Does anyone have a digital system that is as involving as their analogue front end?

Keith Jarrett would likely tell you that no digital setup is as good as analogue/vinyl. But what does HE know?😆

I enjoy digital. I have a DCS digital system, and also my trusty Arcam FMJ CD 23(!) which can equal my vinyl in some ways, but not as closely as the sound I hear in the symphony halls I frequent.

Digital is still like listening to music behind a force field  (the music doesn't move towards you as fluidly as it does in real life), while vinyl does that more easily.

But I'm using classical music as the benchmark, not pop or rock (which, frankly, are often recorded poorly, especially beginning in the 1980s). On a well-recorded classical album from, say, 1964 (Mercurys, Deccas, London), the sound is closer to say, Carnegie Hall, or Boston Symphony Hall.

I’ve just added a couple of additional linear power supplies for peripheral equipment that have taken away a little more of the digital glare. It feels tantalisingly close to being as involving as vinyl, but is still not there yet. I need to focus when listening to digital to maintain the illusion, whereas vinyl feels effortless.

There’s just one more power supply to change, but after that I’ve run out of tweaks. Then any further digital improvement will come at a cost, say replacing the Roon NUC with a Melco or whatever. Alternatively, I could at look less ruthlessly revealing loudspeakers.

Maybe, I should just accept that digital is for exploring new music and vinyl is my main format. I shall mull this over while my turntable is out of action. 

Notwithstanding everything I have said in my previous post, I had a wonderful session last night listening to two Weather Report albums, Tail Spinnin’ and Night Passage ripped to DSD from SACDs. These were as involving as most albums on vinyl.

This despite my Roon NUC having to do the heavy lifting of converting the DSD to PCM in real time. Although, it was late at night when interference might be expected to be reduced.

There doesn’t seem to be a panacea that can give me perfect digital listening every time. This is far from an exact science. I just have to snatch those moments when the planets align.

@newton_john 

I know Hemingway and bullfighting are out of fashion. However, I think Hemingway can give us a good analogy from his book "Death in the Afternoon." He said that one would need to go to a hundred bullfigths to see a perfect one. I think playing music on our stereos can be comparable. (And to a certain degree going to hear a live concert, which I have done over a hundred times with just classical music. I once heard Joshua Bell conduct Beethoven's 6th and I walked out of the concert hall saying, "He ruined it.) 

Music can be lovely, calming, and all those other modifiers, but maybe once in a hundred times am I sitting on the edge of my seat, filled with the spirit of music (which  may have been humanity's first form of communication) am I filled with the absolute spirit of music.

@audphile1 @audphile1 I have both MA3i and XDS1v4 with DA2i dac, and the differences are meaningful, especially in terms of tonal weight, space, bass, and increased microdynamics. However, I agree it will likely be a long time before anything in the $10k range that will be better than the MA3i. I personally preferred the MA3i over the original DA2 as an overall dac. The last time the company had this large jump in quality was from DCC2 to DAC2x (and the Meitner version MA1). I think we will be fine for at least 5 years, if not longer. Meaningful R&D at the high end takes a long time.