The muddy waters of Analogue vs. digital today

I also enjoy music on all kinds of formats and systems. In my bedroom I have an old Tivoli radio/receiver with a CD player (very inexpensive), small subwoover, and extra speaker for stereo. It is about as inexpensive as a system gets. I often listen to classical radio on it. I like being surprised with composers and artists I haven't heard about.  I also listen to the radio in my car. I like music. I listen however I can get it. But there is nothing quite like a good vinyl recording.

On my main system, I have a pair of headphones. My Sonus Faber Olympica Nova V speakers have three 7" woofers that pound through the wall. When my wife is home and I want to listen to something loud, I move over to headphones with a fairly modest headphone amp. 

In regards to upgrading my digital system to be as good as my analogue system, well, I think that might be a complicated story. First, as much as digital folks can say that my streamer is not up to snuff, I like it and recognize it's not the best. As I have said before, it errs in a way I like, softening the music. Since digital music tends to be hard at times, I don't at all mind my Moon 280D's shortcomings. If I ran into some money, I would buy a new streamer. But getting it to the level of my audio chain?

Let me just say this. In an Absolute Sound review of dCS's new $250,000 DAC. Michael Fraemer, the analogue expert, praised the new DAC with these words. "It's almost as good as analogue." $250K almost, let me repeat almost, up to analogue. I'm not spending 1/4 of a million dollars to come close to analogue. But, yes, I could upgrade my digital setup if I ran into money, but it won't be at the level of analogue or even close on my budget. 

But once again, I listen to music in many ways, and enjoy it no matter what form it comes in. I just like analogue better. Just like I like digital music at 192 kHz with a 24 bit word length more than 44.1 kHz at a 16 bit word length. But if what I want to listen to only comes in a 44.1 format, I'll listen and enjoy the music. I listened to Beth Orton's "Central Reservation" at 44.1 kHz yesterday and loved it.

In an ideal world, it would be great if all vinyl versions had content and sonic evaluations available to the public just like in TAS or Stereophile magazines.

I do see Discogs album ratings, but not sure if content, Sonics, or some of both.

Digital seems harder to weed out the good from the bad.

A workaround seems to be a more forgiving musical system for poorer recordings, and a clean transparent presentation for good-great quality recordings.  

44.1 kHz is twice the level of frequencies that anyone can hear, most pro equipment is set to 48 kHz you can’t hear the difference it’s all in your heads. The only difference is the db level can be louder but you perceive it as more frequencies while cd already plays frequencies way above what people can hear so saying it sounds bad it’s either the recording or your brain that is the problem.

@muvluv 

So many audiophiles, including reviewers with high credentials for overcoming biases, have said they hear the difference between vinyl albums and CDs. Are you saying it's just in these millions of people's heads? Your bias might be toward deflecting from a lack in your own hearing. I've had that bias almost all my life. If I can't hear it, see it, or understand it, it must not be real.

I've also had more than a few arguments with engineers' numbers in letters in Sterophile. I've never been convinced by their numbers. Think of how many geniuses's numbers have led us astray. Einstein's "cosmological constant" is one good example. But there are so many more.

When I am streaming, I can guess close to the level of 44.1/16, 96/24, 172/24, etc. It is so easy for me to hear that difference and guess it. I have had freinds over who cannot tell the difference between a vinyl record and CD, or especially an SACD, that I can hear. They just haven't developed that hearing. And some don't want to because they don't want the hassle of getting into vinyl. And that's a big bias.

But whenever you question a whole bunch of people with credentials, it is usally time to question yourself. I do not say this as a put-down. I have questioned all sorts of things my entire life that suddenly I come to understand. I've lived a long life.

@muvluv - sampling rate needs to be twice the bandwidth to avoid aliasing artefacts. The sampling rate is not the actual bandwidth of the recording. Even sampling at twice the bandwidth, high order filters are needed to avoid problems with aliasing from higher harmonics. High order filters introduce phase shift problems. Higher sampling rates allows lower order filters. That's a somewhat simplistic explanation but it may help you understand a bit about digital recording. It's a bit more complex than you seem to think. If you want a visual representation of aliasing, have a look at some cowboy movies from the early days of cinema.