2. analog
  3. 1204584949

Got a New CD Player and Now I'm Bummed

Hope to get some help here...I recently added an Esoteric X-03SE to my system the details of which you can see here. I've always been a huge fan of vinyl and have a large collection--many more LP's than CD's. The problem is my digital front end is now WAY better sounding than my analogue set up. (My last CD player, a Naim CDX2, was about on par with my table--better in some areas, not as good in others). I'm finding myself listening to many more CD's while my LP's are dying for attention. I never thought this would happen to me! So, now I'm faced with upgrading my analogue to the point of parity (or better?) with my digital. (Wierd, right?). I could use some suggestions. One limiting factor is the overall height of the new analogue set up cannot be much taller than what I have since it needs to sit on a wall mount shelf that fits inside our entertainment center. So, I need a table/arm/cartridge set up that sounds DRAMATICALLY better than my Scout/JMW9/Dyna 20XM but doesn't need a ton of head room. What do you think I need to spend to get significantly better performance than what I have already? What would you all suggest for a new analogue front end? I'm thinking a Scoutmaster, Sota Cosmos or perhaps going back to an LP 12 with works. Ideas? Thanks!
128x128dodgealum
restock
831 posts
 
One table I forgot to mention in my previous post:

Frank Schroeder has designed a new table which has an interesting idea for using a tape drive. I think it will be marketed by Artemis. Soundwise it is little of an unknown although you know what to expect from Frank's products.
lewm
13,421 posts
 
Sorry about use of the phrase "pig-headed". Perhaps "close-minded" would have sufficed and would have seemed less harsh. No offense intended to anyone.

Guys, do you really think that a light platter with a friction bearing is a perfect analogue of a very heavy platter with a low-friction bearing? It would seem to me that those two behave very differently when rotational force is reduced. The heavy platter with a low friction bearing will want to go on spinning "forever" (in the complete absence of bearing friction), while the light platter cum friction bearing will rapidly slow down. Therefore, in actual use, when the platter is subjected to the opposing forces of stylus drag vs torque applied by the drive belt, the two approaches would give different results. Both designs can work well; I just don't think they are alike.
restock
831 posts
 
Lewm, the analog of a friction bearing is not strictly correct. The effects are similar when considering the influence of stylus drag though - both act as a low-pass filter for vibrations and speed variations.

As for a freely spinning platter vs. a constant friction - the latter has actually some nice advantages - motors work more consistently against a constant force (just imagine yourself on a bike peddling downhill vs. peddling against a slightly well defined force. Downhill the change of load makes it difficult to keep speed constant). Of course as always, whether the design will be successful will really in the details of the implementation.

Also, a nice discussion of friction bearing vs. high mass platter by Frank Schroeder can be found here:

Discussion of Friction Bearing by Frank

Dodgealum, sorry if we take the thread somewhat off-topic, but I am hoping the discussion of low-mass and high mass designs may aid you in the decision to find the right turntable.
dodgealum's avatar
dodgealum OP
1,406 posts
 
Thanks everyone for giving me some things to consider. I really appreciate the advice and will take a look at some of the turntables you all have mentioned. I think I'll begin there and then explore a preamp/phono preamp to replace the SP16. To respond to the question posed by Dre j, here is how I would describe the difference between my Scout and the Esoteric:

The Scout sounds muddled, slow, recessed, veiled and lacking resolution compared to the Esoteric. When comparing the same recording going from vinyl to CD there is a huge difference. The Esoteric is so much more revealing, involving and dynamic. The bass is much more weighty and the treble has way more air, speed and delicacy. About the only thing I can say about the Scout is that recordings that tend to be bright or edgy come across more pleasant and listenable than on the Esoteric, which really brings out the worst in a bad recording.

All in all I find myself gravitating to my CD collection (which is much smaller) and listening less to my LP's.

I agree that comparing $8K and $2K front ends is not really fair and that is why I feel the need to invest similarly in a new turntable. To bring it back to where I began this thread, given the potential of CD's and vinyl records, how much should I plan to spend to get equivalent sound from my records that I am getting from my Esoteric?

BTW, I am fine with the discussion veering off to the pros and cons of various turntable designs--very helpful indeed. Thanks for asking.
cmk
397 posts
 
Dodgealum
You could also consider the Clearaudio Performance table($2800) with the magnetic bearing. Change the cart to a decent MC, say the Dyna 17D3($895) or the XX2($1850) and round it off with the great sounding Aqvox Phono2(EUR949).

I also rate the Galibier option highly, with Thom packaging the Serac with some Dyna carts even: $4700 with the 20XL and $4900 with the 17D3. You should even ask if he packages the XX2.

I rank the Aqvox phono much higher than its price indicates, I think its a giant killer.

Either of these options (if setup optimally) will easily outperform the X03. Disclaimer: I have no financial/personal interest in any of the above products.
More to discover