Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD


Long story short, i've just brought home a VPI classic 1 mounted with a Zu-Denon DL103 on JMW Memorial 10.5 with the appropriate heavier counterweight. Had everything dialed in..perfect azimuth, VTF, overhang, with only a slightly higher than perfect VTA. Levelling checked. All good. 

I did a comparison between the VPI and my Esoteric X03SE and it's not even close. The Esoteric completely crushes the VPI in all regards. The level of treble refinement, air, decay, soundstage depth and width, seperation, tonality, overall coherence is just a simply a league above from what I'm hearing from the VPI. The only area the VPI seems to be better at is bass weight, but not by much. 

I'm honestly quite dumbfounded here. I've always believed that analogue should be superior to digital. I know the Esoteric is a much pricier item but the VPI classic is supposed to be a very good turntable and shouldn't be a slouch either. At this point I feel like I should give up on analogue playback and invest further in digital. 

Has anyone had a similar experience comparing the best of digital to a very good analogue setup?

Equipment:
Esoteric X03SE 
VPI Classic, JMW Memorial 10.5, Zu-DL103
Accuphase C200L
Accuphase P600
AR 90 speakers

Test Record/CD:
Sarah McLachlan - Surfacing (Redbook vs MOV 180g reissue)



chadsort
@rauliruegas 
I tried my best to follow your reasoning, but had a hard time catching its essence. It's no help that I don't know what AHEE means. It almost sounds like a conspiracy to hide the audio truth from us. The X-files of the high end? Surely you are joking?

High end audio is a business like any other, subject to technological innovations as much as to fashions and trends. It's not always easy to tell which is which, because a solid frame of reference is missing and objective journalism is mostly lacking. Basically we're left to our own devices. Discussions on forums like this are our best shot at getting some useful information that can help us educate ourselves.

My own preference is still very much with analog. But I'm not in an analog bubble, so last year I decided to purchase a well regarded current model cd player to hear if much had happened in digital in the last 10 years or so. I previously owned Krell KPS 20i and Metronome T2i Signature players, which were well regarded players in their time. I enjoyed listening to them both, but always preferred my analog rig.

So in came an Esoteric K-05x. Way down from their top level of course, but still equipped with the latest generation processor and filter technology. I really wanted the Esoteric to shine, but it didn't appeal to me at all. I just couldn't shake the feeling I was listening to highly manipulated sound and not music. But many people think this is a great player, so what do I know?

Perhaps your distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' does make some sense after all. But what is 'sound' to one person may well be 'music' to the next and vice versa. It's all subjective!


Edgewear, that's your diplomatic way of putting it, but there are clearly two distinct camps here; "sound lovers" and music lovers.
Live music can sound terrible as it usually does when it is played loud in small acoustic spaces, too amplified or in too live or dead rooms.  The acoustics where music is played is extremely important to the quality of the sound.  Recordings are often superior to live performances because they are engineered to capture the sound better.  As a part time recorder of an orchestra, chamber group and choirs and with 78s, LPs, CDs and RR tape, I hear all types of sounds from all types of venues.  I consider them all valid for music enjoyment.  If not, I don't listen.  I've heard great performances in terrible acoustics and on poor sounding recordings.  But when I hear a mediocre performance in great acoustics, I want to run away but with recordings, I just toss them.  
Dear @edgewear: AHEE: Audio High End Establishment.

Now, normally our room/audio systems are " optimized " to listen the analog alternative not for the digital one.

So when we want to listen seriously to the digital alternative we must to make changes in our room/system because its overall performance is way different.

We can think that in an analog rig digital will performs marvelous but other important issue is that when we listen to digital we WANT that performs with the same analog characteristics. No way about both alternatives are way way different. Digital is a lot more demanding that analog.

When your room/system is optimased for digital then analog always will performs better than ever. ! ! ! 


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


@rauliruegas 
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?

Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.

With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics  to suit your musical tastes.

@fleschler 
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great.