium noise or ambience. only in a large room did such become hard to hear, as the room sound would obscure such subtleties. large rooms have a background noise of their own due to structure born noise as well as air current noise working on one another. don't believe me, then whip out the decibel meter, it will tell the tale. OTOH, just about all my digital recordings have [at least between the tracks] a true black background of totally negligible hiss ][mostly from the electronics]. all my digital recordings have, for want of a better word, a slight "zing" in the extreme trebles [top of the top octave], presumably this is due to the psychoacoustic action of the steep Nyquist filters used. on upsampling digital players [i.e., ones that multiply 44.k into 88.2k or higher] i don't hear this effect. with the aforementioned "zing" out of the way, the only difference i hear is [with digital masters] is the absence of print-through, wow & flutter, and modulation noise common with analog master tapes, and of course no [disc] surface noise. for most folks, those things add a subtle "warmth" to the analog sound, but to me [i can discern 1/8th-of-a-tone variations, a side-effect of having perfect pitch] they are audible and represent a sour coloration that i'd rather not have in my music playback. just listen to the decay of sustained piano notes or high-pitched chimes, you'll hear what i mean. digital to me is just more "solid" for want of a better term. 

My other hero is Bob Clearmountain who understands a simple remaster isn’t enough….in many cases…

@ghdprentice 

I always recommend you do a few minutes of analytical listening, but quickly switch to listening to the music and not the equipment… this will allow your subconscious latch on to the equipment which gives you the greater emotional connection… moves you.

Very sage advice. Reminds me of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The tricky part is that the listening to music part (the feeling, romantic part) then must be taken back up into the classic part (analysis) in order to play a role in the audiophile decision. Ouroboros, all the way down. 

I always smile when a PDK car / driver combo laps the purist….

It is very pointless to 'discuss' own preferncies (not directed to you) if one is not familiar with process. Seems nobody here reads the words of people who are actually responsable for the actual sound of some recording or format, like Steve Hofman in post that I ve linked before, above, or again, here, from another 'master' Kevin Grey.

@alexatpos 

I read. I also watch videos on YouTube describing everything that goes into making a vinyl record. Few good examples would be the Scott Hull video where he’s talking about the entire process, as well as a video from Analog Productions (it’s a tour of QRP more or less).

But in the end it is the result that matters and it is and will always be about personal preference of the end user. There are too many variables and moving parts involved. And as we see from this and other discussions, not every system is set up where analog and digital are on the same level. That alone is dictated by preference more often than not (just read thru the discussions on this thread). 

Whether analog or digital, one must try to obtain the musical message first then accommodate the ears to the particular sonic quality. Something we audiophiles find hard to do.

Only then can we make a truly informed judgement on SQ

But how do we play a CD backwards? 😁

Picking up on the comparison to stick vs automatic shifting: "Enthusiasts" will say manual is the ONLY way (so much better than CD, ahem automatic). But they grudingly admit that automatic is MUCH faster (why do you think Formula 1 cars have digital ahem automatic since years). 

@tomic601  +1

 

Mastering while important is not the whole process….

OP… “What I’m trying to say is that if you’re into the music first you’re more likely to make a good judgement as to whether the SQ is enhancing the musical experience.”

When we go to choose audio equipment we go into analytical mode where we direct our minds eye (ear in this case)… to listen for differences flitting from sound to sound. Spend too much time picking out equipment like this only and this becomes how we appreciate a system… instead of being drawn into the music and making your decision from the perspective of the music..

Typically we are drawn to music by the subconscious, that is the need being satisfied by listening to music.

I always recommend you do a few minutes of analytical listening, but quickly switch to listening to the music and not the equipment… this will allow your subconscious latch on to the equipment which gives you the greater emotional connection… moves you. This allows one to do what I think you are referring. Listen to the music and let that be the guide… or you end up with an analytical sounding system. Where you can hear a musician move his foot… but miss the musicality and emotional connection.

 

Mastering while important is not the whole process….

@rvpiano It is very pointless to 'discuss' own preferncies (not directed to you) if one is not familiar with process. Seems nobody here reads the words of people who are actually responsable for the actual sound of some recording or format, like Steve Hofman in post that I ve linked before, above, or again, here, from another 'master' Kevin Grey.Here are some quotes from him as well:

… I never limit jazz or classical stuff. I’m so turned off by today’s compression just to make everything sound the same volume on itunes....

… Well there is a difference cutting for the audiophile market and the mass market. I have to take precautions on non audiophile stuff to make sure it will track on lesser systems. I use a limiter/compressor very very occasionally. Every so often vocal peaks get out of hand in rock and pop stuff and it id preferable to do a couple db of limiting instead of turning the whole song down...

from sterophile

 

 I listen to classical 95% of the time.  I think it’s safe to say the majority of Agoners don’t.  I put on a vintage James Taylor LP (One Man Dog) and compared it to a streamed hi res file of the same track from Qobuz. The record easily sounded better than the file. I know this is only a one title sample but I find  in classical, the reverse is more often true.  Maybe my observations will differ due the fact that I listen mostly to classical and the majority don’t.

@lalitk Thank you for the comments, yes very pleased with the Neodio.  The Daedalus also sound very good with my Line Magnetic and Finale Audio integrated amps .

When I was at Gestalt the Wolf Langa’s were out for audition so I did not hear them. Check with grannyring, I believe that he is getting, or may now have, the Son. The Cessaro’s were great sounding fronted by a Frontiers Audio amp no matter what the source was; I’d happily own them if I was in the market for speakers.

I hope that you have a good visit; Colin makes it a good experience. And, I found him a pleasure to interact not only during my visit but also via prior and post visit transactions conducted via phone/email

 

@facten

Thanks for sharing your experience with @gestalt. I was not aware of the Neodio Origine S2 CD player. That’s quite a piece of serious engineering and aesthetics. I bet it sounds amazing in your well appointed system. I am intimately familiar with Daedalus Audio and Modwright, they are match made in heaven.

What do you think of Wolf Langa’s and Cessaro’s.

I am looking forward to visiting Gestalt in early December. Should be a fun trip!

Lamm RIP ;-( another great loss

@facten

I was introduced to a Neodio Audio CD player in the Lamm Audio room at CES some years ago. The late Vladimir Lamm was running the room. He alternated between the Neodio and an excellent turntable set up. He had his top level Lamm electronics in use. I can attest that both the analog and digital front ends acquitted themselves quite beautifully and were very engaging. So I know you must be thrilled with yours.

I have not heard the Tron Audio DAC but I am very familiar with the sound of their SET amplifiers which are fabulous. I’d have to believe that the DAC is equally as accomplished. @grannyring owns their top model DAC and he (And his wife) love what they’re hearing.

This notion that digital is not capable of reproducing music in an emotionally engaging and immersive manner is nonsense.

Charles

@charles1dad "

And yet digital can be all of that. If the listeners were not engage or interested in listening to the CDs, could simply reflect the digital hardware not up to the task. Fortunately I haven’t experienced this let down with digital sourced audio components if there’re up to snuff."

I totally agree Charles. Back in August I visited Gestalt Audio in Nashville to audition some equipment. While there Colin (the owner of GA) set for me a listening baseline by cueing up some tracks on his TW Acustic vinyl rig, wonderful engaging sound. Then in the same system I listened to a Neodio Origine S2 CD player, and then the combination of Tron Electric's top of the line Atlantic GTT DAC and an Aurrender streamer (I don't recall the model number)  as its source. Both of the digital setups were thoroughly engaging, tone, timber, resolution, etc in spades. I will honestly state that to my ears the vinyl edged both out, but it was very close. I'd be surprised if open minded folks, including significant others,  listening to this very comparable/complimentary equipment would walk away stating that there was a significant difference between the sound; having a preference for whichever  one over the other certainly. I now have the Neodio in my main system.

 

 

Someone could argue, but its very much about the mastering....

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-sounds-just-like-the-analog-master-tape-cd-vinyl-sacd-or-a-1-1-analog-reel-tape-copy.133328/

 

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-how-does-mastering-differ-vinyl-and-digital-releases

 

 

 

 

and my heroes are guys like Helmut Brinkmann a master of analog…AND Digital w Nyquist II… pushing the sonic frontier forward……

 

Mike - good to see you weigh in with a more measured input… for those of us w fairly decent LP, Digital ( duh…CD aint it ) and high speed tape….a simple experiment of dumping a digital file on to 15 ips tape and watch the closed minded swoon….. i call it the homogenization machine…. 

There really are two camps…music lovers not stuck in 1950 - 1970 … and format religious zealots…..

I have DSD at the front end and tubes at the back end and open-baffle speakers, and I love my whole system. Not to say I won't change up when I hear better (and affordable) components, but it's the right path for me. And I keep a turntable and old records around for joy and nostalgia.

Good set of posts! I'm happy we all care so much.

What I’m trying to say is that if you’re into the music first you’re more likely to make a good judgement as to whether the SQ is enhancing the musical experience.

 

Whether analog or digital, one must try to obtain the musical message first then accommodate the ears to the particular sonic quality.  Something we audiophiles find hard to do.

Not sure who you are referring to with this statement. I was attending live musical performances before I became aware of the High End audio world. Quite honestly, the only purpose and reason for obtaining a high-quality audio component is to better appreciate the music I adore. It merely works as a conduit for that purpose.

I still attend live venues pretty regularly. 10 performances so far this year. So, the music itself, first and foremost. The audio equipment makes it possible to appreciate it whenever I’d like to in my home. Nothing more or nothing less. I am pretty certain I am not the only one here who feels this way and behaves this way.

Charles

Whether analog or digital, one must try to obtain the musical message first then accommodate the ears to the particular sonic quality. Something we audiophiles find hard to do.

Only then can we make a truly informed judgement on SQ

 

 

@lalitk +1, @david_tenYou nailed it 🖐️🎤 ⬇️

Agreed!  David, excellent observation and perspective.

Charles

@rok2id

I get where you coming from, the tactile experience of vinyl playback (starting from removing LP from shelf, admiring the exquisite art work and content, removing LP from jacket, the 5 step cleaning ritual before finally dropping the needle) all can be very fulfilling to many. That’s just one aspect of Vinyl playback, we have not even discussed the steps required to setup a turntable :-)

Now you can get most of aforementioned tactile experience from a top loading CD player and XRCD’s that features exquisite packaging and artwork. I use ahp Klangtuch IV cloth to wipe clean and remove any electrostatic charges on all of my CD’s before dropping them in my top loading Raysonic CD128 player.

The real 'problem' with CDs is that they take the 'audiophile' out of the process.  You put it in the tray, and that's the end of your involvement.  In all other ways concerning music reproduction, they are superior to LPs.  And any other format for that matter.

If only we could 'upgrade' the lasers, or had CD cleaning machines, or could see them spinning  etc etc.  there is nothing to fiddle with!!

Cheers

Another aspect I find interesting is the desire for and expectation of sameness / similarity.

Roughly one-third (to half) of the front end of each system type is radically different. For illustration, I get a significant difference in sound based on a single power cable swap. I’ve had cable adapters influence the sound of the system.

I expect that an analog system or a digital system will sound different...because they are actually and materially different.

“I tend to play my CDs when I’m in the kitchen cooking or entertaining friends because they are definitely more convenient, quicker and easier. I play my LPs when I can actually sit down in the living room and fully enjoy the music I want to hear.”

@oldaudiophile

I respect your preference/sentiments for Vinyl and for keeping an open mind. However, I can’t imagine anyone rushing back to pick up the stylus in the middle of cooking or a conversation so by design one must babysit Vinyl playback to enjoy 20 min or less playing time.

If you have vested the same amount of energy and efforts in Vinyl and Digital (CD or Streaming), both can be equally enjoyable. They may sound different but far from being inferior in comparison. 

far away from wanting to prove you wrong! I am just pointing out that digital would have to have a fundamental problem yet to be identified to be eternally inferior to vinyl.

@antigrunge2

let’s just say, digital won’t quite equal vinyl in my lifetime and i’ll go with that.

just follow the dollars, there is no economic driver causing digital to be improved right now enough to bridge that gap. god knows i've pushed my digital to the very outer reaches of performance.

i’m no techie knowing the future, i just listen and observe trends and cause and effect.

@mikelavigne 

far away from wanting to prove you wrong! I am just pointing out that digital would have to have a fundamental problem yet to be identified to be eternally inferior to vinyl.

Enjoy the music.

I enjoy listening to music because it evokes emotions. In my experience using my system the sound between analog and digital is very close and I can listen to either for hours. 
 

There are certain recordings I’ve compared analog to digital and when they are the same file it’s hard for me to distinguish the difference; however, I have noticed some recordings where I prefer the version and sometimes the version I have is LP and other times there’s a digital version that I prefer. 
 

Finally I often wound if my preference is based on the emotion evoked or remembered as a result of listening to the music. 

your postulate of asymptotical closing of the gap between vinyl and digital seems counterfactual: vinyl suffers from distortions simply not present in digital, e.g. tracking angle on conventional tone arms, warp and flutter depending on pressing quality, imperfect reconstruction of the RIAA curve in the analogue domain, tonearm, step-up and analogue cable distortions to name but a few. Admittedly harmonic distortions on vinyl are euphonic and therefore often preferred to the ‘cold glare’ of digital, that however doesn’t mean they aren’t distortions. I fully agree with @lalitk that digital needs lots of work and am well aware of your state of the art setup on both vinyl and digital.

@antigrunge2

i guess i’m cursed with this whole listening thing. i find the best possible digital and vinyl sources, develop my system to tell me the truth without compromise, then listen to both every day. and draw my conclusions.

all the rest is noise, obfuscation, and rhetoric.

you are welcome to join me anytime for listening and point out where i’m wrong. seems obvious. 

certainly there are good, better, best recordings too. so each digital and vinyl event has variables. the media is 'more' variable with vinyl. 

Here's another two cents' worth! Just couldn't resist!

There is a plethora of variables at play here, just as the respondents or contributors to this post have already pointed out, to boil this down to anything other than personal preference (e.g.  quality of system components, not the least of which are the TT, cartridge and phono stage; recordings themselves; sound engineering; mixing; recording studio equipment, mixing panel, microphones, microphone placement, etc.; vinyl soup mix used in any given stamping plant; not to mention quality control procedures employed, if any; quantity of LPs stamped from the Master Disc, not to mention processes involved making those discs; how LPs were and/or are cared for; acoustics, in general; personal audiology; etc.; etc.; ad infinitum).

All things being relatively and generally equal in this respect, my ears prefer good quality, well recorded LP albums to anything I've heard in the digital realm, thus far, including the best Digital Master CD recordings and high-resolution streaming I've done serious seat-time with on state-of-the-art systems in high-end audio shops, through Qobuz and other services. The highest quality digital sources I've heard come very close, for sure. However, my ears still prefer vinyl, so far. I keep saying "thus far" and "so far" because I want to keep an open mind about this, although I'm skeptical that digital can or will ever be able to match vinyl in this respect. It's just different. I simply do not understand the technology enough.

To my ears, anyway, it seems digital just can't capture the open, airy and quiet space(s) of whatever room, hall, recording studio or wherever the performances were recorded. It's as if that is homogenized out, if that makes any sense. I can't explain it any better than that. Seems paradoxical, I know. One cannot hear dead quiet silence. However, I'm convinced most people can feel it. I always find that sense of dead quiet silence or sense of spaciousness captured by the best vinyl recordings missing from even the best digital media. Again, this is just a personal preference. I'm not trying to start a food-fight here. Most times, I tend to play my CDs when I'm in the kitchen cooking or entertaining friends because they are definitely more convenient, quicker and easier. I play my LPs when I can actually sit down in the living room and fully enjoy the music I want to hear.

When I've compared good recordings of live performances I've attended, my ears always feel the vinyl renditions come a bit closer to the live event than the digital ones. Could there be an auditory neuroscience factor involved because I just simply grew up with vinyl? Hell, if I know! I'm not a scientist, but my ears know what they like.

With recent upgrades in streaming setup...still in evaluation phase, I'm finding both more and less uniformity in digital recordings. More in the sense I don't hear major differences between 16/44 and various degrees of up and over sampling. Less in the sense of I now have the ability to choose various music players, for instance Roon, HQPlayer, Stylus EP,  two machine or single machine streaming, and much, much more available from proprietary operating system that allows a variety of streamer settings.  Every single iteration has unique sound qualities to the point I've yet to determine a favorite, point being one can manipulate digital sound to have entirely unique sound qualities, love this about digital, although can be a pain at times!

 

I agree most of my best vinyl from 50's, 60's, analog became much less uniform once we come to the 70's, I always believed this due to solid state entry into recording studios and multi tracking. 50's, 60's mostly all tube equipment in studios, many recordings pretty much live in nice sounding recording studios.

 

With the recent streaming upgrades I've now been motivated to finally upgrade my analog setup, in midst of those upgrades with more planned. Made a decision I couldn't give up on vinyl, damn sound quality, even with lower resolution vs my digital is deserving of major upgrades to challenge my digital resolution.

 

Bottom line for me, both digital and analog capable of damn fine character.

@mikelavigne ,

your postulate of asymptotical closing of the gap between vinyl and digital seems counterfactual: vinyl suffers from distortions simply not present in digital, e.g. tracking angle on conventional tone arms, warp and flutter depending on pressing quality, imperfect reconstruction of the RIAA curve in the analogue domain, tonearm, step-up and analogue cable distortions to name but a few. Admittedly harmonic distortions on vinyl are euphonic and therefore often preferred to the ‘cold glare’ of digital, that however doesn’t mean they aren’t distortions. I fully agree with @lalitk that digital needs lots of work and am well aware of your state of the art setup on both vinyl and digital.

@lalitk 

+1, well said.

@millercarbon 

Welcome back!

Shouldn’t we compare recent releases of digital and vinyl rather than waxing lyrical about 70 year old recordings where the digital release is cheap and cheerful mastering because you otherwise can’t make money on it? Claiming outright superiority of vinyl givien fast progress on digital seems a bit outdated.

“As someone who is one hundred percent streaming digital there is one commonality that stands out to me about the thinking and approach towards digital from those I know who are fundamentally analog audiophiles:

That digital should be easy and deliver without much effort.

I find this especially surprising given the effort and years it has taken them to get to where they are in terms of sound quality and performance from their analog systems.

The second standout point, in my experience, is spending pennies on the dollar for digital when their budgets for the analog side of their systems are up there, way up there.

Digital takes effort and expense and experience. When executed correctly the results are stellar.”

+1, @david_ten

You nailed it 🖐️🎤 ⬇️

 

in a perfect world, digital should be close to ’of a piece’ with analog. in other words, you ought to be able to switch back and forth from digital to analog/vinyl or analog/vinyl to digital and while the analog/vinyl is farther down the road to suspension of disbelief, the digital is getting there less only by degrees.

digital is never getting all the way there, but.....it does not have to. digital brings us access to much more music, and ease of use. and so we can live with ’of a piece’ synergy with our analog.

and this is where i think i am in my digital and analog. and i am as much invested in my analog and my digital as anyone here.

i do respect that some don’t agree and see the chasm between digital and analog as much greater; they need to work on their digital. or at least recognize what digital can do at the tip top of the digital food chain.

There's a robust audio club here in the greater New Orleans area. Great group of guys. Fully analog; with some dipping their toes into digital. 

I've heard, maybe three dozen, vinyl systems. Two stand out and I'd love to transport those into one of my rooms. One is in Houston and the other just outside of New Orleans. If I had to choose, I'd take the Houston system over the local one but I'd be blessed to have either.

As someone who is one hundred percent streaming digital there is one commonality that stands out to me about the thinking and approach towards digital from those I know who are fundamentally analog audiophiles: 

That digital should be easy and deliver without much effort. 

I find this especially surprising given the effort and years it has taken them to get to where they are in terms of sound quality and performance from their analog systems.

The second standout point, in my experience, is spending pennies on the dollar for digital when their budgets for the analog side of their systems are up there, way up there.

Digital takes effort and expense and experience. When executed correctly the results are stellar.

In most digital v. vinyl discussions I've encountered, the burden of proof  seems to be on the digital side.  Seems to me, it should be the other way around.  Vinyl is subject to damage from dust, heat, and wear that do not affect digital. Turntable belts stretch, needles wear.  So a fair comparison should be under real-world conditions, between a moderately worn vinyl  record and a digital recording of the same performance, where both are played through electronic components of comparable quality.  And to be fair, really, the turntable and stylus should be compared after accruing some realistic amount of play time.  Prove that the moderately used vinyl, played on a moderately used turntable, with no history of herculean maintenance efforts, has no more audible noise (pops, static, skips, etc.) and just as much dynamic range as the digital recording of the same performance. If not, then convince us that the vinyl has other superior qualities to compensate for the audible noise.

Even if we're comparing pristine vinyl recordings to digital, I've never seen convincing evidence that the vinyl SQ  is superior.  By "convincing" I mean, supported by either (a) objective measurements, or (b) expert testimony.  Anything less is anecdotal.  Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's right.  It's your opinion.  But the fact remains, digital is far more convenient, it is not subject to wear and tear, and the majority of listeners seem to prefer it (rightly or wrongly, for reasons that may or may not emphasize SQ).  I have not listened to vinyl for many years, so I admit, maybe I'm missing something about the sound quality. But I know I don't miss the dust, the warping, the worn needles, the stretched belts, etc., or all the accompanying maintenance fuss.

Is that the sound of a dropped stylus on a platter or the sound a piano makes genuflecting in the forest?  : )

 

Yes, a very welcome back to you. I’m honored to be the venue for one of your initial posts.

 

Instead it was his wife that released a sigh of unexpected pleasure practically the instant the stylus touched down. The two reactions I would pay money to have recorded, that one and the other guys wife who when her husband wasn’t looking whispered to me, "I could listen to this all night!" In a tone of amazement, because her audiophile husband having only CD she never even imagined music on a high end system could sound like, you know, music.

The time honored unsolicited audiophile wife (Long suffering no doubt) comments as a prop for added/confirmed legitimacy. Still there remains the issue of them simply lacking the opportunity to have heard better quality digital sources for which to compare. So, very limited exposure/data base.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that both formats are quite music rendering accomplished if done right. Sigh!!!

Charles