Ok, here goes. First: what is the definition of 'better'? If the definition is 'most natural'(let the riots begin.... :)) analog will - never - beat digital, since analog adds more distortion, offers less dynamics and a more limited frequency responce then , say, SACD. If you define better as 'most listenable'..... well, that's a matter of taste, not of money. Yeah guys, I know there will be hundreds of you out there trying to kill me now, but I'll give you one example. When I worked as a sound-engineer, we once made some recordings of a barbershop-choir. We kept things as simple as possible: two B&K condenser-microphones high in the air (X-Y), fed them into a pre-amp, which had double outputs. One was fed into a Nagra reel-to-reel recorder and, as a back-up, into a domestic Sony DAT-recorder. No dubbing or whatever, just one take and then next song. The DAT beat the Nagra hands-on....... And then, almost all recordings nowadays are done digitally, so even the masters for all those 'audiophile vinyl pressings' are digital........
But I prefer the sound of my turntable over my cd-player most of the time, depending on the records.
But I prefer the sound of my turntable over my cd-player most of the time, depending on the records.