Worth pursuing analog sound from digital?

Analog isn't the only thing, I would never get rid of my digital.

Digital can be enjoyable, even involving, terrific, however:

Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is.

Analog is definitely higher noise, but, higher involvement, go figure. 

I sum it up: Analog gets the overtones right, something digital loses along the way, despite the incredible sampling rates, ........

Track selection, replay, play lists, FREE, EASY: digital's the answer,

Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP, (and Reel to Reel, 8 track, cassette, ...)

New LPs, or Used LP's in great shape sound terrific, any minimal noise disappears within the achieved involvement.

Old LP's, with their dust, scratches, clicks, pops, you won't play them, except to remember something.

Before CD, we trained our brains to filter out noise, hear the content. Noiseless forever digital was a dream, but turned out to be less than nirvana. We had to re-acquire the ability to filter the noise inherent in Analog, then, back to more immersive involvement.

R2R, TT, they need/take prime surface to operate them, and the content takes space. And $ to acquire content. R2R, TT, both systems require acquired skills to get their high potential. 

And, let me add, amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is,

so

IF Analog LP, then Analog Tube Amps, therefore, start with efficient speakers so that power requirements are reduced.

cleeds2,434 posts09-11-2019 1:41pmelliottbnewcombjr

Digital is a broken chain, no matter how many links, how much you polish those broken links, Digital will/can NEVER be the unbroken chain analog is.

It isn't clear what you mean here. Digital isn't perfect - and neither is analog - but neither represent a "broken chain." Of course, some people believe that digital data is missing because of sampling rates (which is false, as long as Nyquist is observed) or that the LP has infinite resolution (which is false, or you could install Windows on it).
.......................

ah, I used wrong terms, how about this: analog is unbroken ribbon, digital is an assembled chain.

mouth, mic, lp cutter = unbroken ribbon. mouth, mic, tape = unbroken ribbon. lp groove, stylus, phono eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. tape, tape eq, amp, speaker = copy of an unbroken ribbon. 

digital is bits, assembled into a chain, no matter how many, how manipulated, how quiet, .... 

after some 45 years, my simple summation is:  analog has unbroken overtones in perfect timing, relative strengths, decay strength, ....

Analog is definitely higher noise ...

Often true, but no inherently so. It depends on the analog recording and the digital recording to which it's being compared.

Experiencing the Artist's conceived presentation of their chosen play list, in the order presented, is a part of LP ...

And of CD, too.

... amplification, it's the same, transistors were the instant on, less heat, more affordable dream, again, just not nirvana, not Analog like tube amplification is ...

Again, it isn't clear what you mean here. Solid state amplifiers for hi-fi use are certainly analog.

....................................

yeah, I am wrong about that, audio transistor amps are analog, thanks for catching that.

given analog source, why do I prefer tubes to digital amplification?


they say tubes include warm distortion, whatever it is, given great speakers (high efficiency for tubes), properly matched to the listening space, both sound great.

When I do comparison testing, i.e. Sgt Peppers, CD; LP; R2R tape, I, and everyone, pick LP over CD, and Tape over LP, and, without fail, my 30 watt tube amps over my 300 wpc SS McIntosh. 

The LP has more noise than the CD, the Tape has more noise than the LP, yet 

mijostyn

re: personal involvement in results is a part of LP preference I agree.

In the beginning, CD players were prohibitively expensive, acquired by people likely to already have excellent TT and acquired cartridge alignment skills.

Those skills, bit by bit (hah, that's a digital process)) steadily improved their existing LP sound. (and R2R as Tape was also a rich mans game).

CD took away all personal involvement in the results, 'threw away' the years of acquired skills. 

Also, early CD's were conversions of old analog masters. Incredibly, (I read somewhere back then) some LP masters, having 1st stage phono eq, were converted without 2nd stage Phono EQ. The complaint of harshness was true because those digital copies had exaggerated highs and cut bass. 

A switching DAC, alternating left/right processing was less desirable than dual Burr-Brown dacs. more bits, 1 bit, less jitter, OMG, green stripes on the outer edge of CD's, the string of what could be 'improved' was longer than the list of what is wrong with the entire LP chain.

Except for the green stripes, and placing barbell weights on top of your CD player, personal involvement was/is still missing.

rauliruegas9

Let me say this about accurate.

First, I never said anything about accurate, analog or CD, and I did say Digital can be involving.

Your list of LP chain of distortions is phenomenal, OMG, thanks for that, I mean it.

How do we not hate LP after hearing accurate digital?

How can many of us find severely compromised LP 'more involving' than accurate and admittedly involving CD?

My answer, after 45 years of paying attention, by instinct (no evidence I know of), is analog's reproduction of overtones is somehow better than digital's, and somehow our brains perceive the difference.

My most accurate speakers were JSE Infinite Slope Model 2's. Measured and positioned using professional sound meter in my listening space, via acoustic designer, I moved my big efficient horns/15" woofers elsewhere and listened to accurate noiseless CD's and those accurate speakers via accurate McIntosh SS 300wpc amp for a few years.

I decided to move the horns/15" woofers back, Oh Happy Day, preferred them. Then, because they are so efficient, I moved my 30 wpc tube mono blocks back in. Oh Happy Day.

Then I resurrected my Thorens/SME/Shure MR back in. New LP's sounded terrific, more involving. Older LP's, too much obvious noise. I had to re-acquire my brain's ability to filter the noise to be immersed within those noisy LP's. Of course new LP's, especially ones recorded by people who knew what they were doing are preferred.

Gave the JSE's to my son, he came of musical age during the period of their use, he loves them.

Thorens 124 bearing's weakness was bass transferred from my springy floor (split level built in 1951), so I sold it, got a modern digital drive TT, it sounds terrific, as good as the Thorens/SME without the floor vibration transference problem.

And, here we are, advising OP, many of us who love LP's, that he will do better with TT/LP's than digital, IF, as he says, he desires the elusive 'LP Sound'.

OP mentioned digital mid-range preference, but like you, I suspect that is a speaker/room interaction issue unrelated to Analog or Digital.

Analog is wrong but I prefer it!