Review

"If that were the case he would compare the downloaded high res Peter Grimes in an A/B comparison with the LPs played on a turntable of similar price using a top quality valve phono stage."

It does seem that it is at least possible that there is something lost when an analogue signal is digitalised and then converted back to analogue.

One striking example is the classic 1951 Bayreuth Parsifal (Knappertsbusch) recorded by Decca.  The Naxos tansfer, made by Mark Obert Thorn from the LPs no doubt using superior record playing equipment than I possess, still sounds significantly less impressive to me than my French Decca LPs. And I have tried several times an A-B comparison, always with the same outcome, both immediately noticeable and also there is less listening fatigue from my LPs. Astonishing. No knowing, though, what Decca might have done if they had still had access to the original tapes

Chris  

Nice one Robin!

My wife and I are still confused by some of the confusion of terms used in this discussion which started with great praise for the Linn Akurate DS as a digital streaming device linked to an analogue HIFI system. No complaints about the Linn from me although I do not need one.

BUT, the Linn DS is not a digital "streaming device" as this term is more usually understood by the forum. It is no more than a high quality playback device, which needs an ethernet connection rather than WIFI. In fact the Linn DS is nothing more than a good DAC in an elegant box. And as regards the performance of DACs, this is not measured purely by the quality of the DAC chips alone but by the combination of all the components in the DAC. For some experts, the clock for gitter correction is even more important.

Perhaps we have to recognize the different approaches adopted by the digital fanatics - "rip all your CDs and enjoy!" - and the HIFI fanatics - "there is more digital information on a red-book CD than most of us realize so leave me to my CDs".

We do not have a CD-player these days as mentioned earlier. We have invested a lot of hard-earned cash in a top-end combination of a CD-transport and a brilliant DAC. Professional musicians report that the result is as good as it gets when they listen to their own recordings in our living room, which is incidentally more like a church with brilliant acoustics. No soft furnishings such as settees, curtains, and rugs, just brick walls, stone floor and high wooden ceilings. So we are back to the quality of the analogue "listening experience" rather than the secrets of "ripping" CDs.

We also listen to LPs by the way. A pair of higher quality loudspeakers is currently a priority for us, but this issue opens up a whole new category of questions. 

Barry

Vic asked what's the difference between a CD player & A CD transport.

A CD player takes the CD, reads the digital information and converts it into an analogue signal & producing an analogue output than can be fed directly to an amplifier.

A CD transport takes the CD, reads the digital information and gives a digital output. This digital output must then be converted into an analogue signal using a digital to analogue converter (DAC) before it can be fed to an amplifier.

A CD player therefore incorporates both a CD  transport & a DAC.  Most CD players today incorporate a digital output in addition to their analogue output, enabling the user to bypass the CD player's own DAC & use an external DAC of perhaps higher quality than the CD player's own DAC.

Whether in a CD player or separate DAC the basic conversion is done by a proprietary silicon chip such as the Wolfson (a British company!) referred to earlier with ancilliary circuitry, in particular the analogue stages being at the design whim of the CD or DAC maufacturer.

Whilst you were sending the latter I added a comment above but really the sequence of events is the same. It's more a matter of having it all in one box or two! (And the price!)