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)
"...when i want to play an album LP or a single "12 from my favorite band, i want to play original vinyl..."
"... i want to play the original source, not a bad digital copy."
"Digital copy can not be better than the original source such as tape or vinyl. It’s a copy."
Vinyl is a copy, too. It is not the original source.
In your case (rare records), digital copies may be limiting factor and it is understandable that you do not want a bad digital copy. Try copying into good digital copy. Maybe it has improved since the last time and I am not trying to poke. It may surprise you, if you have not tried in a while. Maybe 50% (or whatever the percentage of digital-preferring crowd) people here are not completely clueless and do have some taste. Give it a chance.
I often see vinyl fans bemoaning the fact that so much new vinyl is produced from digital masters. Some say "why bother buying a vinyl made from a digital master, doesn't it just defeat the point?"
Not for me.
I buy both old vinyl albums and tons of new vinyl releases. I'm especially a fan of soundtracks, which are getting killer releases on vinyl. But I still buy a band's album if it's out on vinyl, be it surf-rock, folk, jazz, electronica, or whatever.
Even if the master was digital, I get the "vinyl experience" of the beautiful artwork, the tactile nature of the object, owning the music, playing it on the turntable etc. And most of it sounds utterly fantastic on vinyl. First, it's not like they are just making rips from red-book CD. A good new vinyl album starts with high res audio files, and it's mastered for vinyl. That in itself can make a bit of sonic difference. (And the vinyl can even eek out more dynamic range than the digital release, if the digital release is squashed for 'loudness wars' type delivery).
So the vinyl starts with high res audio, picks up some "flavor" from the vinyl remastering, and then we still have the nature of playback via phono pre-amps and getting the sound from vinyl through the cartridige/turntable. I think that process in of itself results in some of the "vinyl" sound. It certainly seems to in my system, as I still often get a sort of "different" texture and presentation via the vinyl playback of an album vs it's digital counterpart, and I often prefer the vinyl presentation.
So, I have no problem buying LPs just because they may have started with a digital master. I get all the same fun out of the physical aspects of buying the LP version, and they can sound fantastic. It's not like an analog master guarantees good sound quality. A number of my LPs from digital masters sound better than those from analog masters.
Comparison of a raw analog audio signal to the CD audio and DVD audio output
The answer lies in the difference betweenanalog and digitalrecordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, andCDsandDVDsare digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).
This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate.
In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to youramplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.
A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.
This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard asnoiseor static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.
From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling.
The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. The table below lists the sampling rate and the accuracy for CD recordings, and the maximum sampling rate and accuracy for DVD recordings. DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio.
FWIW, I will not get into a debate which format is superior as I have and enjoy both. My experience is that both are superb. What I have noticed is that digitally recorded, mastered and produced CD's outperform the digitally produced vynil and that the analog recorded, mastered and produced vynil outperforms the CD. It took me a long time, about 12 months, and a lot of work setting up my VPI to come to that conclusion. I was also not that impressed when I returned to the record experience after a 30+ year hiatus. For whatever reason I no longer have the snap crackel pop or dirty noise floor that I first experienced. Now everything is dead quiet and black. I noticed a drastic improvement after about 200 hours of the cartridge being used and checking setup so flipping often I can do it blindfolded. Every detail is important listening to vynil but once you got it it is amazing. I have about 100 original rock albums from the late 60 thru the 70 in both formats and have compared them side by side and in all cases the original vynil beat the digital copy in quality. However I also have some later produced digital recordings which were transferred to vynil but the Cd beats the vynil consistently in my ssystem and to my ears. So to my ears and listening pleasure I go to the digital side for digitally recorded and to analog side for the old analog recorded and I love them both. Anybody want to purchase those CD's that I have on album? For those who just have to know, my digital front end including speakers set me back about 22 grand and the analog front end about 20 grand so it's close to equal quality as far as expenditure. Don't compare one format to the other just enjoy the music best you can.
Holy cow, we are still getting the old myth "digital doesn’t capture the complete soundwave, but analog does!"???
It’s no wonder people who know something about digital lose patience with the bogus arguments raised by vinyl lovers.
There are various reasons why vinyl tends to sound different from digital sources. The myth that digital can’t reproduce the full musical waveforms, as if it’s "missing" audible information that an analog medium isn’t, is not one of them.
Vinyl is a copy, too. It is not the original source.
This is analog copy, not a digital copy (in technical terms).
But original Vinyl is an art form, created by musicians for us (buyers) at the time when it was actual for them. This is an original source for us, mastertape is not for us because there is only one master tape (the source for vinyl lacquer disc). Don’t forget about direct cut records, there is NO mastertapes at all, just lacquer disc. Also for the most of the rare records mastertape is impossible to find, even original vinyl is hard to find.
Try copying into good digital copy.
Why do i need a copy from my record if i can play record ? This is much simpler, don’t you think so ?
I’m enjoyin playin records, not a digital copies. If i like the music i want it on vinyl, not in digital. It can be in digital on my iphone only until i will find a vinyl. I can not take seriously anything in digital, i want an original phisycal media format (vinyl) if i like the tune. I have no problem to store vinyl, i like a shelfs full of vinyl and i want more. It’s fun. Digital have no fun at all, it’s so boring even in top bit rate and high resolution. Again, this is cultural thing, not just a fidelity.
I had more fun with cassete tapes many years ago than with all that digital files today. Still enjoyin taking pictures on film too.
The link you provided, as informative as it may be on some basic level, is a bit old and outdated on some level. DVD-Audio has practically died many years ago. Yes, it was better sound quality than CD but that might have been the only advantage and someone came up with other ways of file storage and here we are, 2018.
I've been following this particular forum for awhile and I find it very interesting to say the least.
The typical digital vs vinyl arguments pop up again and got a little heated.
as with most things in life, people try to simply things that are not simple.
most people are not "audiophiles". They couldn't care less about expensive equipment or even accurate sound reproduction because of many reasons. Some people listen to music as background music while doing other things. not even in the same room. most younger people were brought up on some pretty bad digital recordings mp3, etc. that were just terrible, but to them, they may not even know it was bad.
how may of us actually know what a real violin, cymbal, organ, piano, etc actually sound like. Or are they use to hearing electronic music?
In this case many hear correctly pointed out some flaws in the OP's vinyl system. particularly, the cartridge/phono stage loading. That is a big one. The other was the cartridge/tone arm compatibility.
This is one reason why many people really don't want to get into serious vinyl. It can be a real PITA. setting up the table, arm, cartridge and phono stage can be daunting. most people do it wrong and the results show their digital rigs out perform the analog rig. Well duh!!
some suggested that people were either stupid or sheep when they went from analog to digital. Remember a few things first before making that statement. The vast majority were not audiophiles in the first place. They listened to what was mass produced and available, which at the time was cassettes and records.
CD's and digital technology was introduced by companies (Sony, Phillips, etc.) that basically colluded to force the industry towards digital and CDs. It was convenient and easy. Plug and play. no more needles, scratched albums, phono stages, hum. So the mass market was basically forced to adapt or not hear their favorite artist anymore. It only came out on CD in the vast majority of cases.
Also, to really hear the difference between proper analog and proper digial (apples to apples), one must know what to listen for. Just like wine. If you don't really know what you are tasting, and more importantly what it is suppose to take like, then most wines taste the same to some.
No digital rig I have heard beats a nice analog rig and I have heard some really nice digital and analog rigs. That is not to say that the digital is not good. Quite the contrary. Digital now a days is really quite good. and one can get decent sound from a relatively inexpensive digital rig. Which is the point entirely. But to hear real music from digital, you must go up a little in price and equipment. Separate DAC, transport, isolation, cables, etc. not for the average person. For analog, it is the same. you can get decent sound from entry level turntables. But the phono stages in older receivers don't allow for cartridge loading changes and therefore, there could be a major problem there. Also, phono stages in most receivers were okay at best.
Who in their right mind wants to go through all the trouble and expense to get a higher end turntable, cartridge (most people think they just need a needle. funny), tonearm, cables, phono stage (what the hell is that?), and get this properly matched and set up correctly? What a PITA.
But, if you really love music, it is worth it, if you can afford it.
This is a high end equipment site. With audiophiles. not your everyday listener. most of your associates will laugh you out of the room if you tell them how much you spent on your equipment. These same people have no problem at all understanding the difference between a Toyota and Mercedes however. Both get you from point A to point B okay. And if that is your only basis for comparison, then yeah, they are the same. But in reality, they aren't.
No offence, but the OP's analog rig wasn't properly set up. I'm sure he did his best, but to this day, I still have professionals set up and adjust my analog rigs. Also, the esoteric CD player was quite nice. Not the same level as the analog system.
So, to him the digital is better and it was. The real question is whether he is willing to take the time and money to do the analog system justice. Again, Analog systems can be a real PITA, but once done correctly, can be really nice.
You said it all. In my house I’m out numbered by YouTube, Apple Music, and Spotify devotees. No one buys CD’s anymore. Tiny headphone are said to sound better than my old caver al 3’s.
I understand the concept of master tapes and them not being for us and vinyl being some sort of our "original" although it is not truly original. I approach it that way, too, but original it is not.
"...created by musicians for us (buyers) at the time when it was actual for them."
Historically true but, if chasing the true sound that artists from then thought we would be hearing, we should not be buying turntables and cartridges now. Much less multi-thousand-dollar cartridges which are surely way better at extracting whatever is on the record. Artists in 1966 were not expecting us to use such things. They probably did not even exist. We should be playing on "period instruments". 1960s record on 1960s turntable etc. All else, following the logic "artists made it that way for us" may be overshooting the target.
"Why do i need a copy from my record if i can play record ? This is much simpler, don’t you think so ?"
In your case, I would say that a good digital copy may prolong the life of your record. I assume it is much easier to buy fancier and fancier cartridge these days than it is to buy records that you seem to prefer.
It is much simpler to play digital files than records. There is really no comparison. I am not saying that the overall experience is better, but it is way simpler.
"I can not take seriously anything in digital, i want an original phisycal media format (vinyl)"
This is where you may be doing yourself disservice. Explore a bit. I am not saying you should stop buying records, but see if digital these days is as bad as you remember. Not your iPhone, of course, but some more audio-focused set-up. I also want everything in physical format, even if I put it on a hard drive as soon as I buy it, but that is a preference based on growing-up and what not. It is not some fantastic advantage.
"Digital have no fun at all, it’s so boring even in top bit rate and high resolution."
Most of the "younger" people out there would disagree, if they ever cared to consider thinking about it. As far as higher resolutions go, I would disagree. It does get quite good.
"Again, this is cultural thing, not just a fidelity."
That is true, it cannot be more true I think. That does not make digital horrible and those preferring it having no taste, though. I prefer the idea of records, convenience of digital, and sound of whatever I have around.
"I had more fun with cassete tapes many years ago than with all that digital files today."
Didn't we all have more fun with everything many years ago than we have today? Nostalgia can be a powerful perspective-changer.
The basics in that link are still standing, I think. It is the DVD-Audio part that I thought I should mention to you, in case you were not familiar with it and were expecting it to make a change at some point in the future.
A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog
signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and
measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy ... This
means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the
complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some
sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a
trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for
the sample rate.
While this seems intuitively true, it is actually completely false, demonstrably so. See this.
A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original
sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost.
But information is lost. That's easy to prove. Ask anyone who has ever made their own recording and then had an LP pressed from it.
Not to nitpick, but a groove is not "carved" into an LP. It is stamped. Only the master lacquer can be considered to be "carved."
I'm a vinyl guy, so I hesitate to correct these errors. But it's important to understand what LP gets right, and where it has limitations.
One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital. More toys you might have not even thought of. You, basically, double the fun and that is really fun.
Thank you. I enjoy both platforms to include streaming Pandora. My current vinyl collection is pretty limited because I believe older vinyl tends to sound better. For me the comparison between any format is relevant because it drive technology forward. However that does not nessasarly negate the inherent qualities of older technology and perhaps to build on it.
cleeds"While this seems intuitively true, it is actually completely false, demonstrably so"
You are free to discount, reject, and/or ignore commentary, statements, and claims made by user "cleeds" who is like a festering, infected boil upon this forum he is ignorant, misinformed and based on the best, most reliable, researched data that I have does not even own a music reproduction system! He/she comes to these forums to interfere with the conversations hear and distract from the exchange of ideas, information and opinions, and is probably suffering mental disturbance, disfunction and/or delusions.
Regarding vinyl records - They are all dirty until properly cleaned with a fine Record Cleaning Machine and only then can you tell the sound quality . Recently I've discovered the finest lubricant that also improves the ability of the stylus to get what's in the vinyl grooves and eliminates static build-up . As others have pointed out , there are higher quality components in every category , including records themselves . CD's can sound marvelous and are more convenient . Play what you prefer .
I dont care what edition Denon DL103 you are using, they are average at best (these were the goto cart for radio stations). Also, The tonearm is not the problem, put that Dynavector on it and you will hear a huge difference. I want to say that If you do not have a large vinyl collection already and you are trying to buy new records to amass a collection most of these "new" vinyls will be highly disappointing to listen to. Finally, If your system is good enough you should hear differences in all vinyl and cd's played bad or good. Thats the mark of a great stereo.
I sold off my vinyl rig a couple of years ago. I had gotten back into vinyl around the year 2000, out of nostalgia for shopping for lps, album covers, and also at that time there were several favorite albums of mine (my lp collection had been destroyed in a flood at dawn of the CD era) that had not yet been digitalized. After 15 years , several upgrades of turntables, cartridges and pre amps, the fun had gone out of the hobby. By then all my albums were available digitally, and in every case smoked the lps. I am glad that vinyl is perceived as such a great media because I got a great deal when I sold my analog rig. I can only shake my head at the list of suggestions given here to try and improve analog front ends. At least it keeps people busy...
Forum user above made the following statement about another user. In part:
...made by user "cleeds" who is like a festering, infected boil upon this forum he is ignorant, misinformed....
This name calling is not only sophomoric, it is demeaning and inflammatory while serving no legitimate literary purpose. Lets see if we all can, while perhaps having opposing views, keep our emotions in check and discuss this subject like adults.
You are right but do not get too upset about this. cleeds seems to attract some negative energy and, despite frequently disagreeing with her/his views, I do not think it is deserved. This "infected boil" thing was mentioned in the past with humorous responses by other posters. It is obviously something else at play than just disagreement or personal animosity.
clearthink does deserve a praise for consistency, effort, and thoroughness. It is not easy, practical, and convenient never to miss mentioning three things in a row in each sentence, thought, or description. It does seem like a part of a bigger problem, unusual presentation, or stronger feelings, and not only bad manners, unacceptable behavior, and lack of anything meaningful to say. Huh, this was not easy.
Hi. Guys , im not crazy about streaming or TT gear, but im crazy about accuphase gear . I was advised by audiogoners to buy vault and it was good advice for the money I like it . But about tt I didn’t ask for advice, what I did I just wanted to try on my own, so I bought used vpi scout, from music direct new dynavector xx2 mk2 and ps audio nuwave phono , and here we go, have no clue about set up I got simple tool alignment screw down everything together. And all I can say even junk old lp sounds better than my deeper sound stage and warm and everything , compare to accuphase dp78 . Jaw dropping I never knew that lp can sound that good. I wish someone could help me to build analog gear right way. Because the experiment I did come out well .
Out of sheer curiosity, I just tried, more or less, what OP did but with less effort.
Being one of the less biased participants here (I cannot care less what sounds better, in fact), I compared same album on a record and CD with one more added bonus.
CD was Jennifer Warnes’ Famous Blue Raincoat, 20th Anniversary issue, regular one that used to be in stores for $15-20. Record was Jennifer Warnes’ Famous Blue Raincoat, 20th Anniversary issue, 45rpm, 180 g (maybe 200?), Cisco Music limited edition (1833/6000) in mint condition played maybe three or four times before this.
On my, for this forum, low-fi equipment and with no expectations on which one would win, it was beyond simple. To paraphrase/quote OP, record crushed CD. It was really no dispute, not even remotely. Everything, but really everything, was better on the record. For once, it was even quiet like CD. Eerie, to be honest.
Of note, my turntable was set up at some point in a couple of minutes, not months or years as some do. No VTA setting, azimuth, or any other sophisticated measurement. Just 52 mm to needle, set approximately by eyes and with a ruler. Azimuth approximated by staring at it. Kind of what you do when you do not want to spend life tuning-in your turntable. No special stands, isolation, nothing.
This was the result of one record/CD comparison. Not much of a sample, for sure. It made me wonder about all the turntable set-ups and "matching" and whatever else that, sort of, discredited OP’s comparison. It seems to me that turntable is much less important than the record itself. In my case, to the point of "as long as it runs, it is good enough". It may not be in the format, but in execution of it.
I also compared original CD from years before this 20th Anniversary issue wondering what the deal was with "remasters are no good, loudness wars, etc." I read from time to time. Well, remaster was better to me but a little bit of mental bias could change that for someone.
Turntable is Technics SL-Q2 with Soundsmith Otello cartridge. Give OP a break, his stuff is actually decent. My turntable has more years than cartridge hours (20-25-30 hours, I would guess).
Should I add that I think that digital is actually superior format. Even for me whose vinyl life is much simpler than most. No adjustments, no tweaks.
Digital recording pressed in vinyl vs a digital recording on digital. Now, listen to a real analog recording on analog record vs a the CD of that recording and we can talk.
Also, the VPI arm is way to light for that cartridge.
Any recommendations for guy like me with no experience in vinyls. Should I just keep what I got now or should I get new equipment? I was going to replace phono preamp to match my accuphase ad2850 or even c37 and maybe I should also go with accuphase cartridge to continue to make it better match those components and what table to this idea . Any way if this idea is good? Or maybe somebody has better idea? Thanks
When you talk about MC carts, there are MC carts and there are MC carts. The 103 is a reasonable cart and that’s it. Really if one wants great results from your cart,then a high quality phono pre is mandatory. Be it a tube pre or solid state, once again you have to audition a number of them to get the staging and depth that is displayed by a really good phono pre. I am sorry, but a really good used Benz micro glider, a Plinius 14 solid state phono pre and a tube preamp is a different reality. I would say, you moved to this new CD unit because your previous CD was dry, gritty and fatiguing, even a valve CD would have been an improvement.
"Digital recording pressed in vinyl vs a digital recording on digital. Now, listen to a real analog recording on analog record vs a the CD of that recording and we can talk."
If Exile On Main St. is considered analog, I prefer the record but CD I have around would be objectively better. I think I like the record because it is how I heard it when it mattered. That is not that much of a recording pinnacle so it may not be fair to judge based on it. Beggars Banquet, Italian pressing from about 1980, is, to me, not as good as 2003 SACD. Same for German pressings of It’s Only Rock’n’Roll and Goat’s Head Soup vs. CDs. However, I enjoy watching the yellow label rotating and that is where record is unbeatable.
For now, digital recording pressed on vinyl vs. a digital recording on digital seemed to me significantly better which is about the opposite from what OP found.
Based on a minuscule sample of one, it may be less to it than all the theories we make would make us believe. I did no fine adjustments, obviously crossed analog/digital recording divide, and used less-than-revered analog equipment using integrated amplifier’s phono input.
Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa.
Unless we find such a recording, we may not have anything to talk about, it seems.
I don’t understand why that reissued album is so expensive.
It was not that expensive when it was released, I think I paid $60 for it (it is three records in a very protective packaging, almost of Japanese kind). It is not something that I ever listen to, but bought it just because I was curious why it got such a treatment. I have a feeling they simply tried to make it as good as they could and wanted to charge for it. Sort of, expected it to be a "reference" level for the record people actually want to listen to. I may be wrong on all accounts. I really wonder how it would sound on some truly good gear that all of you have.
I’ve found its very easy to convince yourself that digital is better. It can be made to sound good enough by any reasonable (& some unreasonable standards) with on occasion some really excellent qualities, that can easily make it make it irresistible - if you let yourself get drawn into the convenience. This last is the great rationalizer & stimulant to ignore the inconvenient truth analog can be made to represent. Yes, as others have pointed out here it can certainly be a PITA but it still is what it is. Get it all right and there is unquestionably a delicacy, humanity and a rainbow of harmonics easily discernible that the very best digital can simulate quite well in the same way a fabulous reproduction of a painting can suggest a great deal of the original’s beauty. The human imagination is a glorious thing and can convince us that the reproduction has more than enough beauty for our needs. That’s not wrong necessarily - just not the deeper truth we need to understand. Let me put it another way. I wear glasses. When I take them off & look at my hand or anything else nearby (I’m myopic) I can see that textures have more detail and are truer and more beautiful as so much more detail is noticeably clearer. With the glasses on I can see greater distances, read better & navigate through spaces far better, but it’s more like looking through a video camera. The images are sharper but less organic and/or natural as well as less detailed. I choose to ignore the greater visual fidelity for the advantages & convenience my glasses offer. I’m not listening to music however which is supposed to be transporting. If you choose not to surrender to the most innermost virtues of music, analog can provide - then don’t. But persuading yourself it’s every bit as good, simply isn’t true. I still very much like looking at paintings with my glasses on but if I want a really good look, I take them off & get close.
If I had to defer to experts I would refer to the late Harry Pearson and his unofficial successor, Jonathon Valin of the Absolute Sound. HP said at one point, comparing the two formats just led to heartache because digital could never come up to the same standard - one just had to accept digital on its own terms. Exactly. Valin is listening to the latest, best digital now (as a secondary option) & finds it very good & enjoyable indeed, but admits, even so, his analog rig is usefully & obviously better in ways he’s not prepared to forego & does not see any horizon where that will change.
One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, mainly because i already switched from digital (CDs) to VINYL in the ’90s and never looked back. However, i still use digital on computer (in headphones with extrernal DAC) and on iphone, also to post on this forum and to share pictures on instagram etc. But that’s enough, i want to play records, and no files can replace real vinyl records in my life. All i want is more vintage records, the analog system is already superb. I just don’t understand how all these funny digital boxes can replace good looking mechanical machines like turntables and tonearms? It’s completely different aesthetics.
Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa.
Reminds me of the old Linn Analog/Digital issue of tracks from Ossian -- one side recorded analog and the other digital (albeit to the standards of the day) and no indication as to which was which ... https://www.discogs.com/Ossian-AnalogDigital/release/7155877
It's been years since I listened to it but as I am a big fan of "Jamie Raeburn" maybe today I'll dig it out :-)
I really don’t want to feed the analog v digital which one is better debate. I suspect that in many cases, the difference is a reflection of the level of gear being used- I disagree with Glupson that any old (or new) turntable is the same as another- but there are so many other factors, apart from the equipment, and the set-up, including the sonics of the recording and mastering. I didn’t aim to do a ’gotcha’ on the Warnes’ record Glup--in fact, you raise a good question, because I couldn’t think of an album that was recorded in analog and digital media simultaneously, for comparison purposes. (There was an album recorded using different mic’ing techniques to showcase the differences). (just saw Folkfreak’s post- that’s a help- I actually listened to one of the Yarlung tapes at Myles’ apartment several years ago- it was pretty impressive) There are a number of digitally recorded albums released on vinyl that sound spectacular. Just as there are some really bad analog recordings. At this point, for me, much comes down to the quality of the source material. And despite my life-long love affair with the vinyl LP, I enjoy digital playback immensely.
I really don’t want to feed the analog v digital which one is better debate ...
much comes down to the quality of the source material. And despite my
life-long love affair with the vinyl LP, I enjoy digital playback
immensely.
Well said, and +1. It's often confounded me how for some listeners the analog/digital discussion is either/or. I think they co-exist quite nicely.
@john1 : Excellent post! There is more "there" in those microgrooves than many realize! After all, audio recording starts with a vibrating mike diaphragm moving a coil in a magnetic field. A completely analog process! And should be played back by an analog process! So, as Pearl Jam sang, "Spin the black circle"!
To each his own! No disrespect to all the vinyl lovers.If one cant afford a solid granite slab with a floating table..20k stili and cartridge..cda is the choice. cda, no static, no wear, can last for many years and good quality discs a life time.I have to say my rotel RDD 980 with the philips cdm9 floating laser mechanism and a pcb full of the best audio components sounds better than any turntable i have heard.the 980 is many years old and had one service in its life, solder the complete pcb...good for another 20..when i hit 80 it many need a touch up or a cap of 3...
Lastly if your lp is not one the first 100 off the press it wont be as good as the first 10.LPs do wear out after many years, even if you running super light.I know a diamond engineer who cuts diamond styli...X debeers SA, my great grandfather was the diamond engineer for Cecil, Fuller Williams.He with the help of the workers mined the diamonds..wrote a book..some dreams come true which i have and treasure...
My first styli was a shure encore, cost me a months pay in 78.Had an entry level pioneer pld2 if memory serves..a nick in an lp destroyed the shure!Thats when i went cda.
and cd writers cut memorex discs at the slowest speed,4x, they are still good 40 years later!I dont know if an lp will last that long...sounding as good as new.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
