Have you ever heard a digital recording meet or exceed an analog recording?

[Brian Walsh]

Hi Fish,

It's obvious no one is going to convince you that better digital means better sound or that a digital source can be as musically involving as an LP.

Fine with me because this is like pounding sand.

I will make one last comment. My Cary does upsample in the analogue and digital domaine. To my ears, there is an audible increase in detail once you find the correct upsampling settings for both. If you haven't heard the player, you can't substantiate your statement.

Have fun with your black pizzas and I'll have fun with my CD's.

Same comment (first paragraph) to Mr. Walsh.

IMO, these types of discussions are inevitably useless.

Bye.

GG

Gordon, the digital reference here has several upsampling and oversampling modes which can be selected on the fly to suit the recording and one's taste. I generally prefer one of the non-upsampling, non-oversampling modes it provides.

That said, as good as the digital is, the reference analog sources here simply sound more real. Vanishingly low noise, dynamic range and tone that must be experienced.

I agree that these discussions are of limited use. The best way to make informed choices is to go hear the stuff.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Brian,

I respect your observation and appreciate the feedback.

My issues with analogue playback are many and I won't dwell. For me, a good quality CDP on a good system can offer much within the context of musicality and emotional immersion.

I have listened quite extensively to the various upsampling iterations that I have available on my Cary and prefer the upsampled sound with the settings that I currently use. I have also read a number of reviews that are consistent with your position.

I may be wrong but my sense is that the cost to achieve that "analogue magic" is quite significant.

As a point of interest, I'm curious as to what you have for hardware for both mediums, and cost thereof.

Best,

Gordon

 

[FISH_MAN]

after some more thought

I will never compare cd's "digital" to "vynil" analog again! this comparison only leads to upset and fighting. the preface of the original thread was to see if we had ever heard a digital recording meet or exceed an analog one how can this ever be determined? it is impossible.this is an argument of preference and taste not of which is "better".I believe the truth is that each format is just a reproduction of the original recording anyway. they each have their positives and negatives .each one is an entirely different technology separated by many years and much history it just so happens that both technologies can be integrated into our systems this leads us to believe that we can compare them.I will always listen to both although now my preference is with the analog it just happens to have more of the positive attributes that I prefer.

 

[amey01]

As far as I'm concerned, the simple fact that this topic generates such empathetic enthusiasm is pure proof enough that it is worth talking about. Both sides *must* be on the right track or neither would be so passionate. Just enjoy it!!

 

[FISH_MAN]

As far as I'm concerned, the simple fact that this topic generates such empathetic enthusiasm is pure proof enough that it is worth talking about. Both sides *must* be on the right track or neither would be so passionate. Just enjoy it!!

things began to sink a bit low in my opinion

 

[amey01]

things began to sink a bit low in my opinion

You're probably right.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Fish,

I agree with your last post. See Post No. 3.

GG

 

[Brian Walsh]

I may be wrong but my sense is that the cost to achieve that "analogue magic" is quite significant.

As a point of interest, I'm curious as to what you have for hardware for both mediums, and cost thereof.

Digital is AMR, analog is Kuzma and/or Feickert with Shelter. Specifics can be deduced by visiting my website or contacting me offline. Comparisons can be made using the least expensive analog rig. With the more costly analog setups the differences are more pronounced. That said, the digital is the least 'digital' sounding I've heard and bears comparison to anything else available.

 

[User211]

so I basically I have to spend like $28,000.00 on a CD player to get the best of both worlds is that what you are telling me? I thought to a certain degree the whole idea the digital format was created was to allow high quality playback without the need for ridiculously expensive equipment.the idea of that player seems counter intuitive to me I sure would like to hear one of these !!!! sure looks cool tonepub

http://whathifi.com/Review/Cyrus-CD-6-SE/

Not according to What Hi-FI? All you need is a Cyrus CD6 SE - which is very nearly as good as a 555 for £800 - according to them. Question is, do you believe it?

 

[RichTeer]

http://whathifi.com/Review/Cyrus-CD-6-SE/

Not according to What Hi-FI? All you need is a Cyrus CD6 SE - which is very nearly as good as a 555 for £800 - according to them. Question is, do you believe it?

Knowing what I know about that mag--assuming it hasn't changed much in the last 10 years--no, I don't believe it!

 

[User211]

That's funny - nor do I. Cyrus kit is OK, though - and although I used to own some - amp and tuner, it really just isn't great.

I never buy the mag - they say silly things in it. I just saw this mentioned in a UK forum...

 

[rasmaudio]

Reference HRx Recordings

Haven't been to this corner of the site yet. For the record, I am too lazy (and busy) to get analog equipment and I don't have the space for it at this time. But I am interested in your honest opinions. If so, which recordings? Anything non-SACD?


Not trying to make this another analog vs. digital confrontation, but just looking for facts and experiences.

Reference HRx Recordings are the best in the world!!!!!!
176.4 kHz, 24 bit
Better than vinyl in many ways!!!

These recordings can not be played on cd players. These are DVD-R data discs that contain high bit-rate wave files that can be played on computer-based music servers or a few speciality players. PS Audio's Perfectwave System is one of the best. The transport reads everything on the optical disc and places the digital audio data into a 64mB memory. When playing back one never listens to the recording from the disc, but from the digital memory. ( The result is absolutely astonishing. ) Dynamic range, low level detail with no noise, spaciousness, imaging. etc. One is listening to master recordings of great orchestral performances that are breathtaking!!!!

 

[Tj Bassi]

Are all of the HRx discs new recordings done in the digital realm, or are some of them re-mastered from older analog media?

Tj

 

[David Matz]

I spent some time with the dCS Scarlatti stack since I started this post. It takes the best virtues of vinyl and adds the advantages of digital to that.
People can have their vinyl and its hassles. There is no better sound than the Scarlatti in the world.

The only problem is that it is $80K, and I can't afford it now. 4 or 5 years from now, this will trickle down to their lower models.

 

[David Matz]

Reference HRx Recordings are the best in the world!!!!!!
176.4 kHz, 24 bit
Better than vinyl in many ways!!!

These recordings can not be played on cd players. These are DVD-R data discs that contain high bit-rate wave files that can be played on computer-based music servers or a few speciality players. PS Audio's Perfectwave System is one of the best. The transport reads everything on the optical disc and places the digital audio data into a 64mB memory. When playing back one never listens to the recording from the disc, but from the digital memory. ( The result is absolutely astonishing. ) Dynamic range, low level detail with no noise, spaciousness, imaging. etc. One is listening to master recordings of great orchestral performances that are breathtaking!!!!View attachment 13444

Yes, thank you. I know where you are coming from. I am looking to get a great DAC.

 

[amey01]

There is no better sound than the Scarlatti in the world.

You really think? I haven't heard it. With what as source? DSD, 24/192 or redbook?

It is hugely expensive!

 

[Bernard]

I spent some time with the dCS Scarlatti stack since I started this post. It takes the best virtues of vinyl and adds the advantages of digital to that.
People can have their vinyl and its hassles. There is no better sound than the Scarlatti in the world.

The only problem is that it is $80K, and I can't afford it now. 4 or 5 years from now, this will trickle down to their lower models.

Their Debussy DAC recently got a good review in TAS. It is more "affordable" - $25K IIRC.

 

[David Matz]

You really think? I haven't heard it. With what as source? DSD, 24/192 or redbook?

It is hugely expensive!

The thing is just magical. All CDs sound so natural, even very old ones. The glare, the poor highs, and all of the weaknesses of digital just go away. With well recorded SACD's it is even further out of this world - like sitting on the musicians lap. The thing is dead quiet. The microdynamics and intricacies of human emotion just come through like nothing else. When I listen to vinyl, I have a hard time suspending disbelief - I am aware that I am listening to a record. (Yes, I am aware, others feel the same about CDs.) But when I was listening to any and all redbook CDs on the Scarlatti, my jaw was dropped for 4-5 hours that I spent with it.

The problem is that you need all 4 boxes to make it sound that good. As soon as you start taking out the boxes such as the Clock or the Upsampler out of the chain, the Scarlatti loses its essence and starts to sound like their $20K Puccini cd player. In comparison to the 4 box Scarlatti, the Puccini sounds like an 1980's Sony alarm clock in my bedroom. Of course on its own, the Puccini is a quite impressive cd player. I wish I never listened to the Scarlatti. Maybe when I am very, very old...

Happy Australia Day (belated)! I have been staying very, very late into the night to watch the Australian Open. If I can ever find 3 weeks to visit in January, there is no other place I would prefer to visit. I hope you are having good summer and the floods have not touched you or your family much.

 

[David Matz]

Their Debussy DAC recently got a good review in TAS. It is more "affordable" - $25K IIRC.

Thanks, Bernard. Yes, Fremer of Stereophile recently reviewed it very favorably also, and the review is posted on the Stereophile site, if you are interested.

I have heard it. It is definitely better than my Ayre C5 MP. It is more quiet, more dynamic, and much more three dimensional. And not everything that costs double than the Ayre is better. The Ayre is really a GREAT player - a lot of cd players costing more just present a different flavor.

But again, I compared the Debussy to the Scarlatti, and it sounded veiled and muffled, like my old Sony alarm clock. Guys who have heard the 4 box, $60K Paganini stack compared to the Scarlatti feel the same way. I think dCS sales people should not let their other products into the same room with the Scarlatti.

In the US, the Debussy is $12 or $13K. For that money, the Playback Designs player is better, to my ears. It's SACD playback is supposed to be very close to the Scarlatti, per Michael Fremer who reviewed both, and bought the Playback Designs review sample.

 

[Tj Bassi]

Anyone here download from HDTracks? Some of their 96/24 offerings sound fantastic. Not on my ML setup though, as my digital front end wont play a DVD-A disc

Not sure what to do about that. CAP, help me out (another Krell KPS25s guy).

Tj