Have digital players improved


Anyone else notice that the last five years or so digital players have improved to a point where there equal to analog and without all the fiddle f---ing of the latter. It hasn't been simple or easy or inexpensive but it's been rewarding.
tmsorosk
They have improved. I would not say equal to analog. Digital and analog just sound different to me but both are very satisfying
I'm not sure digital has improved over the past 5 years. Computer-based digital aside, it looks pretty much the same to me as it did 5 years ago. As far as having to "fiddle f'g" with analog, once a player is competently installed in your home, it's really pretty easy. Just put the record on, clean the needle and play. Almost as easy as CDs - really. Of course if you're one of those people who are constantly obsessed with futzing around with the record player and living in constant dread that something is amiss - you're defintely better off with a nice CD player.
sorry, in my experience digital is not the equal of well sorted analog. I have a hard time dealing with the compressed nature of the sound stage and lack of air around voices and instruments that analog excels with and digital fall short.
Simple answer is yes!
With my Ayre CX-7e(mp) running balanced into any Ayre AX-7e, I'm at the point where I don't care. Bring on the music.
It's ironic that digital has vastly improved in recent years yet the quality of mainstream digital recordings continue to suffer. So many artists and labels have jumped on the pointless "loudness wars" bandwagon that it's impossible to count.
Rockitman,,, Nice system, nice system link, thanks for inviting us into your room.
But by looking a your great analog rig and not seeing a CD player, I'm wondering if you had spent the same time and money on both formats that you might see things differently. I didn't take digital very serious until I spent considerable time and money making things just right. Now all I can say for sure is there different, I can't honestly say one is better than the other.
What are the pros and cons of each? Remind us, esp those of us who have never used analog.
Replaced my 1998 cdp in 2010, it embarassed the one it replaced, as it should. In 2011 sold it for a different one with newer technology and its better yet. Either they're getting better or my standards are getting lower.
I have put a lot of time and expense into my digital, and it sounds really nice and musical. Better than I ever thought digital would ever sound. If I didn't have records, I would probably think it sounds as good as it gets.

That being said, my vinyl beats it quite easily. My VPI table sounds like some kind of Super DAC in comparison. I listen to 16/44 digital, and it just doesn't have the resolution to put my brain "over the edge" the way records can. Maybe higher-res digital will be the answer but I have not gone there yet.
Tmorosk, I see you are still dreaming. This type of discussion is soooooooooo old, you replied in another thread approx a year ago and nothing still has changed. Well maybe your set-up.

I personally have taken digital seriously, having many of the worlds leaders within my system and still vinyl is by far my preference.

I agree with Rockitman's reply saying;

12-27-11: Rockitman
sorry, in my experience digital is not the equal of well sorted analog. I have a hard time dealing with the compressed nature of the sound stage and lack of air around voices and instruments that analog excels with and digital fall short.

I could add to it but why, this topic has been beaten to death and I wonder why the MODERATORS even approve such a new thread.

Please delete it already.

For you who feel there is no differnce please just keep spinning those shinny disc and just enjoy!, far less competetion in getting records.

My red-book:
MBL 1621a transport (List $28K)
AA Ref tube dac (List $13K)
Stealth Sextet AES digital cable between the two.
improvements in sound are highly subjective.

i prefer some older digital gear to many of today's digital products.

so i would say, it's a matter of opinion and one's criteria of what good sound is.
Digital is improving rapidly and it will continue to improve for years to come. It seems some people don't like that.
As usual those who prefer vinyl will defend it as best and then act offended as if their opinion is what counts and is the only legitimate position. It is like how dare you even question the supremacy of vinyl, it's like questioning evolution. Vinyl is very good if well recorded. So is digital. They both sound bad if they aren't well recorded. However, in order to say vinyl is the best sounding format don't you have to also believe we have made no technological advances in recorded music in 50 years? Its like saying propeller aircraft are better than jets. I happily enjoy both while also loving the convenience and portability digital is capable of.
My Electrocompaniet EMC-1Up is still the best player I've heard for $2.5K used.
I'm on my 2nd one, this one has the spider clamp.
Maybe it's lasted because it's oversampling sounds so good, to me.
I'm too lazy to play LPs anymore. I admit it!
I sold my SOTA turntable years ago.
This is my Jet, and I won't own a source without a remote control.
What an excellent analogy!
I still use an Adcom Da converter.
I bought and returned a Stereophile raved over 'class "A" DAC (in 2010) which after exhaustive comparisons, was no better than the old Adcom.
I do have the Adcom stuffed with antistatic foam, and via high quality power conditioning.
I have to say I was VERY disappointed with the new $2,200 DAC.
I returned it for a refund.
This is my experience.
I would probably have to spend a Hell of a lot more than two grand to do better.

Though I finally can say my SCD777ES (with my current system bits) is slightly better with CD straight through it's own converters, better than my Adcom with the Sony as transport.
Rockitman,,, Nice system, nice system link, thanks for inviting us into your room.
But by looking a your great analog rig and not seeing a CD player, I'm wondering if you had spent the same time and money on both formats that you might see things differently.

I have a memory transport, not a cd player. It plays up to 24/192 wav files burned on DVD-R... The PS Audio Perfect Wav System. While I have not spent nearly as much as on my analog rig, the PS Audio holds it's own as being one of the better digital playback system's available at any price. There are some great digital recordings. In the end though, my analog setup best's it by a good margin for delivering musical reality.
Wildoats, I do not agree with with several points made in your posting and you must being speaking for your self when you refer to "act offended as if their opinion is what counts and is the only legitimate position" blah! blah!

All one has to do is read some of your past posting and see such along with what you are comparing and say you prefer your red-book, please!

These posting are sooooooo boring and as I have already posted have been going on for years so just read them, why do you need to start up another one, you guys need to just keep on dreaming.

I laugh when I read postings such as yours in responce with your snarky additude switching things arround because such remarks really just demonstrates you are the one feeling this way and suggesting others but your self have an opinion.

My thoughts are you just have not heard such so keep spinning those disc and do enjoy!

I would put my red-book combo up against any posters on this thread as I have heard most and sorry I feel non are in the same league.

That's my opinion and I'm not trying to defend anything nor do I feel offended.

Then I would put on the same vinyl pce already listened to on my RED-BOOK and it's game over I preffer and don't and haven't had one person listen whom differed. Doesn't matter if you are exsperienced or not, it's so blatantly obvious.

In the end I'm after listening and so are you and others so do enjoy!

Merry Christmas! Happy Holiday! and New Year!
OKYDOKY Dev
It's a common high-end condition. If the rest of the world still preferred vinyl, every high end system here would be 100% digital. And CDs would cost 100 dollars each. And be very hard to find. The main thing is to be different, exclusive, to be one of the chosen few. Besides, you have to do a lot of stuff to play a record, that hands on, I'm part of the process feeling.
I'm not claiming one format is better than the other but I see many music lovers preferring one over the other. Both formats have there virtues and anyone that feels one is superior to the other in every way has not been exposed to enough of both.
Anyone else notice that whenever there is a post such as this, it seems the analog loving folks stop by to say their format is the only one worth hearing. If their that narrow minded why are they trolling the digital site's. I like both, what's their hangup.
one can make the case that components of the 60's through the 80's, when configured sound better than today's better stereo system.

the point is "better" sonically is highly subjective.
I've recently been listening to a John Scofield recording called "A Moment's Peace" using an upsampling DAC (CD ripped to computer using a lossless format). It sounds amazing...stunning. Also recently been listening to an LP of Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debbie" on my Linn...also sounds amazing...stunning. I win.
Mr. T , better IS subjective, but wow, " components from the 60's through the 80's when configured sound better than todays better stereo system's ". I don't know what equipment you've used to draw that conclusion. I've been changing and upgrading since 1972 and with each newer component the sound quality Improves, in my opinion. This outlook gets driven home when I reinstall one of my older highly rated components into my system just to reminisce old times. This is fun and entertaining for audiophile/music loving friends that are over for a visit, but after a short while we are ready to go back to my newer, more accurate gear. To each his own.
Regards Tim
Tmsorosk, your thread above and comments made saying;

"Both formats have there virtues and anyone that feels one is superior to the other in every way has not been exposed to enough of both."

Now that's misleading to others reading and a joke! I do agree they are different but the rest you wrote clearly demonstrates you are the one not exposed to enough or just can't hear the difference or just prefer disc which is okay.

and when you wrote;

"If their that narrow minded why are they trolling the digital site's."

This statement is just stupid and clearly demonstrats your true colors.

Kindly enlighten us by providing a list of what you feel are your top 3 prefered red-book players and a list of your prefered 3 tables with arm/cart combo's you have owned or had in your own system comparing these two formats to come to the conclusion you speak of.

This should be entertaining.

Tmsorosk, I found the following thread posted by you so others can read, speaks volumns for it's self showing your true colors.

06-10-11: Tmsorosk

Since vinylphiles continually cruise the digital site with there one sided opinions telling all that analog is so much better , I thought I would come over here and tell everyone how inferior analog is . I trashed my vinyl years ago and have been happy ever since .
Digital rules .
Tmsorosk
I never never go back to see what members have posted in the past on another forum. That seems not right to me. The discussion at hand is the one right in front of you. Statements stand on their own merit. This is not a gotcha thingy.
Rok2id, are you for real? That's your problem then isn't, I call a spade when I see it.

The OP firstly starts this new thread that is so boring and old, all one needs to do is do a search as there are endless ones but then goes onto make some bold statements saying;

"I'm not claiming one format is better than the other"

and says;

"If their that narrow minded why are they trolling the digital site's. I like both, what's their hangup."

this same person just few months ago whom makes it a point to onto a anolog forum on this site and posts;

06-10-11: Tmsorosk

Since vinylphiles continually cruise the digital site with there one sided opinions telling all that analog is so much better , I thought I would come over here and tell everyone how inferior analog is . I trashed my vinyl years ago and have been happy ever since .
Digital rules .
Tmsorosk

what do you call that ..... and then you post and this all coming from someone who posted

12-30-11: Rok2id

Surely this is not 'breaking news' I got out of vinyl as soon as the first CD players appeared. What took you so long?

Rok2id

Please, you guys must be twins.

Like I said above enjoy what ever it may be but when I see such postings and others will be reading I feel it's important for such to adressed, if you don't like it too bad move on and don't post.
That this forum needs is just a little more civility.
Rok2id, I believe the forums all and all are very civil but unfortuantely posts can and do set a tone as you are not having a actual conversation verbally.

There is nothing wrong with a discussion and individuals having differences but when I read a thread that has been beaten to death over the years along with reading nonsence and individuals showing lack of consistancy or backing up what they write is just plain annoying.

I enjoy learning and this thread isn't providing anything.

Happy New Years to all!

Dev, iv'e owned many fine analog rigs in the past and am exposed to analog regularly do to my involvement with a local audio club, in fact thats all there was except AM radio for many years before the evil days of early digital came along, so I've heard more LP's in my life than I can hazard to guess and some of the system's i've been exposed to recently are in the stratospheric price range .
I guess now is when your going to tell me they were all setup wrong.
You haven't answered the question about why you troll the digital sites?
Tmsosk, that's not a answer, who cares what you have listened to in other set-ups. That's just an easy cop out and clearly demonstrats your lack of credibility.

I see you are not answering my question so I'll ask again;

"Kindly enlighten us by providing a list of what you feel are your top 3 prefered red-book players and a list of your prefered 3 tables with arm/cart combo's you have owned or had in your own system comparing these two formats to come to the conclusion you speak of."

What red-book player are you using currently? Arc Ref8?

Tmsorosk wrote;

"You haven't answered the question about why you troll the digital sites?"

You never asked me a question, firstly you are the troll and your thread posting clearly demonstrates such, you sure can push those keys but try reading some time and you will find your answer in my above responces.

hi tim:

for the record the sound i most preferred was the following system:

stacked quad esls, 4 quad mono tube amps, mac c22 pre, thorens td 124 table, with ortofon cartridge and arm.

i have heard many systems since 1966, when i owned the above, and none have i liked as much as what i owned back in 1967.

of course, tha's just my opinion.

personally, as i have often said stacked esls are my favorite sspeaker.
Yes. Is the short answer. The ones I have tried are more natural, focused & cleaner than earlier versions. Not forgetting the ability to play higher sample rates.
In my personal opinion, both vinyl and digital have greatly improved. Most week nights I listen to a music server and have used highly modified Oppos. With the Apple remote, I can just touch an album or play list and have it play. I get a very real sound stage and dynamic with great bass and top end extension. Were I to not have a vinyl system I would be very happy. What do I prefer about my vinyl system, simply realism! Have I always had it? No! I have a fine tt, a Bergman Sindre and the Ortofon A-90 cartridge, but when I got the BMC MCCI phono stage I was just dumbfounded with what I heard. Do I get tired of changing records? Yes. Life is not a picnic.
Wolf Garcia said it best earlier, brilliantly using artistic metaphor...that guy is so interesting. Again, I add that I find a nice turntable rig is the only way to play LPs that haven't been turned into digital files (I suppose I could do that but it seems like a pain in the ass). The ONLY WAY as they won't fit in a CD drawer and without a turntable they're merely large cardboard and vinyl objects on a shelf.

Also, dear "Goners", please learn the proper use of and differences between "they're", "their", and "there" so as to make yourself at least SEEM a little smarter, and to make the world a better place.
Wolf_garcia, you might add confusing here with hear, weather with whether, and not using the subjunctive correctly. It is "if I were to guess," not "if I was to guess." It is not a matter of seeming smarter, it is communicating.
I think digital has risen to the level of analog as long as it is a well sorted out system.

I grew up with tubes and turntables for the better part of my life and hated CDs when they first came out. Now it's all nostalgia for me and nothing more.

Yes, I can hear the difference from out in a hall as to whether of not a TT or CDP is playing but I think that is due to my memory being able to sort it out and it is nothing more than a romantic notion that compels me to listen. Even TVs were tubed in my days and that adds a lot of conditioning to what I thought was accurate sound. Being conditioned so makes me prefer, at first, analog to digital, but what I perceive to be the more accurate is digital.

I'm even willing to state that what I hear from a TT, though great sounding, is ever so slightly off the mark in terms of accuracy, like an overly warm tube would be in an amp: romantic at first blush but not accurate.

Its been a long time since I've heard a good TT rig but from what I remember, there is that instant background noise floor that comes across as dark grey instead of black and now that my ears are used to the silence between notes from a digital source, a TT is just that more noisy as to be noticeable so as to be a distraction. And, like tubes, if one were to change out an arm or cartridge there is an immediate difference that most anyone could tell which begs the question: where is/was the accuracy that is so highly touted?

If one can change the nature of playback by changing a cartridge (or tube) then the accuracy question is not really a question but is nothing more than a flavor or coloring that one prefers for the moment. And that I can do without.

I only say this from how I prefer to listen and not as any kind of knock on those who love the sound of TTs. This is nothing more than a rationalization of my listening preferences, in response the OPs question.

All the best,
Nonoise
It's fruitless to say one is better than the other.

They are different and always will be different.

IMO digital has made greater advances in the last 10 years than vinyl has in the last 20 years.

But if forced to live with only one, I'll take my records.

YMMV
It's about at least SEEMING smarter. Actually being smarter is something else altogether.
And learn the proper use of "your" and "you're".
Well said Nonoise , both formats have there virtues, it's just a matter of which one we each prefer. There's a few here that just don't seem to see or respect that, and continue to troll the digital sites looking for a fight.
It's fruitless for there not to be fruit.
Audiofeil, hopefully we will not have to choose. Whether it's the source, the type of amplification the style of speaker, we all have something we prefer, that's what keeps this hobby going. When I visit audiophile friends and club members and listen to music it's not the means only the results that seem important. We just enjoy what others have assembled and revel in the experience. Our audio club is made up of some very nice people, we all respect what others like and enjoy.
Tim