When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Guido, I am not trying to defend my product or the fact that Mmaksahk is a beginner (we all started learning at some point in time) but will have to say that, according to the "Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy", Earth MKII was much better. :) So there is “a lot more and even better fish”. :)

Nilthepill, there is no upsampling in this particular design based on Denon 3910. This cheaper all-solid-state re-design was intended to be more affordable due to many requests that Brent Rainwater (APL Hi-Fi CSM) and I have received.

Mmakshak, it is very good to hear how much you like this Denon 3910 version, especially compared to your vinyl rig. To be honest, I have never been a big vinyl fan, but you're perfectly correct - besides all of its imperfections, the vinyl offers audio quality reference comparable to the original master tape. Why? Well, vinyl is pure analog. :) Sadly, just like digital, we are still limited to the actual vinyl recording quality (regardless of the year it was released).

Regards,
Alex

Alex, I appreciate your defense of me, and I owe you many gifts for your Denon 3910. I have to say, though, that my 1981 and earlier lp's recommendation is based on listening, though.

I'm not completely sure that the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 still costs $2,500. I read on Alex's site that the base Denon 3910(from Denon) has gone up in price. I now listen to cd instead of lp. I've started another thread on Audiogon, "I've found the cd player for analog lovers"(or something like that). My analog system now needs tweaking to become another source(I have 2,000 lp's and 5 cd's-with access to many more cd's). My analog sounds darker(tracking force? At least that's where I'll start.). I just can't believe how this APL 3910 went from something I didn't listen to much(but was needed to access recordings made after 1981) to something that I listen to exclusively. I have some explanations, but this current APL really turned my thinking around. Currently, I think that analog may too easily be colored(if anything is off), and, what I thought was inherent in digital, really isn't. The irritating highs are gone. For example, we played the Beatle's White album in cd and lp. My friend, and I both preferred the vinyl. After he left, I slightly turned down the volume on the cd, and the cd beat the vinyl. I couldn't believe it! I now am wondering about the amount of information with digital. For instance, I had both the cd and XRCD of the Eagles', "Hell Freezes Over". The XRCD had much more detail. It may have included more of the Hall sound. I don't even know what XRCD is, really.

Apparently, XRCD is a better mastering process but has no differences from redboook.

I think that there is much more going on than we think(with apologies to those that have pointed this out in this thread). I just bought 38 cd's for $38. I played a few cuts from each(almost), then I got to Earl Klugh's, "Life Stories". At the back of the cd it said, "The music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape." Well, guess what guys, when I played this cd, it was instant relaxation. Isn't music supposed to relax you? I guess I'm confused. I understand that the digital recording process is not the problem. At least, I've heard cd's from analog turntables, and I've heard cd's(like this one)derived from analog tape, and they are both relaxing like analog. But some cd's aren't relaxing. I think that we need more clarification here. What we have is a cd maker apologizing for maybe lost information, but not understanding how relaxing their own cd is. Is there something wrong with that equation?