Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

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. 

enjoy

chakster,

 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."

iamhe,

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.