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
Dear @edgewear: AHEE: Audio High End Establishment.

Now, normally our room/audio systems are " optimized " to listen the analog alternative not for the digital one.

So when we want to listen seriously to the digital alternative we must to make changes in our room/system because its overall performance is way different.

We can think that in an analog rig digital will performs marvelous but other important issue is that when we listen to digital we WANT that performs with the same analog characteristics. No way about both alternatives are way way different. Digital is a lot more demanding that analog.

When your room/system is optimased for digital then analog always will performs better than ever. ! ! ! 


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


@rauliruegas 
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?

Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.

With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics  to suit your musical tastes.

@fleschler 
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great. 


Dear @edgewear: Your guess was rigth-on.

If for " neutral " you mean: lower noise levels, lower overall signal degradation, lower overall distortions, way better bass range management, etc, etc, the it’s because is more " neutral ".

Yes, we have more " fun " with analog but that’s not of what I’m talking about as it’s not:
"" the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes. """

Each one of us " musical tastes " are not directly in relationship with the room/system target: truer to the recording.
Where when the performance of the room/system is " truer to the recording " always will suit our musical tastes.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
I keep waiting to this thread to die but it won't. The undeniable truth IMHO is that there is more SQ deviation with vinyl than digital. There is also more variation as to proper set-up and overall deck quality with vinyl and vinyl playback gear than CD's and CDP's. The best vinyl pressings on a great and properly set-up vinyl rig will eclipse any CD on any CDP for those that appreciate the attributes of vinyl. Yes, lots of variables apply as to software, hardware, and variation of we humans who value various audio qualities. Vinyl is ultimately more rewarding for those of who value the sonic qualities of good vinyl and who are willing to work for it. To quote Timothy Olyphant in "The Girl Next Door", "the juice [is] worth the squeeze!". 
As to performances, there are LPs and CDs which do not duplicate them or have equally good mastering/sound.   My Marston CDs of vocalists and pianists are not available on LP and often extremely rare originals (78s, Pathes, Edisons, etc).  They sound wonderful on high end equipment.  They don't necessarily need the analog equivalent to extract the best sound possible.  

As to high end sound, I have many LPs and CDs, where both were good remasterings, yet the LP is slightly better than the CD.  Then again, I have so many mediocre LPs due to inferior mastering or pressing where the CD kills the LP.  Until I purchased my EAR Acute CD player, I didn't enjoy CDs.  Now CDs are on an equally enjoyable footing as my analog gear.  I wouldn't want to live without both.