Digital is far better than vinyl

To funny the reactions to this humorous post.

For my system, I found I had to break approx. 10K on digital frontend before I was happy. With vinyl, 2.5K was enough to get me close to my digital frontend and keep me content.

What that tells me is entry level vinyl is way better than entry level digital.

thought i logged into audiogon but somehow tuned in saturday night live 

how does this even happen???  🤣

This is a longstanding debate amongst those who love digital vs those who understand and have experienced the virtues of vinyl/analog playback on a properly setup table. I love the convenience of digital and can say digital playback has made significant strides in sound quality with high performing DACs, Servers and streaming devices. Both formats and reproduction devices have a place in my home. While my digital playback system (dCS Vivaldi One Apex DAC/Player optimized with the dCS Vivaldi and Mutec Ref 10SE120 Clocks, along with the Taiko Audio Extreme Server), does a fantastic job reproducing music they still do not provide the naturalness, spaciousness and musicality of my less expensive (25K less) Analog rig (Acoustic Signature Ascona Neo TT w/TA-7000 TA with DS Audio 003 Optical cartridge and preamp). I won’t even talk about another dinosaur Reel to Reel which is even better sounding then digital and Vinyl playback. At the end of the day we all have personal choices and preferences - The most important thing is to enjoy the music.

The OP is saying you buy a bunch of cheap, old vinyl playback stuff and then conclude its not as good as digital.  You missed the joke.  

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………………………………..

the Op's foray into analog was one of the silliest comparisons ever, someone please help this kid better understand what it takes to do analog correctly !!

It's all very subjective. I have streaming, CDs, tapes and vinyl and depending on my mood, I'll play something from any of those formats. I love streaming for the convenience and I think it sounds quite good. But I also miss the days of record 'shopping' and playing whole albums with my friends. It was an 'event' to buy the record, unwrap it, clean it and play it. Streaming doesn't have any of that. 

Over the years there has been a fundamental misconception regarding the quality of digital recordings over analog recordings.

The first thing to do is actually compare a vinyl pressing of the same recording present on a CD - naturally, on a high quality playback system.

Based on my experience, an original digital recording (DDD) tends to sound much better on a CD (lower distortion, better dynamics, no background noise, etc.); on the other hand, original analog recordings (ADD and AAD) can often sound better when played off an LP; but there is a reason behind these sonic differences.

When transferring an analog recording to the digital domain, the audio engineer is often tempted to try to filter out some of the background hiss inherent to the original tape, thus modifying the frequency response of the recording, limiting both the high frequencies and the original dynamics of the recording. The result is a cleaner recording, but with a dull sound.

When the analog tape is transferred to the digital domain without trying to filter out the background hiss, the recording sounds great and, actually, the CD allows you to take full advantage of the superior dynamic range of the system compared to the LP.

A couple of examples.

Mendelssohn: Piano Concertos, Murray Perahia soloist, Sir Neville Marriner cond. The LP sounds great, with crisp high frequencies. When it was reissued on CD, I was surprised by the lack of high frequencies. This is an old Columbia Masterworks recording.

Schumann: Konzertstuck for four horns, Klaus Tennstedt, Berliner Philharmoniker, EMI. The LP sounds great, with crisp high frequencies and a very dynamic and transparent sound. When it was reissued on CD, I was truly irritated by the lack of high frequencies, because this is a beautiful performance and it deserves the best sound possible.

Please consider the fact that 90% of the LPs published in the early 1980s where produced from a digital master, so they cannot sound any better than a CD.

Of course, there is another thing to consider. The RIAA curve of most phono inputs tends to be a little “euphonic”, in other words, the RIAA equalization isn’t very accurate and is often tuned to produce a slightly enhanced treble – for obvious reasons. This leads people into thinking that LPs sound better than CDs.

All this is valid for 16 bit recordings, sampled at 44,1 kHz, with the levels set correctly. But this is old technology. The newer multibit systems with much higher sampling frequencies have opened the doors to the world of high resolution recordings. These are not going to make a difference if you transfer an old recording in Hi-Res; but if you decide to record a live performance in Hi-Res, the improvement over analog or 16/44.1 digital is absolutely breathtaking.

I still listen to my old 78s. Not for their sound quality, but because of the intrinsic artistic value of the performances recorded on them.

Well … everyone is in their own quest. Every person actually HEARS differently in every different acoustical set up. So, what’s the digital- analog argument? I guess it becomes political …resembles talking heads on network news… all false… only when audiophiles look in the mirror… there’s not a comparable shame knowing that they can or cannot be…SATISFIED WITH THEIR SOUND?

david1964

Over the years there has been a fundamental misconception regarding the quality of digital recordings over analog recordings. ... 90% of the LPs published in the early 1980s where produced from a digital master, so they cannot sound any better than a CD.

You are mistaken. A CD is limited to 20 kHz FR, and the circuit and filters used to ensure that are not necessarily transparent. On the other hand, an LP can easily sail above 20 kHz. So yes, a digital recording can sometimes sound better on LP that CD, and I've explained only one reason why that can be so.

"You say tomato, I say to-mah-to"......like most people addicted to this hobby or affliction, I listen to both formats, with CDs being the dominant format, simply due to having more of them than records (plus the convenience factor). Being of a fairly advanced age - I retired two years ago - my hearing is not as perceptive as it once was, so I am not as critical on either format as others might be. I do still find vinyl to be more 'organic/holistic' in many cases.....it just sounds more 'right' to me. I think we can all agree that whichever format we prefer, it is great to have access to all of the music that has been produced over the last 55 years, or thereabouts.

I get these Weekly Recaps in my email every Friday.  I don't contribute much to the forum but read it quite a bit for some of the good to great info that can be found here.

I don't think I made it through the entire OP before I realized it was satire.   

What amazed me is how many didn't.

I still enjoy my records and as a rule think it sounds better than my digital system.  

I realize my digital system isn't the greatest but neither is my analog system which consists of a Technics SL1200 GR, Ortofon Rondo MC and Mobile Fidelity Studio Phono Pre. 

The digital end is a Bluesound 2i into an RME ADI-2 DAC.  I'm curious to see how much more I have to spend to get the digital to sound as good as the analog system. Yes, I realize I could get a better streamer and better DAC with better cabling.  I'm also using CAT8 cable directly to the streamer.  Can't remember off hand what digital coax I'm using from streamer to dac but it wasn't the cheapest nor very expensive.   I enjoy it for what it does and have come across a lot of new music (to me) using my Tidal subscription.  I'm going to trial Quobuz to see which I prefer.  I'm using the RME which doesn't do MQA.  So, MQA is not a must.  

The sound is overall good.  Just not up to par with my analog system which as you can see is pretty much on par with the digital sys as far as $$$ goes.  Maybe a little more or less. 

We all do respect,your comments about digital is far a good sound than Lp,but it’s your opinion i respect that,the audiophiles opinion matters i think your comments is very selfishness and arrogant,pleased don’t misunderstand me but my ear the audiophile ear your ear dictated a different way’s,digital format is continuing sound dynamic vs analog is warm wide sound i think it’s time to you re evaluated your thougs and let the people sent opinions in the right way,but your opinion matters and thanks for your input about digital sound.

Digital vs vinyl, chocolate vs vanilla. Whem I dad a decent tt/cartridge,that being a heavily modified Rega 3 with a Sumiko MMT tonearm,  SotaTone Cones and Bluepoint cartridge, it was lovely BUT the PITA of record cleaning, VTA adjustment et al became painful, never mind the quest to find decent quality records.

At the same time a Meitner D/A with a good Denon CD player used as a transport had me realize that digital was cleaner, with greater dynamic range, and far more convenience.

The euphoric distorsions of analog are addictive but harkening back to my years of playing in a symphonic band told me which was more accurate and fulfilling.

Digital has improved quite a bit, particularly in the last 5 years. 
Can actually have enjoyable listening experiences with digital these days.

that said you are either trolling or have no understanding of a good setup. 

pretty pointless test you did with your stated setup. 

"And please, don’t mention your gear ..."

That's like saying "Yugo is better than Lexus, but don't tell me what kind of car you have, just agree with me."

Man, you guys are clueless...🙄

Good lord! I continue to be amazed at the lack of humor or reading comprehension, or perhaps both, on display here. I thought the absurdity of the ludicrous comparison between the systems was a dead giveaway that this was intended to be satire. Many of you got the joke, but it’s amazing how many just never bothered to read the subsequent commentary by myself and many others.

Just to re-iterate (please read my previous post for context) ... no, I don’t think vinyl is inferior to digital in any way. The original post was not about the superiority of one format over the other. The main point was that many people who are seriously into analog have this pre-conceived notion that digital is just ones and zeros and therefore they do not put as much money or thought when building their digital frontends. Usually, the comparison is lopsided. Either that, or they might have given a half-hearted shot at digital a few years ago and were disappointed. Apparently, the obvious satire sailed over the heads of many vinyl lovers.

Of course, as we can see from many posts here, there are audiophiles who have invested equally well (not just in terms of $$$ but also research) in both formats. Not surprisingly, there is no consensus here either. Some still prefer vinyl, while some feel their digital is on par with their vinyl setup. The key is to realize that digital has come a long way in the last few years. And just like anything else in this hobby, you need to pay attention to everything in the chain. For digital this includes the router, switch, filters, better cabling, and other means of improving the sound.

At the end of the day, you might still prefer vinyl over digital, or vice versa. And that’s okay. But at least bring some parity between the two frontends,

@thecarpathian

Man, you guys are clueless...🙄

Isn’t that amazing?!? You have posted several times where you clearly spelled out the obvious satire, and how it was not the same as trolling or being clueless. I wonder what’s going on with people’s reading comprehension. This is bordering on tragicomedy.

It sounds like you purchased some very inexpensive equipment.  Not sure this was a fair test.  The prices you paid seem very cheap.  

The OP is either seeking clickbait, or is too ignorant to seek knowledge on quality vinyl. And no, I’m not referring to a $10k rig. I don’t have that type of vinyl investment. But even I understand the merits of decent vinyl. Buy an $1800 Marantz TT15S1 turntable, mate it to a solid moving coil cartridge. If you can’t or are unwilling to do that, stick with digital, and simply go unaware of an entire audio world that exists.

lol 

@arafiq some of us read the entire thread and do get it. Some just jump to conclusions (I did a little) and others just have poor comprehension skills.

Cheers and keep up the good work. 

All seriousness aside…

Not

I started my analog journey when I left for college with a $99 Lenco TT and Nikko receiver wt Quadraflex speakers in a $199 Pacific Stereo package.

Even with a bargain analog system, the “natural” qualities of analog shines through.

And the SQ, even though not close to a good digital rig, is enjoyable.

And a comparably bargain digital rig will clearly be less “natural” and hard to stomach.

IMHO

I can fit like 5000 CD's on my portable music player  by Onkyo. I would need a separate room in my home to store that many albums. It is interesting though that vinyl sales are growing and CD's are falling.

The most recent statistics on the sales of vinyl records are quite amazing, taking even many industry analysts by surprise. It turns out that, in the last complete year (2021) around 46% of all permanent music sales were of vinyl records. This reflects a 51% increase over the previous year in unit sales of records, and a 61% increase in US dollars spent.

*Whoosh*

Not in my world 

I have recently found out there is no comparison.

Although both are viable,  Vinyl wins!

@rvpiano i owned a CA CXN v2 as well. It’s nice piece for the price, but I’m not surprised it doesn’t stand up to your analog rig. 
 

Some individuals certainly have need to develop hierarchies, add reductive tendencies and you get win/loose propositions.

I don't even know if its possible to objectively conclude one format superior to other. Has a single individual heard the absolute best vinyl setup vs the same digital? And what is the absolute best setup anyway? Add in the subjectivity of our senses and statements of absolute superiority seem hilarious.

And so it continues...😆

I am at this moment listening on a BluSound system through a Berkely Audio Series 3 Alfa DAC to a hi res FLAC version of Pierre Fournier’s Bach Cello Suites released in 2016 based on the Deutche Gramaphon Archiv Recording originally released in 1961. I have a superb vinyl playback system with a $2K Japanese made cartridge and a top of the line SOTA turntable that has been rebuilt at the factory. I grew up with vinyl, was disappointed by early CD’s and have had thousands of vinyl recordings across the board in quality.

There is no question that the streaming version of the Pierre Fournier digital release is better than the vinyl equivalent .. One has to make such comparisons at a high level of equipment on both sides before drawing any conclusions. Recently released hi res streaming beats the vinyl original in virtually every case.

Hahahahahahahaha. Stop my sides are hurting! For an amateur you're pretty funny!

@sns 

You’re absolutely right. And well put.

 My enthusiasm was impulsive.

LP

Laura Pergolizzi?

Some people don't get satire @arafiq! 

Good lord, this feels like one of those corporate email storms where everyone just hits "reply all" and keeps it going.  

I used to shop for high end equipment regularly at a local audiophile institution called "The Audible Difference". When comparable levels of playback systems are used for the same recordings, it is really all that matters. Satire or not - the "Audible Difference" is always the most important thing to consider case by case. It is a fundamental that we all know very well, but is often overlooked when getting caught up in technical issues.

The constant and consistent need to argue over this points to something more than technical issues, that something more being belief. Based on my observations digital detractors have issues with the entire nomenclature of how digital is implemented, especially streaming. They prefer how vinyl stimulates tactile senses and the need to purchase music at much higher cost creates sense of ownership that streaming/renting music doesn't allow. Digital fans may be more concerned with utility vs this sense of ownership and stimulating tactile senses. I'm sure other concerns also apply.

My point here is I don't observe most digital/vinyl arguments being about sound quality, vast majority have totally unequal setups for a reason. People spend majority or exclusively on format they believe more in.

My point here is I don't observe most digital/vinyl arguments being about sound quality, vast majority have totally unequal setups for a reason. People spend majority or exclusively on format they believe more in.

Most digital vs vinyl arguments I've read are based around sound quality. Tangible factors may play a role in the preference of one format over the other, but quite often one format is ultimately discredited on the basis of sound quality. Understandable in this highly subjective hobby. I do agree that the majority of those participating in the digital vs vinyl argument have unequal setups that makes a fair comparison impossible, which the OP of this thread is highlighting and mocking.

@sonic79 My point is while they may think they're arguing sound quality, they really aren't. Their predetermined bias has influenced their decisions of where to spend money, this unequal performance only further reinforces this predetermined bias.

Maybe in your system but in reality, it is not even close.  Once you get to reference level equipment, digital cannot compete.  Stop by our Listening Room in New Jersey and we will be more than happy to demonstrate the differences.

Happy Listening.

Once you get to reference level equipment, digital cannot compete.  Stop by our Listening Room in New Jersey and we will be more than happy to demonstrate the differences.

It sounds like you are a dealer? Just curious, can you list your reference level equipment you use to demonstrate both digital and analog? Along with the retail prices for them. Thanks

This debate is very similar to the tube vs solid state arguments we have heard for years. With equivalent level equipment comparing the same recording, it does, to a large extent, depend on personal preferences. Those who prefer a warmer rounded sound compared to high definition and precise spatial resolution have every right to opt for tube equipment. This argument carries over to vinyl vs. LP, and when the comparison is made fairly (at the equipment and recording level) it may indeed come down to personal audio listening preferences.

Do keep in mind the incredible number of superb recently remastered high resolution recordings that were originally released on vinyl.

Let’s move on!

Thanks, @thyname  I had the exact questions. If dealers are going to jump in, better show some proof when making sweeping generalizations. 

Regardless, there are a number of folks like lalitk or @ghdprentice who might disagree with the dealer. They have put together reference systems and feel the digital is just as good if not better  

"I just want to make sure you guys understand that digital is far, far superior than vinyl." In your opinion, not in mine. I also find this comment arrogant .

By the way, @bigkidz my system might be modest by your standards but I have heard reference level analog systems many times. We are talking total system cost over $70k. You remind me of those patronizing dealers I’ve encountered in the past. Lol