Cheapest Analogue Setup to Conquer Best Digital


Hi, everyone,

although I think I have a decent digital system, I have never heard a modern analogue front end before.

Recently, I have developed an interest in the classical genre, both power and small ensemble. For classical music, obviously, plenty of LP's are available.

Given the universal (make that UNIVERSE-ALL) concensus that an analoque front end sounds better than a digital source of similar budget, I have a question:

What is the minimum amount of money one must spend on an analogue front end to conquer the BEST digital money can buy, be it redbook CD, HDCD, 24/192, or SACD?

Thank you,

David
wonjun
Pbb, i think that anybody that thinks that only one of the formats does everything best is lying to themselves or delusional. Both formats offer advantages over the other in different areas. While i will agree that vinyl has a LOT more maintenance to go along with it, it really can sound much more "liquid" or "lucid" on many recordings.

My girlfriend, who hasn't listened to LP's in years nor ever owned a good "stereo", was utterly amazed when i played some tunes for her via the TT. The first words out of her mouth were "I don't remember records ever sounding this good". My brother, who is 25 years old, owns a quad-amped system and grew up with CD's instead of records, said that he didn't think that vinyl could be so quiet or sound so good. It was good enough for him to buy a TT and start listening to vinyl.

Both of these reactions and opinions from people that thought "vinyl is dead". The "funny" part about all of this, especially after reading your response, is that it all came about because i bought a turntable / arm / cartridge combo that set me back $150 on Ebay and wanted to show them how good it sounded. To top it off, the records that were oh - so convincing to the "vinylly challenged" audiophile and non-audiophile were never maintained that well and were lucky if they had been "discwashered" once in a while.

Like i said, a well set-up vinyl system can be done for under $1000 ( so long as you already have a phono stage ). It might not be state of the art, it might not challenge the finest that digital has to offer, etc... BUT it will get you to the point that MOST people ( civilians and audiophiles alike ) would find it both "enjoyable" and "musical" to listen to. Like anything else, achieving 90% of your goal may be cheap and easy. It's that last 10% that kills ya in terms of budget and labor... Sean
>
My own experience also differs from Pbb's. Adding to the above, I have found that the major (financial) drawback to vinyl playback is the phono stage: IMO a reasonably priced TT set-up (~1,2 k) with a great phono stage performs very well vs. excellent cdps. This includes resolution and TONAL BALANCE, along the musicality and "liquidity".

No reference to "audiophile pressings" here: the LPs I use are chosen on content and I freely admit that they are rarely disc-washed.... (I'm lazy...;-))

As to pricing... Caterham & Sean voice my experience too.
Sean, I would appreciate a list of those great recordings you are talking about. By the way, if you read my post the way it was intended to be read, I have not said that there is nothing good left to be said for vinyl. Instead of being delusional or other nasty words used, I think I am quite realistic in stressing that, overall, a quality CD player will provide better service, more enjoyment and a better sound quality than even the best turntable/arm/cartridge combination. The operative term here is "overall", as in "generally" or "more often than not". Yes, you can set up a demo playing to the analogue front end's forte and compare it to CD playback emphasizing CD's minor flaws and come up with the well worn arguments over an analogue turntable's vast superiority. That only proves my point that the good sounding recording will dictate the music you actually listen to. It should be the other way around: you should buy the music you like, and the equipment should overall, generally and more often than not reproduce it as accurately and pleasantly as it can. A lot of music will never find it's way onto CDs. For that reason alone a music lover, young enough not to have one pre-CD days (in some ways I wish that were me), should buy a decent turntable. To insist that the sound to be had from one will be superior to proper, current CD reproduction is, I think, wishful thinking. By the way, direct to disc recordings are the ones I still feel have an edge over any other medium. That's a generalization, I know, so to be more specific let me say, in closing, that I will now go and play my Canadian Brass, Umbrella recording UMB-DD5 lp, but I will do it just once because I know for a fact it won't sound as good the next time it's spun... Regards.
WOW! Pbb sounds like a lover scorned. What will the digital afficienado do when the digital format-de-jour becomes yesterday's news? Will he weep for the format or curse it? Will he continue to tweek the old format with his trusty green pen? Will he place his outdated machine on the latest generation of sandbox foundation or replace the interconnects all in an effort to make is sound "more like analog"? Or will he toss his love (and his thousand CDs) away like an old shoe to get the latest nuclear-powered system that Madison Avenue will, no doubt, once again proudly proclaim to be "the perfect playback system"?

Of course, there are plenty of bad CD recordings just as there are plenty of bad LP recordings. Although, many of my friends have listened to a random LP at my place and are astounded because they have believed the hype that CDs are "perfect" and somehow better than vinyl, yet they are actually hearing otherwise. In fact, CDs almost didn't make it in the marketplace because of poor sound quality when they were first introduced. (They have obviously improved.)

Saying that a "quality CD player" (whatever that is) will better provide the subjective qualities of service, enjoyment and sound quality than "even the best turntable/arm/cartridge combination" is as irresponsible as saying that vinyl is an absolutely superior medium. Both take time and effort to maximize their performance and both can be simultaneously rewarding and frustrating.

For those who are fans of digital playback, Audiogon offers a digital subject forum to debate the multitude of digital formats (warts and all) and which one comes closest to analog. This particular forum (Analog Forum) is for folks who enjoy and want to get the most from analog (warts and all).

To answer the original question posed by David, my experience is that, from an overall sonic perspective, around $3K to $4K (full retail) will get you into an analog rig that will compete with just about anything that digital has to offer, assuming that both are playing reasonably good recordings.



Jimbo my friend, none of the above. I'm now into cylinders. It don't get any better...