Chronicling the reviewers who use LP (as a primary source) was not an exact science. LP held the torch through the dark days of digital, in the 1980s and 90s. That said, it now appears the vast majority of U.S. reviewers prefer digital-CD.These reviewers, in my opinion, got it right. With a format that always had numerous advantages, except the big one, sound. But this has changed - digital (most of it Red Book) came of age more than a decade ago, and reviewers followed accordingly.
Digital is sweeping the audio world, as predicted when the first numeric-tape recordings were made in the 1970s. I say 'sweeping' not 'swept' because this process has taken much longer than many thought. Most electronics today -inc. car audio, are analog, as are loudspeaker crossovers.
This is not unlike home cinema, which is experiencing a 30-year switch from standard-definition to HD and now, UHD. A whole new recording and playback system was needed. Audiophiles got (both) of these, but they had numerous distractions and potholes along the way.
A wobbling transport, lots of radiated noise, a poorly-designed output stage, then converters dropping from 16 bits to 1. Not all dropped this acutely, some were chopped to 5-6 bits. Now, improved 6-bit converters (like ESS 9018) or 16-20 bit R2Rs are the rage.
Then, D to A. Wait a minute, D to what ? Yup, analog, and early in the chain no less (through DAC, preamp and power amp). A solution arrived, however, with full-digital amplifiers. Here, digital signals drive a switching output stage. This type of product, out since the late 1990s, is finally getting attention - Lyngdorf TDAI, NAD M2, Technics R1 system.
DSP crossovers are catching on as well...
I remember J. Gordon Holt always breaking a story (he thought) would move us closer to live music. Embracing digital recording then later, playback, he held to his mission. Doug Sax said digital-CD "should sound better than LP", in a 1989 Stereophile interview.
Let's embrace the future -and go beyond DACs, as good as they are. If we're converting digital to analog, we're not hearing digital. How would vinyl lovers feel if we digitized LP and kept it that way through the amp ?
UHD For Audio - that's what this should be called...
Edits: 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17 03/16/17
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Reviewers with LP (or digital) -final - J. Phelan 04:44:06 03/16/17 (57)
- RE: Reviewers with LP (or digital) -final - morricab 15:37:13 03/18/17 (1)
- RE: Reviewers with LP (or digital) -final - J. Phelan 16:24:04 03/18/17 (0)
- Corrections - Ralph 09:05:20 03/16/17 (54)
- RE: Corrections - J. Phelan 09:42:48 03/16/17 (53)
- RE: Corrections - RGA 17:52:45 03/16/17 (0)
- RE: Corrections - Ralph 10:03:58 03/16/17 (51)
- RE: Corrections - J. Phelan 10:31:22 03/16/17 (50)
- RE: Corrections - Ralph 13:52:04 03/16/17 (49)
- RE: Corrections - J. Phelan 14:25:41 03/16/17 (48)
- Please. - Kal Rubinson 15:54:09 03/16/17 (0)
- RE: Corrections - Ralph 15:37:51 03/16/17 (46)
- RE: Corrections - J. Phelan 15:55:11 03/16/17 (45)
- A pretty good description of class D and why its not actually digital. - Ralph 10:56:17 03/22/17 (10)
- RE: A pretty good description of class D and why its not actually digital. - J. Phelan 14:29:38 03/22/17 (9)
- Ah. So we're in agreement here. - Ralph 15:15:40 03/22/17 (8)
- RE: Ah. So we're in agreement here. - J. Phelan 15:29:42 03/22/17 (7)
- That's right! - Ralph 09:32:39 03/23/17 (6)
- RE: That's right! - J. Phelan 14:26:06 03/23/17 (5)
- You don't know what 'analog' means, apparently - Ralph 09:24:57 03/24/17 (4)
- RE: You don't know what 'analog' means, apparently - J. Phelan 13:31:56 03/24/17 (3)
- That's pretty funny. - Ralph 14:04:53 03/24/17 (2)
- RE: That's pretty funny. - J. Phelan 15:20:30 03/24/17 (1)
- RE: That's pretty funny. - Ralph 09:40:22 03/27/17 (0)
- RE: Corrections - Ralph 08:53:21 03/17/17 (2)
- RE: Corrections - J. Phelan 10:59:39 03/17/17 (1)
- That's really funny - Ralph 11:28:42 03/17/17 (0)
- Link? (nt) - mkuller 21:39:37 03/16/17 (30)
- RE: Link? (nt) - J. Phelan 06:29:15 03/17/17 (29)
- Most likely you still won't get it, but... - E-Stat 06:53:31 03/17/17 (28)
- RE: Most likely you still won't get it, but... - J. Phelan 07:17:49 03/17/17 (27)
- RE: you still won't get it... - Ralph 08:41:07 03/17/17 (25)
- RE: you still won't get it... - J. Phelan 10:57:40 03/17/17 (24)
- RE: you still won't get it... - Ralph 11:27:44 03/17/17 (23)
- RE: you still won't get it... - J. Phelan 11:34:25 03/17/17 (22)
- Which means: - Ralph 11:48:52 03/17/17 (21)
- Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" - Dave_K 09:59:54 03/18/17 (15)
- RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" - Ralph 09:49:51 03/20/17 (12)
- RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" - J. Phelan 10:01:15 03/20/17 (11)
- you would be incorrect about that - Ralph 10:47:25 03/20/17 (10)
- RE: you would be incorrect about that - J. Phelan 11:38:52 03/20/17 (9)
- Wow. Just wow. - Ralph 12:46:29 03/20/17 (8)
- RE: Wow. Just wow. - J. Phelan 14:23:18 03/20/17 (7)
- RE: Wow. Just wow. - Ralph 14:56:16 03/20/17 (6)
- RE: Wow. Just wow. - J. Phelan 17:24:37 03/20/17 (5)
- That's a good link - Ralph 08:38:29 03/21/17 (4)
- RE: That's a good link - J. Phelan 15:58:53 03/21/17 (3)
- RE: That's a good link - Ralph 10:06:59 03/22/17 (2)
- RE: That's a good link - J. Phelan 14:31:34 03/22/17 (1)
- RE: That's a good link - Ralph 15:16:38 03/22/17 (0)
- RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" - J. Phelan 12:58:04 03/18/17 (1)
- RE: Start with the dictionary definition of "digital" - Ralph 09:37:31 03/20/17 (0)
- RE: Which means: - J. Phelan 13:54:00 03/17/17 (4)
- I was correct - E-Stat 07:22:06 03/17/17 (0)