What a trip! (analog vs. digital)

[jeffeb3]

So on wednesday, I go to check out "the best audiophile quality store in colorado" located right in my town. He's got some great karma loudspeakers. Thor tube amps, pre amps, dac converters etc. an arcam digital processor, preamp and amp.

first we listen to the surround sound...best surround sound I've heard but there was definetly something wrong. I think it was the center was not matched to the karma speaks.

then we listen to some maddonna (cd) on the arcam amp. very good. then I hear maddonna (cd) on the thor stuff. WOW I wanna get me somma those!! Finallly, and this is the part that surprised me, we heard the same ray of light on the phonograph. What an amazing difference. It was so much richer and fuller. sure there was some small crackles. but when I heard the cd again it was like it had been chopped up. it was nuts. How can my spoiled ears ever be satisfied with cd's and more importantly, how can anyone say digital is better than analog? that kicked ass!! give me your ops.

[Aaron]

That's why they've come out with SACD and DVD-A, both which supposedly have the best of both worlds (analog & digital). Also, upsampling DAC's are supposed to go a long way towards improving the sound of CD's.

Aaron

[BobMcG]

IMO:
I find LPs to sound different than CDs yes, but not better.
And yes, I listen to both. I choose digital.

A friend is a long time (thirty years) LP and tube fan with around five grand invested in his table/arm/cartridge combination alone. However, he loves the sound of my digital front end and is building on an upper-mid to high end digital system now. (He already has a mid-fi digital system he doesn't take serious and never thought he'd be doing this.)

But by all means, go ahead and build yourself any type of system you wish. It's a free country, your money, your ears. You're the one you have to keep happy.

Wonderful the way that works isn't it.

[kn505]

Sorry for off the subject. Please share your experience for the SDA-SRS 2.3 vs. the RT3000p. Thanks.

[BobMcG]

First off, I like the 3000s very much. I love the 2.3s.

IMO: Both have very clean/clear mids and highs. I feel both are quite precise. (Martin Logan reQuests they aren't but...) However, when it comes to the bass I'll take the 2.3s. (Even over the reQuests.) The upper region, mid and bottom range of the bass signal with these speakers is much tighter and in control. With proper toe-in, the 3000s have a real nice sounstage, it simply can't compete with the 2.3s though.

Now let me qualify the remarks about the 2.3s here... you MUST use hi-quality, hi-power amps with them in order to do them justice. The more power in reserve and headroom behind them the better they perform. That's CLEAN, CONTROLED power I'm talking about.

I prefer to use my 3000s as my HT fronts and the 2.3s as my main HS speakers.

[BobMcG]

I'm tempted, and probably will sometime, take the 3000 sats and run them with my Legacy-Audio Deep Impact to see/listen how that combination works. I think it would be very interesting.

[kn505]

Thanks for sharing your experience.