[DVV]

We have had several topics related to new digital audio equipment here lately, but these were mostly related to specific items.

Unfortunately, I am unable to check out the current state of affairs, having practically no access to modern digital audio.

So, how does modern digital audio compare to quality analog? Better? Same? Worse? It depends?

I would particularly like to hear comments from people who switched from analog to digital recently, but all comments are welcome.

Cheers,
DVV

[Tuckers]

This year I went back into Vinyl after not having a rig for a couple of years.   Personally, I can listen all day to redbook digital done right and not feel like I'm missing much compared to Vinyl.  The only exception is classical.  Classical is just not done well on CD.  I think this has more to do with recording and production of Classical these days.  

I still prefer Sir Adrian Boult conducting Vaughn Williams on Angel Records any day over an CD release of Vaughn Williams.

My analog rig has more tonal color, richer instruments, bigger soundstage, more expressiveness.  But the noise of Vinyl, it's little imperfections, and a feeling of imprecision compared to digital take away from it's enjoyment too.  Plus the care and feeding of records keeps me from listening more to my vinyl too.

[JLM]

The consensus (IMO) seems to be:

1. This is a very young field, significant improvements are to be expected.  With the jury still out its too early to tell, but this could become the dominant technology for audio amplification within a couple of years, especially with more sources being digital and the ability to keep the signal digital throughout.

2. Currently their best application seems to be mid-fi due to the "secondary" aspects they do so well (small size, high efficiency, affordability of parts).

3. A few vendors offer both solid state and digital with digital not being their top of the line product, or will be releasing modded versions of commercially available digital amps.

4. Eventually I see audio splitting into two camps; fully digital (CD/SACD/DVD with digital amplification all the way) and fully analog (vinyl/tape with tubes maybe traditional solid state).

[Dan Banquer]

I went to digital in the late 1980's and have not looked back since. Less noise and distortion, greater dynamic range, just for starters. The only reason I still keep a turntable is that some of the records I own have yet to be reissued on cd. Given my relatively obscure taste in jazz I doubt that some of these will ever be reissued on cd.

[MaxCast]

DVV, were you asking about source or amplification?....or both

[audiojerry]

Another good topic Dejan, but I see two separate threads beginning.
Are we talking about digital recordings vs vinyl or tape? - or digital amplification vs solid state or tube?

As far as recordings are concerned, Tucker stated exactly my own views! I agree that cd's have advantages like less noise, no scratches or pops, remote controlling of tracks, random and repeat playback, virtually unlimited use without ever wearing out. But vinyl remains truer to the real event. It just flows better and sounds more natural. You can hear this in the timbre and harmonics. This musicality gets through even while the record is rumbling and popping along. There is still an artificiality that exists with cd playback even with the best recordings and equipment. I guess not everyone can hear or appreciate this quality of vinyl.

That being said, I still listen to cd's 90% of the time. One big reason is the difficulty in finding great vintage vinyl. It seems like all the good ones have been hoarded by the collectors and taken out of circulation.    

As far as digital amplification is concerned, based on my brief experience with Kevin's Solar digital amp, I believe it might be capable of doing a great job with an analog front end. The biggest obstacle I saw in Kevin's amp was it's apparent sensitivity to varying speaker impedences.  

I noticed in AudioXpress magazine that LC Audio is advertising its ZAPpulse 2.0 digital amp module. 400wpc on a board the size of a credit card. That is amazing!  $199. 96% efficient. If I had some DIY skill, I'd be playing with this right now! Available at diycable.com

[lcrim]

Dejan:
I have a Sony digital receiver, the STR DA3000ES and I can share my impressions re: that unit.
The unit took a very long time to "burn-in."  I think this is true of digital amps in general.  
I have found, in this case, with this unit, that using digital source material provides an extremely detailed playback.  I am using a Pioneer Elite DV-09 DVD player as a transport and am inputing the PCM digital stream and the detail retrieval, imaging and bass extension are out of all relationship to the cost of the unit ($700 USD.)  After a lot of correspondence w/ others on this site and some research, it seems that as long as the path is digital, the conversions are lossless and the quality is extraordinary, limited by the quality of the original source.  Carefully mastered material has become a necessity.  The "digital" sound in the treble is still somewhat present but the trade off is the tremendous gain in detail and bass.  I am not sure if this isn't the result of recording engineers tastes being towards briteness or not.  
Once analog conversions are in the playback path, there are losses and it is audible.  I have some recordings in multiple formats.  "Crystal Silence" with Chick Corea and Gary Burton is a favorite piece that I have on vinyl and CD.  The piano and vibraphone just sound friendlier, even with the losses for the analog to digital change, on vinyl.  The CD is a bit hard sounding in my view but it was mastered in the early 70's.  I have "Kind of Blue" in every format available and prefer the HDCD (20 bit) version to the vinyl so go figure.  More recently mastered material in general is much less harsh.

I am planning a push-pull tube bedroom system to be able to hear music in that room but also to get a warmer, more romantic sound.   But for Home Theatre and really detailed playback of digital I will be keeping the Sony.
Good topic

Larry Crimmins

[KevinW]

As far as digital amplification is concerned, based on my brief experience with Kevin's Solar digital amp, I believe it might be capable of doing a great job with an analog front end. The biggest obstacle I saw in Kevin's amp was it's apparent sensitivity to varying speaker impedences. ...

Jerry,
I disagree that my amps have problems with varying speaker impedances.  It has done well on all the speakers I have tried it, including some hard to drive planars.  There were many other variables that could have accounted for any problems with Jackman's speakers, and not just speaker impedance.

[DVV]

DVV, were you asking about source or amplification?....or both

Max, essentially I am interested in your experience in digital vs. analog sound overall, from your point of view, of course.

But if you prefer to split it into two subtopics for any reason at all, that's just fine with me.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

Thank you, one and all, this is the kind of input I was looking for.

But it seems I was too general in asking the questions; my apologies, I'll try to be more specific.

What especially interests me are views like Larry's (re: Sony receiver). One of the greatest virtues touted by digital amplification manufacturers is better detail retrieval than analog at a given price point. Now, we all know how CD works - it has its pros and cons, just like every other technology on the market.

Now, how about digital peramp and power amp, or, rolled into one integrated amps, and with a tuner thrown in, recievers? My own experience is extremely limited on this because I have no modesl by anybody to play with.

Next, how does an all analog signal line cmpare with an all digital signal line? And of course, how do at least mose mixed cases behave, specifically, what happens when you connect a classic turntable (with possibly an interim RIAA amp/eq in between) to a digital receiver?

Sure enough, all digital is still in its infancy, so let's not expect miracles, but then, while CD took 20 years to come of age, given the accumulated experience, I would expect all digital signal lines to mature in about half that time. But of course, I could be wrong.

Lastly, and I am reasonably sure I am not alone in this reasoning, over the last year I have found quite a few people on this site with whose tastes my own taste corresponds reasonably to very well, which means I can safely rely on their judgement. By now, I am sure a wise man learns by other people's experiences rather than by his own mistakes, and while my own wisdom is highly questionable, I at least like to try to integrate opinions of others into my own outlook.

And I have always made public my view that audiophiles, for all their nuttiness and childishness in many ways, still somehow manage to come out as the better part of mankind. That at least has never failed me yet.

Cheers,
DVV

[JLM]

Seems that we may be very much on the "bleeding edge" of audio playback technology here from a couple of perspectives:

1. Comparisons between source formats CD versus vinyl, CD versus HDCD, CD versus SACD, as well as quality of work from various sessions/mix downs.  (And all this coming via a reasonably priced system!)

2. Prices are bound to come down on this new digital amplification method, while the learning curve across the industry is very rapidly being conquered.

[DVV]

Seems that we may be very much on the "bleeding edge" of audio playback technology here from a couple of perspectives:

The only question is, who's bleeding? The designers, because they are pushed to produce more at lower prices? The marketing people, who have to sell a new format to the public, working on a fairly saturated market? Or, as is customary by now, our wallets?

1. Comparisons between source formats CD versus vinyl, CD versus HDCD, CD versus SACD, as well as quality of work from various sessions/mix downs.  (And all this coming via a reasonably priced system!)

HDCD format has never managed to impress me. I can't say there is no difference, but I found it to be very, very small (at least, with the gear I tried so far). SACD is another story - that surely has tremendous potential, which I feel is also true of DVD-A.

2. Prices are bound to come down on this new digital amplification method, while the learning curve across the industry is very rapidly being conquered.

True, this is the way it usually works. In view of prevoius 20 years' experience with the CD format, I am hoping this learning curve will be far shorter than initially.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to hear a new Technics VERY slim line receiver, featuring a digital power amp section at a dealer's. Several loudspeakers were used, from Technics, Jamo and Mission. The Technics is rated at 4x50W/8 ohms plus 1x70W/8 ohms for the sub.

My impression was that of an unusually (especially at this price point) detailed and defined bass, however with some lack of true grit (power). The mid was again better than usual in terms of definition, but was somehow a little cold and detached. The treble was the wekaest link in my view - it lacked life, air, and emotion. It was not offensive, it did not shriek, but there was no life there, it simply sounded artificial.

Obviously, these are impressions only, as the listening was done in surroundings unfamiliar to me, with speakers unfamiliar to me, and are based mostly on an A/B comparison with a Marantz 6300 receiver, which is all analog, and a Denon receiver which I have some experience with. However, btoh are more expensive than the said Technics, the Marantz by a factor of two.

What fascinated me about the Technics, beside its bass clarity, was its size - that thing is like 2-2.5 inches tall, looking very slim, yet delivering power not to be scoffed at. It sort of shows the way of things to come.

Cheers,
DVV

[JLM]

DVV:

Do you recall the model number or the price?

So far main stream digital releases have all been good values.

thanks