64.254.224.10
In Reply to: RE: Observations on Ayre CX-7e posted by Sherlock on May 15, 2008 at 14:05:31
I agree 100% that top-end analog sound is impossible to beat, at least with 16/44 digital - my experience with hi-rez is insufficient to comment on that. I guess what I'm saying is, why chase after that top-end analog sound with a source that is not capable of it?
My attitude towards digital is that there are areas in which it is clearly superior to analog, and other areas where it is clearly inferior. No matter what CD player I have, no CD will ever sound as full and detailed as, say, the new Spoon album on my Gyro/Graham/Benz setup. But, no record that I have will ever have the absolute silence/black background/lack of noise that a good CD (eg the new Bjork) has on my CX-7e.
My point in all this? I would aim first to maximize the areas where digital can be superior to analog, then maybe work towards trying to emulate the sound aspects that you like in a good analog setup.
But even there, good analog (as much as good digital) has a zillion different meanings for different people. Some people want a big, bold VPI with a Dynavector, some want a lighter, pacier sound like that of a Rega or Michell with a Clearaudio cartridge...2 high-quality analog sources can sound VERY different from one another. So then what exactly are we chasing, when we say that digital sounds analog-like? I think that most are referring to a lack of digital/solid state "glare", but that's such a small part of analog sound, and really shouldn't be an issue for almost any CD player that gets discussed on this board.
While I know that some people have described Ayre players as being analog-sounding, I'm left wondering, what exactly does that mean?
Follow Ups: