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: 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.
There was a very interesting study done many years ago. It was a professional study done by psychologists and following established procedures to minimize anything that might influence the outcome. There were for example no questions about which is better or why. People sat and listened to some music. Different kinds of music. The questions that were asked were directed at the music. Its been so long now I forget but they were asked questions along the lines of have you heard this before, would you be interested in buying it, do you feel more or less inclined to listen to more of this music in the future, that kind of thing. 

They had an assistant bringing the questionnaire hand it to them from behind, eliminating any chance the subjects might see an expression or mannerism and be influenced in their answers. Not that they could have done much, even the assistants had no idea what was going on. All they knew was light goes off you go in hand this over take it back, wash, rinse repeat. Easily the most comprehensively objective, scientifically and statistically sound study I have ever seen or heard about.

The music they heard was played three different ways, all carefully matched to volume, frequency response, everything possible to eliminate all but the two parameters being studied. In the first method it was turntable and tube amp. In the second it was CD and tube amp. In the third it was CD and SS amp. 

While I said 1st, 2nd and 3rd they weren't always in that order. People might get tired after a while. That might influence results. So the order was randomized.

Now even though this is to the best of my knowledge clearly the definitive study on the subject, since nobody was asked which one sounds better we can't come to that conclusion. What they did show however and by a statistically large margin is people enjoy and want to buy music more when it is played on turntables with tubes. There was a clear ranking with turntable/tube first, CD tube second, CD SS dead last.

At the conclusion of the study the poor assistant who had been hearing all this for weeks asked what in the world was going on? Why? Because she couldn't figure it out. But over time she had come to dread the time when it would be the one awful sounding one.

That would be, just so you know, the CD and solid state.
Post removed