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

minorl,


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.


Re The Blue Raincoat, yes, I know it’s supposed to be some kind of audiophile classic, but I mean, come on!
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.
@glupson

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.



Post removed