My digital front end outdoes my analog.....


For the first time ever my analog setup is being outdone by my digital front end. The equipment: digital-MF Trivista SACD
analog-Thorens TD-125 w/Rabco SL8E linear tracking arm/Grado Master reference (4.0mv) YS Audio Concerto plus with Telefunken smooth plate 12AX7's. The sound: Overall fairly similar with that usual superior analog HF response. The image and seperation are way better on the CDP, this is my biggest issue. Better, but less so, are bass response and dynamics on the CDP as well. I love vinyl and always have and will. The tonearm is set up great and the thing tracks perfect. VTA perfect. I have it only two feet from the left speaker and it doesn't even think of feeding back. I can jump on the floor and the woofers don't move so it is so well isolated. The table/arm seem fine. Here are problems I see:
1)Lower end phono pre (so what do I need to spend)
2)Rewire TT from cart to interconnect as the tonearm is 30 years old
3)As a passive line stage user I need a very low Z ballsier phono stage. The current unit is 54db gain with an output impedence of 1000 ohms. The Trivista CDP's output impedence is 50 ohms (this could be the bass issue since I use a passive linestage)

Vinyl will never have the place for me it once did since so few new releases are on LP. I have most of the vinyl and out of print vinyl not on or never released on CD that I desire to own (based on what I like)
I do love playing with vinyl and shopping and finding it as well. Thoughts welcome-thanks in advance

ET
electroid
My Grado is 4.0 mv (its a wood body hi output master) as the tag that came with it states. It does not overdrive the Concerto. In fact as my original post states fidelity overall is similar w/ a slight edge in the HF area going to the vinyl rig. The CDP output is higher and has a bit more slam (better dynamics and bass which I attribute to its 50 ohm output impedence and slightly higher output overall) I would be happy if the image and soundstage were even almost as good, it's not. I think I will rewire the Rabco and bypass its tonearm connector as another Rabco owner did w/good result and then try better phono stages. I used someone I know and respect to help with the math between cart out & phono stage gain to get my desired final out before my passive linestage. He suggested 60db gain, I came close at 54 because I couldn't find something with 60 (other than a Wright) that I could afford at the time. Thanks again to everyone. I would like to add this was never meant to be a vinyl vs digital thread, rather I was soliciting tips for improved results with my vinyl setup. Clearly there is a gap in total retail dollars between the two in my system. I still haven't heard anyone suggest a particular phono stage with high gain/output for me to try.
ET, don't take my word for it; just look up the MC vs. MM gain specifications for any preamp with a built-in MM/MC phono section, or any phono preamp that accomodates both MM and MC, and you will see what I'm talking about.

All the ones I can find specify around 34dB for cartridges with outputs of 2.0 mV or higher (MM), ~58dB for (MC) cartridges between 0.2mV-0.6mV, and 68dB for the really low output MC cartridges <0.2mV. FWIW
Analog is no more real then digital. They are both reproductions...the only "real" is live music.
DNA (the Double Helix) is inherently of digital-like construction. It may not use ones and zeros but it has a very limited set of exact states that are strung out in an almost endless string (rather like bits on a CD). DNA is an extremely robust way to maintain accuracy...each cell has an exact copy and there are millions of cells in each ear alone...does that make our auditory system perfect but artificial too?
Chad 'n Shad, what I meant by "imperfect" with respect to analog is that when storing analog information, any damage to the storage medium (the groove, the tape) also damages the information itself.

With storage of binary code, that is not true. As long as you can read the binary info AT ALL, you will be able to digitally reconstruct a "perfect facsimile" of the original sound. However, the resulting sound wave that gets to your ear, did not originate from an analog source (a wiggly groove), rather it was "reconstructed" using a code that can at best only "approximate" the analog equivalent, albeit without any pops and scratches.

The example of the DNA molecule would make a brilliant argument, except that it is not a digital (binary) storage system, and like the record groove, is vulnerable to all kinds of degradation and damage, and consequently, so is the information it stores. When this "damage" happens, we call it a mutation. Essential for evolution, but probably not so good for music reproduction.

.