How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?

True atdavid. Nelson Pass admits to adding harmonic distortion to his units because "audiophiles just want to be happy." I prefer my bass a bit on the heavier side because I feel it makes things sound more live. If I turn my Sonos speakers on in the rest of the house it creates the effect of being in a much much larger room which with concert DVDs is a lot of fun. Accurate? What is accurate? Speakers are such defective devises, even the best ones, that there really is no accurate. In reality it is pleasing vs not pleasing and pleasing is a matter of taste. Yes, the really best systems always get big smiles because relatively few of us get to hear them under the best circumstance (not at a show). So when we do it is big wows. When it comes to evaluating these recordings a lot of issue give the impression of "better." In the case of the early Bowie recordings the remastered recordings are hugely better obviously because of the mastering. The digital versions are more dynamic and the bass is more up front. Dylan's Desire sounds better in vinyl because it is smoother and has more "air" in it. The digital version sounds harsh in contrast. As a rule vinyl versions in my system have more of that "air" effect which may be a euphoric quality of vinyl or my record playback system. Setting up a top notch vinyl playback system is not easy and it may be that the digital only group might have had a bad vinyl experience. The only excuse I can find for the vinyl only group is that they are a group of recalcitrant snobs:)
(that is a joke guys. Then again my mother use to say the truth comes out in jest)

Well.... great analog with great records does have a natural warmth. but if I’m honest, 90% of records sound like crap. Compressed, surface noise, lots of distortion, blah, blah.

Lots of digital sounds like crap too, but i find that on average i’m better off with digital. And digital recordings are getting better and better. Early on there were serious errors made, and the equipment was fussy (44/16 with brick wall filters and little overhead to miss level sets by). Today with great equipment and 24/192 much more slop is allowed.


I have posted before on this topic, so I’ll be brief. I believe that 90% of the problems in ANY sound are locked into the recording/mastering process, and maybe the actual pressing with Vinyl, since there is so much opportunity to f it up.


Take some great analog recordings that coexist in CD format - 3 examples I’ll sugegst are 1-ANY Mercury Living Presence; 2-"Ella and Louis" on Verve, and 3-"Andre Previn and friends perform West Side Story" (RCA Red Seal). Superb on both CD and LP, and very analog sounding CDs. And I’m talking red book CDs. While 192/24 may have practical value in the studio, we can get great sound out of 44/16 if everything int he chain is 100%.


I love great vinyl. I have a crazy obscure turntable and arm that i put countless hours into building and setting up. Its great, except that most records are crap. The vast majority of rock records are awful. yea the recordings are bad, and the masterings by deaf engineers or tuned for AM radio, but the vinyl makes it WORSE. There are great recordings - but many are old, or very costly specialty pressings, and rarely have the great performances i want. So most of my good sounding records are used or gulp - from my parents. Way too many recrords that sounded good once, after 100 playings (Born to run anyone?) are now awful, again. OK maybe i need to invest in a new copy, but there are 100 more i also need new copies of, and to get good ones, I’m back in specialty land. Contrast that with the Mercury remastered boxed sets I just bought - they are ALL good. And used too :-)


So, in the end, while i am sympathetic, on balance I disagree. Now many say i have fairly analog-y sounding digital. My DACs ( i have a small fleet) are mostly fairly old, and only one was super high end even when new. For the record, it comes in dead last in shoot outs.  But its also carefully selected, and heavily modified with home made PLLs and power supplies. Duh, i do this sort of thing, and this shoemaker’s son has shoes. prototype ugly shoes, but very comfy.


So concentrate on a) good recordings, b) less on cost more on quality. Pass on the snake oil. read, read, read! Listen, listen, listen. you’ll find stuff. or decide you just love records ad then be happy with them. I’m typically happiest when i have some new (to me) recording on, in another room, while I work, totally paying no attention to the hgih end stuff, and learning a new piece.


G

I listen to about as much digital as I do analogue, although I go through periods where I listen primarily to one or the other.  I'm VERY happy with the PS Audio Directstream and the most recent iteration of its FPGA programmed DAC.  It sounds less digital than anything else I've ever heard and is now on a par with the DCS products for far less money.

I find the complete opposite.  Digital systems say under $1500 sound much better than analog - at least vinyl.  But once you get over about $3K vinyl starts sounding better than equally priced digital.  

as asked the question is not answerable.

there are so many levels of analog that you can't really say. i have what many consider to be the very tip top, bleeding edge of digital performance. yet, my best vinyl or tape easily surpasses it.

however; at more modest levels of analog there are cases to be made that digital can somewhat go head to head.

if you want to really understand where digital comes up short consider the limitations of digital recording, read this Stereophile interview from 1995 with the principles of Pacific Microsonics. especially read toward the bottom of the first page. you might think you know as much about music recording as these guys, but......you don't.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/hdcd-keith-johnson-pflash-pflaumer-michael-ritter