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

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."
Didn't we all have more fun with everything many years ago than we have today? Nostalgia can be a powerful perspective-changer.

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.

iamhe

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.


chakster,


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.

glupson:

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.