2. analog
  3. 140184-113812

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
analogluvr
859 posts
 
@prof 

A Micro Seiki DD40 is a pretty great tableand that was a good cartridge you had on it too.  Miles better than a entry level Rega for less money. 
Post removed 
inna
7,358 posts
 
Again, who cares about non-audiophiles on this forum ? They don't even exist.
Well done cds from 78s would be okay for some and not okay for others. I don't have to choose because I don't listen to that music.
prof
3,480 posts
 
analogluvr,
Yes it sure was a good table!  Had to go quite a bit further in build quality/engineering (and new cartridge) to do better.
fleschler
2,029 posts
 
jafant - Marston records can be found at https://www.marstonrecords.com/ He has won Grammys for his work on other labels and does many Naxos label CDs. The defunct Romophone label and nearly so Biddulph were great sources of excellently remastered 78s. Pearl label didn’t remaster, just copied with all the record noise remaining.

Inna-who says that 78s aren’t audiophile quality? The late great Michael Lane made early acoustic 78s of pianists sound like great 50s mono, limited in bandwith but gorgeous sounding mids and dynamic. He made junky labels like Remington and Plymouth sound audiophile-like on his fantastic equipment. 78s often sound quite audiophile-like on my equipment as well. Stereo recordings sound more impressive if recorded and mastered well too but so much of the recordings of the past 60 years sound mediocre to awful. I’ve sold 18,000 records which I found lacking in performance and/or sound quality. I’ve kept 32,000 records in my permanent collection (7,000 CDs). I’ve found it easier to find great sounding CDs than records, mostly based on who did the mastering.

Watch out for those English jazz box set knock offs such as RealGone Jazz. Sure, they’re cheap and comprehensive but often use bad LPs as source material poorly copied. I’ve purchased two dozen of their sets. Some are quite good. None which are CD copies are as good as the original CDs. The Chico Hamilton set is excellent with some really great sound. The Ramsey Lewis sets have some truly awful LP copying on some of the CDs. Many CDs on the sets sound compressed and/or harmonically thinner than the originals.  It's obvious that they don't license the original material despite claims of "remastered sound." 
I try to buy the original/licensed CDs or the original LP (which can be difficult and/or expensive such as Blue Notes and Pacific Jazz labels).  


More to discover