The State Of Analog

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I thought that I would put this up in the "Digital" forum only because my good friend Frantz posted a similar thread.

Frantz makes absolute scientific sense in everything he states re digital and its accurate reproduction off the master. He is also dead on when he says where the future of purchasing music lies and that is here on the internet

mep has stated how inexpensive it is to press vinyl and CD I am sure couldn't be too expensive either

My youngest son who is a film school graduate is also a music lover. He listens to my system every now and then. When he does, he has only the kindest of words about how accurate and realistic it sounds BUT hastens to add how nuts I am and that ours is a dying generation when it comes to analog or having music libraries with 1000's of CD's or LP's. His entire music library is on his hard drive and he listens with a small pair of satellites on either side of his screen or with ear phones. He buys all of his music on the internet.

So Frantz my friend, you hit it right on, but if analog is to live on it will only serve an ever declining sector of people.In spite of this the sales of TT's is ever increasing.
For better or worse it is a digital world. Analog, as beautiful as it might sound, ultimately, will saddly pass the way of the Betamax did with the advent of VHS. Most would say Beta was the better format

Anyhow, I don't own a TT but do have my R2R and feel it produces the best sound in my system and to my ears
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,432
11,314
4,410
Frantz makes absolute scientific sense in everything he states re digital and its accurate reproduction off the master.

Steve,

with all due respect, you lost me right there. referring to my post from the other thread, if you hear what PCM digital does when trying to reproduce an analog signal, it may be 'accurate' at particular points, but it loses lots of the substance of music in the translation....in other words, PCM digital is incomplete. forget graphs and theorys, just listen to how each format handles a source. if you speak about 2xDSD digital, then you can possibly make a much more credible case of 'accurate reproduction of the master' being a reasonable statement. Frantz does not use 2xDSD as his digital reference; he refers to PCM.

if you start talking about the state of analog by making the case that PCM digital is closer to the master i reject that completely as wholey contrary to my experience.

if some among us have had an experience where they compared a SOTA PCM digital recording with SOTA analog recording of the same analog source and found the PCM version more accurate and complete i'd enjoy hearing about the details.

this is not about science; it's about what one's ears hear.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Actually I was politely trying to say that we analog lovers are a dying breed and unless we find a way to pass this down to the next generations, sadly it will be a thing of the past in the next generation.

Don't get me wrong Mike I am an analog lover and probably misstated my point about Frantz and his digital assertion. I agree with how you stacked the different formats earlier today in the order of sonic excellence
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
80
1,725
New York City
Steve,

with all due respect, you lost me right there. referring to my post from the other thread, if you hear what PCM digital does when trying to reproduce an analog signal, it may be 'accurate' at particular points, but it loses lots of the substance of music in the translation....in other words, PCM digital is incomplete. forget graphs and theorys, just listen to how each format handles a source. if you speak about 2xDSD digital, then you can possibly make a much more credible case of 'accurate reproduction of the master' being a reasonable statement. Frantz does not use 2xDSD as his digital reference; he refers to PCM.

if you start talking about the state of analog by making the case that PCM digital is closer to the master i reject that completely as wholey contrary to my experience.

if some among us have had an experience where they compared a SOTA PCM digital recording with SOTA analog recording of the same analog source and found the PCM version more accurate and complete i'd enjoy hearing about the details.

this is not about science; it's about what one's ears hear.

This was my limited experience with a live vs. recorded digital master recording as reported from this year's CES. Disclaimer: I may have been in the minority according to what I've read :) Now if digital couldn't do something as simple as a guitar, how can one expect it to something more complex such as an orchestra?

One additional thing I've found from being in the studio with David Chesky a while back (and I think most mastering engineers I've spoken with agree with me) is that there's more loss of music in going from the hard disc to the final CD than in going from the master tape to the record. If one had an opportunity to hear a digital master, they're in for a surprise. Still not perfect, but a better representation of the music than the CD.

So one can't go and use the CD as an example of digital at its best. And a while back, Steve Hoffman posted on his web site that he thought the fidelity to the master tape ranked in this order: LP, CD and then SACD!!!! So here's some one who has THE master tape -- and to boot as SOTA system as opposed to some Genelex monitors-- to compare with and comes up with this conclusion.

From PFO/CES Show Report that I did this year:

3. VMPS Speakers - Speaker designer Brian Cheney gave a new meaning to bringing your own music to the show. Brian brought along his own musicians to demonstrate the faithfulness of his newest speaker design, the $12,900 VMPS RM50 dual line source bi-pole (with digital controller) speakers driven by Atmasphere MA1 OTLs on the mid/treble and dual Classe M1000 monoblocks for the bass towers, to live music. Show attendees got to hear the artists perform live and then do the Memorex test.

Now the listening comparisons weren't exactly isosonic as different types of microphones were used with the different recording platforms. A pair of M Audio Sputnik tube condenser microphones in MS (mid-side), one forward facing in cardioid and one sideways in figure 8 for 180 degree stereo spread fed an Alesis Masterlink 24/88.2 PCM recorder while a single Audio Technica stereo mike in XY, 110 degree spread fed a Korg M1000 DSD.

I was lucky enough sit in on the sessions starring finger style guitarist Austin Wey and performing with two different types of guitars. As far as the listening comparisons, we're once again we're faced with famous Russian geneticist T.D. Lysenko paradox. Lysenko, in his efforts to appease Stalin and feed the Russian people, decided to cross a radish with a cabbage in a vain attempt to produce a vegetable with the radish bulb and cabbage head; instead Lysenko ended up with a vegetable with the radishes leaves and cabbage roots.

What emerged, ultimately, from the live vs. recorded comparison was that neither digital recording technique was remotely close to the sound of the live performance (a 15 ips, 2-track, ¼ inch open reel deck would have blown both digital recorders away!). In fact, the 24/88.2 PCM was really bad. One listener remarked that the guitar had more body with the 24/88.2 PCM; that was only because there was nothing else to subtract. Both digital recorders lost the guitar's delicateness and softness, the silence between notes, the difference in sound between the two models of guitar and most of the harmonic overtones—not to mention the instrument sounded larger than life. But Brian did prove that his speakers are more than capable—and of course a guitar recording should show off his ribbon drivers to their utmost—of resolving all the issues with digital recordings!
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
MikeL

The way we hear can be explained by current Science. We don't know it all but we have tools that will further our knowledge and the tools are revealing that digital can be and is good. The best Digital I have heard to date is the HRx , it is the best I have heard in a music reproduction system in term of portraying what I think I hear live. Not CD, CD is good often better than analog in some aspects, but overall the best analog seem to surpass the best CD but not the best PCM. CD is PCM but PCM is not CD only ...
I have repeated Audio reproduction is bound by the laws of Physic, thus science. The best TT push the limits of what is possible but simply because they have better tools, these tools developed by science, much sensitive measuring equipment. What we are doing in TT right now we could not do it 20 years ago. The tools were not available. Some of the material may not have been available either .. What have brought these advances? Science .. There is not dichotomy between what we hear and Science.. I will be the first to admit however that many of our common measurements parameters are not very well related to what we hear .. THD for one. We do need to advance the art of music reproduction to correlate better what we hear to what we measure.. We have not done a great job of this especially in the USA where there is no equivalent of the NRC ?? the place in Canada where several manufacturers and some reviewers measure speakers and other electronics??? In Europe there are such centers and they will provide insight in what we hear, perhaps why set is so spooky, so realistic, on Voices. Or why the Quad ESl-57 and the 63 where so pure on Voice. If we ONLY measure the FR or the THD, we would not know ... So Science has its place.. We enjoy music because of science. The better Audio designers have a firm, call it commanding understanding of Science, some to a surprising degree ...
You have an incredible analog front end and I can understand you preferring it.. I would say that most CD will not sway you .. but Digital is there .. same way SS are up there with the best tubes in the way they produce music .. often better in many respects if not all ...

Frantz
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,432
11,314
4,410
The best Digital I have heard to date is the HRx

i have 6 or 7 HRx's on my hard drive as well as a few other hi-rez RR recordings too. i do really enjoy them and they are among the best PCM i have heard.

the mastering engineer who has mastered every RR recording for 20 years is Paul Stubblebine. yes, 'that' Paul Stubblebine of 'The Tape Project'. if anyone would have an informed opinion about how native 176/24 might compare to native analog tape then Paul would be that guy as many of the RR's were done with 176/24 and RTR recording the same event simultainiously. both formats enjoyed the the same mic feeds as an identical source.

i'll allow you to take a wild guess which format Paul thinks 'smokes' the other one. i have maybe 30-40 RR Lps (and a similar amount of RR CD's).....as well as a few 'The Tape Project' Reference Recording tapes. my personal perspective is that i really enjoy the HRx recordings and listen to them often. but the Lps simply better them in every way.

a few years ago a digital recording was made using my Rockport tt as a source. one recorder used was the Pacific Microsonics II at 176/24. the same recorder used for the RR HRx 176/24 files. we spent 8 hours recording off my tt, then playing back the 176/24 file. we did many test recordings. the 176/24 file did sound very nice; but it did not come close to sounding anywhere near the Rockport direct. that was in my room. the pro audio guys were surprised by hearing this as they had not been exposed to very high end vinyl.

i'm not negative on hi-rez PCM or HRx or any digital. it is over 50% of my listening and it sounds wonderful. i only get my dander up when people are compelled to interpret their considerable enjoyment of hi-rez digital as proof that it must be better than SOTA analog.

it's not.
 
Last edited:

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,303
1,420
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I'm a little bit more optimistic. I for one am 39 years old. To put that into perspective, my formative years were smack in the middle of the analog to digital mass market transition. I was 17 when I bought my first CD and I was 21 when major labels stopped pressing LPs. Like many, I was dumb enough to let my entire LP collection go equating the disappearance from the aisles to the death of the medium. I only went back to quality LPs at the age of 33 after hearing at a friend's house how far LP playback had come along.

What I am optimistic about is the durability of the LP medium. Even today it is not uncommon, unfortunately not cheap either, to find 40 or 50 year old LPs in near mint condition. I'm looking at myself now, as many of my other friends do, as guardians for the next generation. We could all collectively assure that there will be a recorded history of culture easily another 40 or 50 years if we are careful. My eldest daughter aged 10, is getting into it. She is my fully automated RCM hahahaha. She's allowed to play with the SL-1200s and tags along with me when I go LP hunting. So if ever you guys are over and see LPs of Lady Gaga or Ne-Yo, look at her not me. I'm thinking pretty soon she'll be given permission to use the expensive carts. She has steadier hands than I do, I'm just waiting for her to be able to appreciate what the darned things cost to assure that each time out she exercises the utmost care. I think I'll be less nervous the first time I put her behind the wheel 6 years from now. Carts don't have airbags!

Much as I love tape most of all, despite reasonable care by my folks, all have turned into messes of ferrite dust. Makes me want to cry but that's just the way it is.

I see the time coming however when eventually my eyesight will fail and my hands will shake. It will be all digital for me then or maybe my kids or grand kids can cue 'em up for me :)
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,432
11,314
4,410
I'm a little bit more optimistic. I for one am 39 years old. To put that into perspective, my formative years were smack in the middle of the analog to digital mass market transition. I was 17 when I bought my first CD and I was 21 when major labels stopped pressing LPs. Like many, I was dumb enough to let my entire LP collection go equating the disappearance from the aisles to the death of the medium. I only went back to quality LPs at the age of 33 after hearing at a friend's house how far LP playback had come along.

What I am optimistic about is the durability of the LP medium. Even today it is not uncommon, unfortunately not cheap either, to find 40 or 50 year old LPs in near mint condition. I'm looking at myself now, as many of my other friends do, as guardians for the next generation. We could all collectively assure that there will be a recorded history of culture easily another 40 or 50 years if we are careful. My eldest daughter aged 10, is getting into it. She is my fully automated RCM hahahaha. She's allowed to play with the SL-1200s and tags along with me when I go LP hunting. So if ever you guys are over and see LPs of Lady Gaga or Ne-Yo, look at her not me. I'm thinking pretty soon she'll be given permission to use the expensive carts. She has steadier hands than I do, I'm just waiting for her to be able to appreciate what the darned things cost to assure that each time out she exercises the utmost care. I think I'll be less nervous the first time I put her behind the wheel 6 years from now. Carts don't have airbags!

Much as I love tape most of all, despite reasonable care by my folks, all have turned into messes of ferrite dust. Makes me want to cry but that's just the way it is.

I see the time coming however when eventually my eyesight will fail and my hands will shake. It will be all digital for me then or maybe my kids or grand kids can cue 'em up for me :)

agree on the point of 'we are caretakers' of our music, spcifically our Lps. reasonably cared for they'll be around for 100 more years or more. i see and hear 'zero' audible wear on Lps i've played thousands of times (at least many hundreds of times).

regarding your tapes. i would have the tapes you really like transferred to tape with modern formulation that can last 'almost indefinitely'. there are ways to recover many marginal condition tapes. over at The Tape Project Forum there are guys which can direct you to people who do this and do it well. it's important to then store them at correct temperature and humidity and play them every year or so so they don't 'meld' togther.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
I find myself in agreement with MikeL more times than not. Although I don't have the caliber of digital playback gear that many of you have, I do have a digital music server that is capable of playing back files at 24 bit/192kHz resolution. I also have several CD/SACD players. Digital doesn't come close to either my table or R2R so I hardly ever listen. I seem to use it mainly for burning in new components and cables. I put it on shuffle (via Media Monkey) and leave the room most of the time. Maybe if I had megabuck digital gear I would think differently-maybe not.

With the exception of the availability of new prerecorded R2R tapes, I feel that we are living in the golden age of analog right now. Life is good.

Mark
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
There is "accurate" and then there is "accurate".

I'm pretty confident that there are certain measurable characteristics from playing an LP that are far below those same measurements from playing the CD so in that sense the CD is more "accurate". But that assumes we understand EVERYTHING about the human hearing process and I, for one, am convinced we do not. And hence we do not know everything that needs to be measured.

There are some things about digital sonically that I prefer (outside of the convenience of, for example, a music server). But if I look at the total listenng experience, LP is clearly the winner.

As stated elsewhere, I have the latest LP pressing of the Sheffield Drum and Test recording and the XRCD pressing of the same album. When someone visits, I first play the CD and without exception, everyone is amazed at how real the drums sound. I then play the LP and no one believes how much better the LP sounds --- not even close.

I have other recording where I have duplicates and in no case is the digital version better.

Digital is great and getting better. I just upgraded my qSonix so I can play the new hi-re files. I'll still take analog.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

Let me clarify a few points>

I never said that CD was better than LP... My personal experiences have not led me to that conclusion.
24/96 On the better system sounds to my ears as good most of the time, often better than LP. Different? Of course... Often better but not all the time.
Hrx is the best I have heard from Reference Recording issues...better than their LPs, better , of course, than their CDs...

Computing power is increasing with (almost) no end in sight. We are researching more about what Digital can do .. Where do you think the future is headed? .. Do you really want to bet against technology? I see what's going in video and I am hoping the same rapid advances and true performance gains come to Audio .. So far I have not seen much... except in DACs we seem to be mired in the past ..
I don't know Paul from the Tape Project but any person responsible for Mastering Reference Recordings stuff knows about Audio Mastering than I will ever, even if I were to consecrate the rest of my entire existence toward understanding what he has forgotten... but that is HIS opinion. Wilma Cozart Fine, is of another opinion and she is not alone. Granted Mrs Cozart Fine was vested in the Mercury Living Presence CDs and SACDs reissues so her opinion could be biased .. The same could be said about any other person who has interested vested in other commercial endeavors. I will simply respect the opinions of these persons and assume that they were in Good Faith.
I am trying as carefully as possible not to come with the "blind" test thing but I must say that the outcome of a test and its objectivity is inextricably linked to the protocol used. We are easily biased. if the test was casual and sighted it is likely flawed ...
In the here and now , Let me conclude... We seem to be living interesting times .. Golden Age? I am not too sure ... The Highest Quality Audio has to offer is priced too high and IMHO artificially so .. Analog has peaked .. Digital not yet ... Not close ..

Frantz
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
80
1,725
New York City
There is "accurate" and then there is "accurate".

I'm pretty confident that there are certain measurable characteristics from playing an LP that are far below those same measurements from playing the CD so in that sense the CD is more "accurate". But that assumes we understand EVERYTHING about the human hearing process and I, for one, am convinced we do not. And hence we do not know everything that needs to be measured.

There are some things about digital sonically that I prefer (outside of the convenience of, for example, a music server). But if I look at the total listenng experience, LP is clearly the winner.

As stated elsewhere, I have the latest LP pressing of the Sheffield Drum and Test recording and the XRCD pressing of the same album. When someone visits, I first play the CD and without exception, everyone is amazed at how real the drums sound. I then play the LP and no one believes how much better the LP sounds --- not even close.

I have other recording where I have duplicates and in no case is the digital version better.

Digital is great and getting better. I just upgraded my qSonix so I can play the new hi-re files. I'll still take analog.

Of course it's not exactly fair. The LP is D2D while the XRCD is taken I imagine from a tape back up copy :) One always when even comparing LP reissues with the originals, check to see first that they're using the same master. It's not always a given.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,303
1,420
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Just as we are as unlikely to get a film print of a movie into our homes and instead rely on DVDs and Blu Rays, the vast majority of the population must be contented with whatever medium of the art form is available. It's just the way it is. I download and buy CDs because I can't get a copy of the master tape or the LP. Even if I do have the LP sometimes I'll still buy the compressed files for portability. Now the members of the Tape Project essentially get to have that print at home. I'm actually green with envy. What's stopping me is not my lack of desire but rather practical concerns being mainly the lack of a big library to draw from and the lack of technical support available to me. I just can't rationalize it. I've said this elsewhere but get me a hundred, nay, just 50 of my favorite albums and I am IN.

Photography, both still and moving picture, whose advances in the market place move much quicker than audio is a good place to look. Perhaps some point very soon there will be as many pixels available as there are grains on celluloid and sensors that will do these pixels justice. In such light, I wouldn't bet against technology. The same will probably be true for 0s and 1s in a hard or SS drive versus magnetic tape or optical media. In the here and now though, digital still lags in both photography and audio.

I'm not quite convinced that analog has peaked. Folks have been saying that for the past 20 years. In the last two decades, technological advancements may have been few but refinements have been mind blowing especially on the transducers, front AND back.

I had a non-audiophile friend over and as we were listening to some LPs pressed in the early 60s, he asked in layman's terms how they could have made it sound so good when they didn't have the monitoring systems of today. Well, I answered actually they didn't have to hear it because cutting lathe engineers could see it. Much the same way an experienced audio engineer can take a look at a wave form and have a general idea if his levels are off or if the guy in the seat before him has squashed the track, without so much as pressing play. The big leap in LP master cutting was not the mechanical cutter head but rather the use of a specialized microscope. In the case of LP playback "There's more than meets the ears". There's more to be dug out.

I am a cartridge hound and pretty often now carts are coming along that are not just digging out more information from the grooves but portraying them more and more naturally as well. All this from a medium that will never ever give you total channel separation. It's corny as hell but that "I never heard that before" thing just keeps on happening. Same goes even further for the loudspeakers whose average sensitivities are on the rise thanks to more powerful motor structures end ever lighter and/or stiffer driver materials and amplification, whose noise floors continue to drop while increasing in overall resolution thanks to continued improvements in passive parts. All these lie in the analog domain.

I'm gonna take a break. I'm rambling. My head hurts.
 
Last edited:

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

Two years ago, I was an Analog fan in all realms.. Video, Audio, Photography. Analog was king and honestly that is what I wanted to believe too... I have carefully opened my eyes , ears, overall my mind to what really out there. In Photography unless you are printing 30 x 40 . Something NEVER to be attempted with anything this side of a 4" x 5" large format, Digital is virtually identical to film and with Adobe Photosho being what it is , I would dare say that ANY film effect one wants to wish is at the reach of a custom filter for Photoshop. You want the Kodachrome 64 look .. there you have it , Velvia at the click of a mouse ... The oprative word is "virtually" .. Large format holds an edge, slight for the most common digital backs you still can find film that are up to 11 by 14 inches of negative material.. That i a lot of pixels but I have never heard of a 4 x 5 inches sensor the largest commercially available are maybe 8 x 10 centimeters a huge differences .. The size of the sensor has a net effect on final image quality .. Yet for the better Digital Camera and even for ardent Pros with the current crop of Digital Cameras with smaller sensor area than the sensitive area in film, the pictures from digital are indistinguishable from analog /film ... (Note that I used no adverb ...)
Video .. well I don't have to do mcuh , most here , including the most ardent videophiles use a digital system, CRT has been relegated to the dustbins .. and really few people are missing it ..
So Audio is the last stand of analog.... Analog remains the standard for many and that is fine.. I am not too sure it is factual but as opinions go considering how the best Analog (and Digital) can sound on the best systems.. The debate will certainly go on ... It would be wise however, and I am repeating myself here, to not bet against Technology ..

Frantz

P.S. Interesting Article click HERE
 
Last edited:

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,432
11,314
4,410
Photography, both still and moving picture, whose advances in the market place move much quicker than audio is a good place to look. Perhaps some point very soon there will be as many pixels available as there are grains on celluloid and sensors that will do these pixels justice. In such light, I wouldn't bet against technology. The same will probably be true for 0s and 1s in a hard or SS drive versus magnetic tape or optical media. In the here and now though, digital still lags in both photography and audio.

there is a huge reason why you cannot expect this sort of advance on digital sound that photography and video have enjoyed; there is no demand for it on a large scale. why? because not enough people desire it.

anyone can own a camera or a TV; they do not require huge life-style changes and accomodations to enjoy. they are already part of the lives of lots of people. upgrading to the next thing in cameras and TV is accepted. there are mature industries in place to feed this desiire and stoke it.

in digital audio it's much different; the tiny voice of hi-rez digital lovers is like a knat on an elephant's ass.....and no more.

so even though digital could get much better, it won't in our lifetimes. there is simply no commercial momentum for it to happen.

when it does happen; it will likely be an afterthought of some sort of effort to build something, or use of sound in industry of some sort. where some break-thru technology gets applied to music reproduction as a sidelight. no one will throw big development dollars at improving digital sound for music.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
so even though digital could get much better, it won't in our lifetimes. there is simply no commercial momentum for it to happen.

when it does happen; it will likely be an afterthought of some sort of effort to build something, or use of sound in industry of some sort. where some break-thru technology gets applied to music reproduction as a sidelight. no one will throw big development dollars at improving digital sound for music.

Mike I usually agree with you on most everything. Just not sure I agree with your postulate here however
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,432
11,314
4,410
Mike I usually agree with you on most everything. Just not sure I agree with your postulate here however

Steve, fair enough. if you don't agree with my viewpoint that there is no commercial imputus to cause a dramatic improvement in digital could you explain what causes you to feel that way.

what is hapening that will cause digital to dramatically improve? how will some big company be motivated to underwrite that process?
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Mike-Although I think by now everyone who has ever read anything I have written knows I am no fan of digital in any format, I can't agree with your statement that digital won't continue to evolve. I always tell people that digital ages in dog years. Innovations in all things digital are fast and furious. New D/A converters come on the market all the time. Even if redbook standards don't change, the D/A converters will change at an unrelenting pace. People who love digital (count me out) now have many choices beyond redbook CD. Will it ever catch up to analog in our lifetime? That is the question for me-not will digital advance because it does and it will continue to do so. I am a die hard analog fan and I hope that doesn't offend anyone who loves all things digital.

Mark
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing