2. analog
  3. 1279551421

When does analog compete with digital?

With vinyl becoming all the rage, many believe (perhaps mistakenly) that a budget of $1K will allow them to bring their analog front end up to par with their digital. I would like a reasoned assessment of this issue.

How much time, money, and expertise do you think is necessary before one can seriously claim that their analog front end can compete with their digital? What characteristics, if any, are simply incommensurable between these two mediums? Let's use my system as an example.

Personally, I tried to build an analog front-end that focused on texture/warmth (as opposed to dynamics), but I still feel as though something is missing. Trouble is, I can't quite put my finger on it. I'd be grateful for comments/suggestions (system in sig)
jferreir

Showing 2 responses by peterayer

peterayer
1,382 posts
 
I was just at RMAF and heard about thirty systems, half of which had both digital and analog sources. Though I never heard the same music in the same system in both formats, I can say that each time the vendor played both sources, I preferred the analog. And the difference was noticeable in both the weaker and stronger systems. The high rez files sounded closer than standard CDs.

The Walker and Dobbins tables were part of two very good sounding systems.
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
Mapman,

I can't answer that question or presume to know what motivates the vendors. I may be under the mistaken impression that vendors want visitors to leave with the best impression possible, regardless of source type.

The thread asks when do the two compete. They competed pretty clearly at RMAF. I personally preferred the analog systems in each case. However, I did not hear top SACD or files against top LPs for a comparison of the absolute best. I do think good analog is more expensive.
More to discover