How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?
I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?
Mike, thank you for taking the time to respond, and for others keeping this civil.
I was on a Facebook forum yesterday, and someone whose opinion I value, and is certainly accomplished in this field, said something that I have believed for a while, but have not tried to prove .... that you have to voice your system (room treatment + speaker placement) for vinyl or digital due due to inherent differences ... i.e. cross-talk.
As tzh21y said, perhaps it is just what we are used to?
In other areas of perception, like light, our preferences change as you change intensity, and we know that in sound, the Fletcher-Munson curves define how intensity impacts our perception. Perhaps inherent dynamic range limitations in vinyl coupled with aforementioned dynamic compression creating the ideal results for our interpretation of music and dynamic range from a perception standpoint, not a measurement standpoint?
Back to the thread, best answer as pointed out ... is no answer, as it is deeply personal it appears.
I thought I replied as asked. I said $35k. That said, I suspect the $13.5k dCS Bartok would rival it as well. Sound the same, no, of course not. Sound equally awesome in a different way, yes!
No one here is a stupid person but gentlemans with good common sense and that’s why I invite all of you to read a simple explanation :
"" digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. """
just forgeret if we are biased one way or the other , I respect that statement but explain nothing on the main digital/analog issue and I don’t agree with. Look:
starting at the recording cutting step and followed by the LP pressing is where starts the true degradation ( step by step ) of the LP recorded signal.
All of us know and even own LP test pressings samples ( expensive ones. ) that if you compare against the " normal " LP differences are not tiny, we can aware of the degradation in the normal LP pressing. After 200 pressings of the same recording that degradation ( maybe before. ) goes in increment.
On that LP pressing and before the LP playback process the LP were pressed with off-center and full of micro and macro waves in its recorded surface that makes a huge degradation to that recorded signal.
Now, during playback process the LP signal has to figth first with the unstability ( short time. ) of TT speed that degrades the recorded signal, after that it has to figth with all the TT micro-vibrations/resonances in the TT that arrives not only at the surface where the LP is seated but through the arm board too. Just before we listen nothing degradation of the signal is there ( no matter what. ).
Then comes the transducer job that’s the foundation of the LP playback technology ( arcaic but it’s what it’s. ).
The phono cartridge must follow the LP grooves modulations ( mimic it. ) and this just is imposible to achieve for any cartridge any where: so here not only exist more signal degradation but the lost of critical signal information that we can’t recovery in any way !!!!. This cartridge must follow the modulations but each cartridge has different tracking abilities ( betweedn other things by its compliance characteristics. ) where we follow losting signal information but things does not ends here because exist a " natural " tracking error developed by the tonearm shape and this tracking error follows degrading the " soul " but the degradation goes on and on because many feedback resonances/distortions generated at different stages/sources between the TT/cartridge/tonearm: we have a feedback ( degradation-negative. ) from the TT/LP surface in between that the cartridge takes as a groove modulation adding information that just does not exist in the recorded grooves then exist feedback between the cartridge and the headshell with the same kind of added unexistent information and we have to remember too that exist the overall terrible feedback between the tonearm it self and the cartridge.
What next? the cartridge signal now pass through the soldered headshell connectors that are a degradation source and follow the degradation through the tonearm internal wire. Till this moment we are listening nothing yet and the signal is just a charicature of what was recorded. We have to remember too that due to that off-centered LPs characteristic exist signal degradation and where stays all the changes through the LP surface that suffers the VTA and VTF due to those micro and macro LP surface waves??????? !!!!!! and we have to remember all those micro micro jumps by the stylus tip when tracking the groove modulations that are as a car tires on a stones road where not always is in perfect touch and even by ms. does not touch the grooves.
Now the signal goes inside the phono stage and goes inside passing for input connectors and additional cable for the phono stage can work with ( obviously here exist more signal degradation and we follow losting signal and adding non-existent recorded information. ).
What happen inside the phono stage?: exist to main functions on it one is to amplify the carrtridge signal and some times 10K times only in this amplifier step the signal is added of different kind of noises generated by the phono stage gain stages ( not only one stage but more than one only to amplify the signal. ) then the second function that’s that the recorded signal must pass through the inverse RIAA eq. curve that between other things no one can say coicide/mimic the RIAA eq. that comes in the recording ( here exist losted and added information. ) and after that the signal mus pass for output connectors that are soldered and that continue the terrible signal degradation.
I can go on and on with what in reality happens in the LP signal but it’s useless, enough with what we read here.
Now, whom of you still think that through the LP exist that " soul " or those " nuances " that we have in live MUSIC?. How any one of us could think that the whole playback process can preserve the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information?
Makes sense to you?
Certainly does not makes sense to me.
Soul, nuances and many other adjectives we use exist in our imagination because we want it exist that way. Believe or not we are biased to, it can’t be in other way because we " born " with LP not with digital ( I already explained this. ).
Remember that I’m not talking of what we like but what is happening in reality not what we like or are accustomed to.
Btw, all of us listen ( through our ears-/brain. ) through an ADC.
Nah! Not in our imagination at all. Why is it that it is not good enough that some listeners find a certain truth in analog sound that eludes digital to varying degrees? We are talking about music, a key component of which is the emotion, expression, ability to engage, whatever one wants to call it. Yet, we insist on judging the effectiveness of a medium in conveying that aspect of it by using all sorts of technical criteria. A contradiction of sorts.
When was it established that we understand ALL that takes place during the record/playback process; let alone understand how to measure it? I think that the fact that all of those steps that degrade “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information“ still manage convey that certain truth to some listeners highlights, more than anything, just how much the digital process itself degrades “the integrity of the very delicated recorded signal information” in certain specific ways.
Re bias:
You wrote,
**** We need to understand digital ****
Why? I think that this highlights your bias. Sure, I like to understand how things work, but why does one need to “understand digital” in order to appreciate what it does well and not so well? What happened to just listening and judging based on what one hears first and foremost?
Obviously, both mediums can sound very good. However, there are fundamental differences between the two which may or may not be important to each listener. I know what my ears tell me and it doesn’t need to “make sense”.
So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation.
obvious bias? really?
it’s tempting to get defensive with a comment like that. i will try to stay objective here in my response.
would a person who is at least as much invested in digital performance as anyone on the whole forum be somehow biased against digital? i want my digital to sound the best it can possibly sound, and have committed considerable time and assets acquiring the gear, then optimizing every aspect of it.
70% of my listening is to digital. i love it. i’ve got both files and streaming fully optimized.
i’ve spent 20 years with a focus on format optimization....all formats. so it’s a big important subject to me. i have digital, vinyl and tape optimized. i enjoy all three. i can fully appreciate digital, but i call a spade a spade when it comes to direct comparisons with analog.
so point out your evidence of bias here in my perceptions. i don’t see any.
i think it’s wrong to confuse theoretical advantages of digital on paper to real world listening realities. but unless you have the daily opportunity to compare the tip top examples of each one i can see how the theory might cloud your reality perception. that there is bias.
forget numbers and stuff. follow your ears and musical connection.
Dear @frogman : First than all I’m not biased to digital, my only compromise is with MUSIC.
Of course we have to understand digital because it’s a totally different media that makes sound as other mediums as LP or tapes: all are different and sounds/performs different.
I posted why playback LP experience can’t ( no matters what. ) preserve and mantain the integrity of the recorded signal.
Now, is you whom could tell us why digital can’t do it .
I like LP/analog and I like digital too. My main home room/system target is to stay nearer to the recording and digital puts any one nearer to the recording when LP/analog puts all of us far away from therejust: COMMON SENSE.
It’s not that what your ears tells you because what your ears tells you is absolutely and totally biased and this biased is something that your brain wall/defender impedes to change it easily.
Btw, have you good common sense or you need measurements on each one degradation levels on those " terribles " steps I explained in my last post? because if you need measurements on it then something wrong with you and forgeret what your ears tells you: this is not the real issue/subject and it does not matters if you are a musician/player or even a music composer. You only have to SEE the reality: what is happening down there.
""" and it doesn’t need to “make sense” ... """ , this is incredible but I respect your rigth to say it.
Sorry, I can’t have a true dialogue with a gentleman with low common sense because you are impliying that all those degradation steps in the playback LP process where information is totally losted, added non-recorded information and the generation of several kind of distortions/resonances and the like does not matters because even all those exist the LP hability playback process to preserve the signal integrity. It should be that way for you can post what you posted.
Anyway, I think that you make your point as I posted mine but at least I gave some " facts " and you gave no single fact on what you posted other than your " ears " but your ears are not part of that common sense I posted: what you like is not the issue, got it?
Emotions?, MUSIC is an ART and as an ART wake up emotions of different levels in any human been it does not matters that we listen MUSIC through the M.Lavigne system or through a humble Walkman.
Dear @mikelavigne : ""
and musical connection.. """
obviously ( and not from your last post because I followed yourn posts on the digital vs analog experiences from many years . ) you have a real musical connection with digital, for me it's imposible not to have it even with humble digital hardware.
My listening time goes more to LP than digital and this is more by something that could be a rutinary attitude that other thing because I enjoy a lot digital too. ASs a fact digital ( in some ways. ) help me to fine tunning my room/system and still does and as better performs my digital experiences as better performs too my analog listenin sessions.
You only answered a very small portion of the question I asked and effectively ignored the most significant part of it.
No offense mikelavigne...
Vs.
Serious question for everyone.
Blame yourself or bug @mikelavigne if your question wasn’t answered.
As well, are you implying it would be impossible to build an analog limiter that soft-clips like magnetic tape and put that in the circuit before the A/D? (not that that would have been needed in the last 20 ish years with 24 bit A/D with 20+ bits effective for studio equipment)
Analog consoles already soft clip. They won’t add the saturation of reel-to-reel. You are incorrect about the lack of need with 24 bit gear. There are many professional recording engineers that push the levels, and digitally clip the signal during recording. Even worshipped mastering engineer, Steve Hoffman, is guilty of digital clipping in his masters.
Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided. These individuals likely enjoy the saturation of "tape" and the compression added, vs. the higher audible digital distortion from higher signal levels, during dynamic passages. With the right processing, that is no longer an issue with digital. The manufacturers just haven’t figured it out, no matter how much their gear costs ", and that is where we are now."
Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided.
please cite examples so we can all listen and comment. or come over to my room, bring your files and dac, and we can both listen and see where it goes.
Anyone claiming that digital is worse than analog because of "real world dynamics" is misguided. These individuals likely enjoy the saturation of "tape" and the compression added, vs. the higher audible digital distortion from higher signal levels, during dynamic passages. With the right processing, that is no longer an issue with digital. The manufacturers just haven’t figured it out, no matter how much their gear costs ", and that is where we are now."
I own 15 IPS tape from Ultra Analogue Recordings. I also own the CD and Digital File versions. I listened in my room with Roger Ginsley the Canadian rep for Studer and the engineer behind the recordings. The digital was right there with the Tape. Done right Digital can do it. No they did not do vinyl so I can’t say. Holly Cole music just as an example going by memory is the same way in my space. She is Spooky right there in the room
@tzh21y
zh21y I am being totally serious here. Out of everyone in my audiophile circle, only 2 listen do serious critical listening to digital. I am thinking it would probably cost at least 30K. Thats a lot of scratch for digital.
All I will say. Blessed is the audiophile that finds audio nirvana on a budget, and then just gets to enjoy music once and for all. The Gear itself is no longer the focus. I am speaking of the Music Lover...... not the Audiophile, Gear Collector and or Trophy Getter.
If it really is about the music...... The Music Lover hears beyond the engineering mistakes. Its about the music. The format does not matter anymore.
*************************************
I am in my 50’s now and have been at this audio hobby "consciously" as a known "hobby" since I was probably 10 and had my first part time job to earn coin. All remaining "old school" audiophiles in my circle, have been around the block a few times with Audiophilia. They all recognize at this point that Audio Nirvana is achieved not by throwing money at new gear but by fine tuning one’s own space and existing gear. Once one understands for each of their unique spaces, what causes things to sound the way they are...once this is understood.... no one I know is willing anymore, to drop big bucks on another piece of gear, just for the sake of changing things out. A change in direction - i.e. ESL versus Box Speakers is another matter.
I own 15 IPS tape from Ultra Analogue Recordings. I also own the CD and Digital File versions. I listened in my room with Roger Ginsley the Canadian rep for Studer and the engineer behind the recordings. The digital was right there with the Tape. Done right Digital can do it. No they did not do vinyl so I can’t say.
Raul, somehow you have managed to miss, or ignore, the point I was making. Moreover, you are also being very selective and “political” with your disagreements.
No common sense? C’mon now, language barrier or not you must know that this will be a very provocative characterization. I will ignore it as it goes precisely to the point I was making and which seems to elude you.
The bias I referred to is your bias to what can supposedly be “proven” by way of measurements and by your chosen “facts”; by your definition of “common sense”. Whether the subject of the bias is digital or not was not really the point. With respect, you need to understand more about the nature of that which you often use as a “calling card” of sorts. The quality of Art is not determined by technical matters or measurements of such. In fact, the reliance on those criteria to determine the quality of Art is antithetical to the very nature of Art and to its appreciation.
Frankly, I’m not quite sure why you are arguing any of the points being made. You acknowledge that both technologies can sound good and that both can be enjoyable. I said so as well. You point out that both sound different in fundamentally different ways. Ditto. If they both sound different in fundamentally different ways then they can’t both sound equally close to the sound of live music. Right? They each have differences and each deviates from the sound of real music in different ways. For me, the best analog sounds closer in the ways that matter most to me. For you, apparently digital does. So what, precisely, is the problem?
Raul, for me it is not a question of what I “like” for the sake of liking it. I like what like in recorded sound because more than fifty years around the sound of live music for hours each and every day tells me which technology, when well implemented, gets closer to that sound in the ways that matter most to me. You then suggest I ignore what my ears tell me and to instead “SEE the reality”.....right.
Btw, I know it pains you have a dialogue with someone with so little common sense, but why do you really no longer want to have a dialogue about this with lowly me? Could it be that the emperor’s wardrobe is not quite as extensive as is claimed? Regards.
please cite examples so we can all listen and comment. or come over to my room, bring your files and dac, and we can both listen and see where it goes.
or is this just more theory?
I’m going to put the onus back on you.
Please record your analog material to digital - without clipping - so you’re using the same master as source material. Level match the two sources, and record the output from your system. Compare the waveforms. If you so choose, you can share the results here.
Others have already done similar, in a listening capacity.
"My initial impression of the Pinot ADC was that Andreas had accomplished a spectacular achievement: a sub-$10K Quad DSD stereo analog-to-digital converter with easy-to-use software for simple stereo transfers from analog to DSD (in .DFF format). And it sounded brilliant! Show conditions at AXPONA 2016, of course, but even allowing for that, the Pinot was clearly something very special, working in tandem with the rest of the Playback Designs Sonoma stack.
In fact, Andreas not only gave us quick A/B comparisons of analog source (turntable and Brian Tucker’s Revox RTR) vs. Quad DSD output…all of which were very impressive…but he also did a single blind test just before the end of the show. Several of us who were very experienced, acute listeners, were invited into the Playback Designs room. Andreas did switching back and forth between an analog source and the output of the Pinot Quad DSD feed. We were given several opportunities to guess which was which.
The three of us who were invited to do so guessed wrong. We thought that the Quad DSD feed was actually the analog source! One therefore wonders: Does the Pinot’s Quad DSD sound better than the analog source?!"
"Since the Pinot ADC was only going to be there for the afternoon, we did a temporary connection to one of our LP systems so that we could do some sample Quad DSD transfers of needle drops that we would do. We used the exceptional KRONOS Pro Turntable for this task. Its output was cabled with Kubala-Sosna Elation! unbalanced cables to our standard reference, the Audionet PAM G2 Phono Amp with EPX Power Supply. That output went to the Audionet PRE G2 reference preamp, which passed the output via its balanced monitor outs to the balanced inputs of the Pinot ADC. Andreas’ notebook computer with his Sonoma Recorder software, a very compact, easy-to-use recording system, was also connected to the Pinot. This allowed us to do several needle drops and listen to them, while the notebook recorded those drops to DSD .DFF format.
Those transfers turned out incredibly well. A quick listen to the results, before the Pinot had to be packed up again, indicated that the Quad DSD transfers were indistinguishable from the KRONOS playback that Andreas and I had just heard. One was the opening track from Dream with Dean on Analogue Products QRP 200 gram vinyl; then we did a sample track from the brilliant reissue of the Decca Espana with Atualfo Argenta (incredible album and transfer!), and finally three tracks from the excellent recent reissue of the MPS LP How I Really Play by Oscar Peterson. Really breathtaking, believe me."
"The Pinot Quad DSD ADC arrived very recently, and I haven’t had sufficient opportunity to give it extended trials. Nevertheless, my listening sessions at AXPONA 2016 with the Pinot, as well as the brief time that I worked with Andreas to do some needle drop transfers to Quad DSD in late May, using his Sonoma Recorder software, show that the Pinot is a superb analog-to-digital converter. The results with the Sonoma Recorder app were mind-blowingly good, and reasonably easy to do, giving the real feel of LPs/tapes in Quad DSD mode. Close your eyes, and you might as well have the RTR in the same room…"
Please record your analog material to digital - without clipping - so you’re using the same master as source material. Level match the two sources, and record the output from your system. Compare the waveforms. If you so choose, you can share the results here.
i do it every day.
i have 600-700 2xdsd needle drop files, and the associated Lp pressings to those needle drops. the 2xdsd files sound great. listen to them often when i’m not in the mood to change sides.
but......when i compare directly; game, set, match to the original vinyl. every time.
i don’t do waveforms. i can’t reach my ’zen’ state with them. :-)
i have dubbed many of my tapes, and my dubs are indistinguishable from my originals. i can tell you that a digital file copy of those dubs would not be......indistinguishable that is. but that is a Studer A-820 dubbing to another A-820.
as far as RTR tape deck references, a Revox would not be quite up to the task as a reference for what tape can do. solid tape playback deck though for sure.
Andreas Koch is a smart guy. has been to my room and stayed with me back in the day. i had the very first Playback Designs MPS-5, the first Playback Designs product. was my digital reference for 9 years.
i have 600-700 2xdsd needle drop files, and the associated Lp pressings to those needle drops. the 2xdsd files sound great. listen to them often when i’m not in the mood to change sides.
but......when i compare directly; game, set, match to the original vinyl. every time.
i don’t do waveforms. i can't reach my 'zen' state with them. :-)
i have dubbed many of my tapes, and my dubs are indistinguishable from my originals. i can tell you that a digital file copy of those dubs would not be......indistinguishable that is. but that is a Studer A-820 dubbing to another A-820.
as far as RTR tape deck references, a Revox would not be quite up to the task as a reference for what tape can do. solid tape playback deck though for sure.
Andreas Koch is a smart guy. has been to my room and stayed with me back in the day. had the first Playback Designs MPS-5, the first Playback Designs product. was my digital reference for 9 years.
Which ADC and cables were used?
Wait a minute, you're going to argue against the Revox, but you didn't use quad DSD? Talk about a red herring!
Also, a waveform would clearly prove your theory, or that the sources were not properly level matched, or that it is unfounded.
ask Andreas about 2xdsd verses 4xdsd. not relevant to this discussion. i have plenty of 4sdsd files where i have 2xdsd too. meh. i like and appreciate the difference but it’s not profound.
ADC for some was a Modified Korg. others i think were a Merging Technology NADAC. i did not do the needle drops myself, but it was the same tt/arm cartridge i had and same front end electronics.
are there better adc’s? i would assume there are. enough difference to matter? not likely.
the digital <-> analog delta i experience is not marginal.
But...... I am no longer seeing a digital option for purchase of the music like there used to be. If there is not a legal, or other reason for this, I'm sure Ed would be happy to send you or someone the Digital version if requested. The CD was a DSD transfer of the tape.
********************************** From their site for the tape heads reading. 8^0
These master tape duplicates are recorded on RMG SM900 tape at +4 dB above 250 nWb/m. which equals 396 nWb/m. This will give you the most realistic dynamic range and best S/N ratio possible. The output level of your tape deck must be adjustable and needs to be calibrated to this level to realize the best playback of these tapes. I have recorded a 25 sec track of 1 kHz tone behind the leader to help you calibrate your tape machine. Use this to set the output level of your tape deck to show 0 VU. I can make you a 250 nWb/m tape, (TapeProject level) if your tape deck does not have an adjustable output stage – please let me know in your order.
This was an interesting period for me going back to 2011. I can't believe all these years have gone by. 8^0 . I remember using select 15 IPS Tapes at the time to help me tune my digital and vinyl. For those interested...my digital is a personal build. It is based on a dedicated Lenovo Thinkpad Laptop, external WD going through the ARC Dac. For my vinyl setup - Verdier La Platine Granito / Custom build ET 2.5, various carts. Click on Wile E Coyote and select the system link.
Let me say this.
Most of my LPS (many) I do not own digital files of and do not feel (anymore) a need to acquire them on digital.
Likewise most of my digital music I do not have vinyl versions of - because again, I do not feel a need.
But the best way I can say it.
If it starts digital and eventually goes to vinyl - it does not go back to digital.
Have never gone ..... ever .....from vinyl playing to digital.
ask Andreas about 2xdsd verses 4xdsd. not relevant to this discussion. i have plenty of 4sdsd files where i have 2xdsd too. meh. i like and appreciate the difference but it’s not profound.
ADC for some was a Modified Korg. others i think were a Merging Technology NADAC. i did not do the needle drops myself, but it was the same tt/arm cartridge i had and same front end electronics.
are there better adc’s? i would assume there are. enough difference to matter? not likely.
the digital <-> analog delta i experience is not marginal
Was the vinyl used even your own copies? You don't mention cables, so I would gather that they and the power conditioners were different, as well.
😂
This would be the same as someone dismissing you, saying that their Technics record player or reel-to-reel is comparable to yours, and the difference is too little to matter.
It is clear what side of the argument you fall on, and that you have no real intent to discover otherwise, or the fallaciousness of your argument. Oh well, enjoy the music!
Mike, I was not trying to attack you. Sometime we do not realized how other people hear/read our words and I was just suggesting, "it seems like, or appears" I gave an example of digital remasters of old David Bowie records that sound much better than the original analog audio in direct AB comparison with volumes matched (EXTREMELY important). I do believe this is because the original masters were poor not due to any defect or superiority of these formats. Yes, originally digital was touted as this, that and the other. We audiophiles were scratching our heads wondering with all the theory what went wrong because it did not sound so hot. Several decades later most of the problems have come to light the big one being that you have to master in a different way to suit either analog or digital playback. Done correctly without dynamic compression and with playback no lower than 96/24 I know that digital can provide state of the art results in particular with live recordings that have the inherent background noise of a live situation. Right now I am listening to the MPS re release of George Duke's Faces in Reflection. Analog all the way and wonderful. 95 dB and I feel like the band is right in front of me. Raul, I love the analogy of our brains being ADCs. They are! Atdavid, there is always a reason and searching for that reason allows us to fix problems instead of compounding them. In a nut shell some of us think Analog is inherently better and some of us think digital is inherently better. Some of us think it depends. I will place myself in the third group with the caveat that ultimately digital will prevail. It allow us to do things that are impossible in the analog domain like room control and seamless bass management. It allows us to go online and download music in a heartbeat to the most efficient form of storage, a hard drive now in 24 bit formats w/o lossy compression. If there are any detrimental sonic artifacts left they will eventually be banished and Mike L will sell his analog stuff to the Smithsonian for display with the Write Brother's Flyer and other Dinosaurs. I'm a hopeless romantic so I will hold on to mine:)
The second and third posts in this thread, and Mike Lavigne’s post, are correct. If you enjoy and seek the sound analog creates then no amount of money spent on digital will be able to replicate the analog experience.
rbstehno nailed it. IME, for most audiophiles' analog or digital budgets (let's say $100 - $15,000) digital yields better quality sound. If this question were asked 8+ years ago, the $ range would be different. Between analog requiring a TT, a cartridge, a phono preamp an isolation platform not to mention brushes, record cleaners etc. there are simply many more components to purchase versus digital which as we know is a DAC and a computer and now there are models integrating both into one. Once you get >~$15,000 things balance out. At the level I'm at (Aqua Formula xHD) + the convenience of unlimited music at your fingertips, spinning records has no appeal.
Very simple answer--Exogal for 7k. Absolutely wonderful sound that kills my former tube equipment with a far smaller footprint. Tubes are greatly overrated though lots of fun.
Depending on Budget. The Excellent Lampizator vacuum tube dac which received a 5 star rating in Enjoy the music .com is their latest entry level dac that is $2750: and by far the most natural sounding dac under $5k. If your budget can go higher their next step is around $6-7 k. The key is very good USB cable they distribute a small little known brand a Final a Touch Audio Callisto usb cables by far the best cable I have heard and nothing under $1500 can beat it for its natural presentation especially after 150 hr runin , it was so good I bought the cable ,their interconnects are just as good . Check out the Lampizator Amber3 dac .they even have a money back guarantee, and the USB cable at around $800 a must if you want to hear proper digital thst sounds like good analog.
Lemme bring my AudioEngine B-1 to the shootout and I’ll win this horse race for pennies
IMO - The dilemma for the Audiophile, is that this is not a horse race, but a marathon.
The Op has already said he has heard great digital - in short spurts. I will say it again I blame the engineers. They were given this gift when CD came on. They just didn’t know how or were not allowed to "play with it" , especially when it comes to the popular music genres. Now, if I did not have my vinyl rig I probably would not be saying this as my digital sounds just fine - when all I do is listen to digital. But then I will introduce that archaic black plastic disc....
And, when one does come across music that has been recorded well on digital. You know it when you hear it. It has a presence. You cannot stop listening to it. Concentrating on it. With this kind of digital recording all it takes is a good CD player to bring it out - imo. I believe everyone has examples of this type of music. The problem for me, is that this music is usually an obscure recording, and not the music I grew up with. So I can only listen to it so many times. When I hear music I grew up with, it brings back good memories.
You have not heard a proper setup then , You didnot state how much $$ spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key for under $4k the new Vacuum tube Lampizator vacuum tube Amber 3 dac, and a Must their Callisto USB cable try that , look at the reviews.
Since I build both dac and phono stage I have not been able to build a dac that betters the phono stage yet. The dac will better most analog systems I have compared it to but even with a low cost TT the phono still beats the dac. I'm working on it though! Happy listening.
Unlike the OP I am very happy with my digital setup.
You didnot state how much $$ spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key
IMO - you need to reword your statement to arrive at the truth here based on my personal experience.
so your statement reworded.
"You did not state how much TIME/EFFORT spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key."
Proper vinyl setup is all about dealing with vibrations and resonances - not 1- 0 - 1 - 0 -1- 0 ..............
Just torquing the headshell bolts for the cartridge too tight can mess things up. Its a more mechanical, meticulous setup. In a resolving system it is all heard.
I have an IT background. i remember punching cards and loading them into the card reader. You can manipulate the 1 and 0’s all you want. It still comes out 1 and 0 in the end.
I may have to check out the Lampizator products. I think I read someone said that "no digital will ever satisfy like analog", especially for someone like me as I have been used to analog my whole life. Its been a tough transition for me to listen to digital other than to put it on while I say.. clean the house or background music. The thing is that some music is just not available on vinyl and maybe never will be so I have to have something for that.
Everyone has to remember that now it is the rare recording that is done analog. The vast majority are now recorded directly to a hard drive. So in saying that analog is better you are also saying that high resolution digital is not a problem and that analog playback of digital material is better than digital playback of digital material. I believe this is an admission that vinyl playback is adding something to the signal that many audiophiles prefer be it the background noise that dithers our brain or increased distortion (added even order harmonics). There is a euphoric quality to vinyl playback. Another interesting comparison is older analog recordings vs newer digital ones, a very difficult comparison to make because you can not get a single piece recorded both ways for comparison. In thinking about it I really could not say. Most of my classical collection is analog and given that I was very picky looking for the best artistry along with recording quality, it is an excellent collection. But, what little DDD I have is also quite good. I have the four Brahms Symphonies in 24/96 digital and they are wonderful. I can not imagine it getting any better. But I also feel the same about many of my analog recordings.
I know this is not exactly what you mean, but to answer your specific question, buy a CD player that costs as much as your cartridge, tone arm, record platter, phono pre-amp, head amp, assorted isolation equipment and wiring. For your question, total all these up and compare the total to the price of your streamer, which BTW, I am not convinced would work, being on my list of inferior products, along with horn speakers. Don't anyone continue to ask me to consider horns by saying I must hear yours, without an actual invitation; ditto for your streamer. I have heard Audio Advisor's (WPB, FL) streamers and am not impressed, even though they carry the best equipment I ever heard (Wilson, Audio Research, B&W 800 series, and much more, along with the $27000 turntable at their entrance, and $1500+++ LP's to play on it. Am I a total snob? Not really. I even listen to the inferior XM radio through my 803's, because I Iike the jazz station, and drive an old, blown S2000S.
Let's have some real world stories, at the price point suggested by tzh21y.
I have a vinyl front end at the 3k price point, with an excellent phono stage. My CD playback did not rival it until I purchased a stand-alone DAC (Border Patrol). That investment was enough to create parity in listening pleasure. No huge bucks necessary, just a symbiotic purchase. The same music that I own on both CD and LP, sounds sufficiently pleasurable, not identical. This is the first time I've managed to do it within my mid-budget system.
I have recently gotten a dcs Bartók DAC, which I’m using in conjunction with a Roon Nucleus. The cost was about $15K, and for the first time the sound rivals, IMO, my Clearaudio turntable/tonearm/cartridge with a Nagra phono stage which was about $10K. To my ear the vinyl still generally sounds better, but the difference is pretty small. That is playing ripped CDs and some downloaded hi-res files though - if I stream music (using Qobuz) there is a definite (but generally acceptable) step down in quality. My experience anyway (and ears)...
tzh21y As for your question...I spent under 5K for a Lumin T2 w/ external power supply. I can't tell the difference vs. analog. Lumin T2 has a built in dac. Amp is tubes.
As for "I have heard some very high end digital front ends" ...were those piped into tubes or SS? And what about all the rest?
As for the analog vs. digital conundrum. I would love to read, go to or see a blind listening test of a analog/digital rumble by an august bunch of audiophiles (Old gals/guys)...That would be something!
I suspect vinyl love has an innate component of the undulating subtle variance of the sound. In other words the slight ever so subtle imperfections (minus dirt, ticks and pops) of vinyl has a darn attractive quality. Digital sound is "even."
1) Pick 3 music selections that (a) push your buttons, (b) make you come alive. (c) are like a fountain of youth for you. These selections will be different for each one of us and they should not be longer than 15 minutes in total.
2) Take your personal CD player or DAC to 3 different Dealer Salons or friends places.
3) Insert your CD Player / DAC into the chain first (very important) and listen to the music. This allows you to "Form An Opinion" in their "Room" with your gear and music as input.
4) Now - try the music with their CD players, DAC's, ... If they allow you to bring the gear home - highly unlikely - even better.
If their gear, does something better for you - then you know what gear and the cost.
3 music pieces and 15 minutes of music is important. I found more than 3 was too much to take in. Also 15 minutes allow you to be out of their hair within the hour (if at a Dealer Salon)
I think the technology of the 20th century, dictated that a recording engineer knew the limitations inherent in vinyl. They knew that the music being recorded was going to be mass produced and the majority of sales would come from LP's. And the turntable was the main source for playback. It's no wonder music from the 20th century sounds good on a turntable.
I agree that most analog system sound like music being played not a recording of music. Is this because more information is being stored in vinyl than on digital? Can we even measure how much information is stored in a LP record?
Even though the LP's can sound more "real", I don't care for all the maintenance required. It's like owning a car, every time you operate it you are wearing it out.
Hi
tzh21y, In response "I have been used to analog my whole life " Specifically what kind of analog set up do you currently have? forgive me if you have already answered that.
" I think I read someone said that "no digital will ever satisfy like analog" " But at what cost are you willing to see if digital could make that happen?
When ever I feel comfortable enough to confess to people that I am a self proclaimed audiophile, they ask me "what kind of turntable / analog set up do you have"?, I answer I don't have one.
They then ask me "why not"? and I say " because I can't afford it".
You may need to reevaluate your situation and priorities in your current situation. Cherry pick your LP's and if $3k is your number, stream the rest with a decent player, while simultaneously growing your LP library - Best of Luck ...
It costs me about $12....... for the right CD. So many times the better format is simply the one that was from the better master.... or better Mastering. I've have good and crappy versions of the same record in either format. I love both LP and CD, and there's good & bad versions of each. HiRes digital..... when DONE RIGHT.... can beat them both though. I'm still too afraid to get into HD though, because some HD pop music is still over compressed, and there's no return policy if your not happy with the sound. I wish I could get a refund for all the defective CDs i have, where the sound is distorted. That should be a legitimate defect.
The average high end Vinyl rig with cartridge and power supply is at least $5-6k. That being said a Lampizator has a Tube rollers dac for $7k , then buy the critical Final touch audio - Callisto USB cable and it will not only give a Vinyl a challenge but beat it in many areas even 2x that. I have listened to many record rigs side by side , band width is very limited to 12 bits , where digital can go to well over 20. Plus you can keep your labor of cleaning,demagnatizing, pops and clicks, cartridge maintainence, a wall just to store them . Where with well done Digital ,your whole library at the touch of a button through a tablet. I owned a Audio store in the U.K. What’s next a stack of 45 records stacked on a spindle like In the days of old ? why not buy a juke box too ? As I suggested check out a Very good Vacuum tube Lamoizator dac and get a good power cord and a Essential top quality ASB cable such as the Final touch Callisto the best cable outthere under $1500, for $800 is a steal, Digital owners ,just check it out.
If you are currently a "vinyl" person, then you may have an expectation of a sound that digital .... well just isn’t.
It should not be about "vinyl" or "digital" persons. It should be about high fidelity, getting as close as possible to natural sound of instruments as they sound in nature. But this is what most "vinyl" persons are telling: it sounds more natural.
I have posted before on this topic, so I’ll be brief. I believe that 90% of the problems in ANY sound are locked into the recording/mastering process, and maybe the actual pressing with Vinyl, since there is so much opportunity to f it up.
There’s another thing which makes things much worse than they should be, which is room acoustics. However typically when you have a problematic acoustics in your listening room is when you usually get bothered with the subject. One doesn’t have to be aware his biggest issue is room acoustics, though. It’s what makes good recordings sound less good than they’re capable of, and it can make worse recordings sound unbearable instead of still enjoyable.
Comparison's made with the same system cancel out everything except the variables being changed. For digital it is relatively simple. It is all about the DAC. Any good transport will suffice. For Vinyl however it is the cartridge, tonearm, TT and phono amp. Get a few of your favorite albums in as many formats as you can. In order to do this correctly you have to be able to match volume levels and they have to be exactly the same which is not so easy and you have to do this with every set of recordings. I use a sound pressure and match peak output. Then I get all three going, CD, Hi Res and vinyl just a little staggered so I can listen to the same passage in all three formats, sit back and trigger between the formats with a remote. This is actually a lot of fun and I promise you will be surprised at some of your results. The first time I did this was with Dylan's Desire as I had all three formats and I was sure the Hi Res was going to trounce the others. It did not. The MoFi 45 rpm version won hands down. Even Cleeds would agree. But in other cases Hi Res won like Led Zepplin One Two and Three. The surprise here is how well vinyl matches up to Hi Res. You would never think that dragging a rock through a trench could match up against modern computer wizardry. Anyone who thinks taking care of records is a PITA needs to bone up on their technique. Even getting up to change sides is an advantage if you are over 60. If you sit too long in one place you freeze:) With an automatic tonearm lift you do not even have to disrupt whatever other activity you have going at the time. Everyone should know my mantra by now. Dust Covers and Conductive Sweep Arms.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
