Digital vs analog is something of a religious debate in audio. In my opinion both have strengths and weaknesses, and, unless you already have a sizeable collection of LPs it is not worthwhile to purchase an analog setup (turntable, phono pre-amp) ... spend the money on CDs or a better CD player instead. (I have a CD player and a turntable, but I also have a sizeable collection of LPs). |
Tastes change. I went from a Krell setup that as I used all digital with to a tube setup that I only play analog on. I do not believe there is a right way to enjoy music. What is right for one is wrong for others.
I do get a kick out of people who talk about the "work" involved in analog. In my opinion if you consider it work, analog is not for you. For me the steps I take to play vinyl are an important part of the whole experience. It is actually part of what I love about analog. There is no magic in handling a cd. The whole idea of album art was destroyed by the cd.
In closing, the individual has to decide which medium is better for them. For me there is no comparison. |
My goal is to have both analog and digital rigs sound as close to each other as possible. I've done it. People say my LPs sound like CDs and the CDs like LPs. Although I have three times more albums than CDs the high cost of used LPs readily available on CD drove me in this direction.
I use a Dan Wright modded Parasound belt drive transport and a KAB modded Technics 1200. The CIA DAC and Monolithic Sound phonostage are from the same designer (Dusty Vawter), thus having similar sonic signatures. I rely on a modified Stanton Trackmaster DJ cartridge for bass slam, superior trackability/dynamics and fluid, edge free harmonic midrange. The belt drive's power supply was re-engineered to provide glare free transient response and three dimensional imaging usually wanting in most digital systems.
Both formats have strengths and weaknesses. As the inherent weaknesses of each format are properly addressed analog and digital get closer to the same destination...music.
With psychic power and primal intensity, |
Andrew, enjoy your DV-50S and let sleeping dogs lie.
Having owned your DV-50S, yes, analog is better, no question. However, it does take much more work to set up properly, and keep the LP's clean.
If you have any doubt's, drop by again, when I have time, and I'll be happy to demo my analog rig. :-)
Cheers,
John |
In my opinion a high quality(doesn't mean super expensive) properly setup turntable will outperform any cd and any cd playback system.
I was floored when I heard my first record on a high quality system about a year ago. I am not kidding when I say that there is an openess, transparency, dynamic expression, and musicality that cannot be touched by CD. Analog just sounds right.
If you don't believe me do what I did. Take your cd player to a dealer that sells turntables and A/B them. Like me I suspect you will never go back.
Also, there are plenty of great re-issues out pressed on 180g/200g vinyl. These things are as quiet as digital.
Lastly, vinyl is more work but it is also a lot more fun. |
everything said is accurate. Analog is more work. both can be very satisfying. In my mind great analog is far more convincing of acousitic space and the textures of that space. the best digital creates a different sense of space, somtimes more grand, but still dryer and less colorful than the best analog.
I think part of your post has more to do with the double edge sword of increasing resolution. I have found that climbing the resolution ladder on the digital side of the fence is far more unpredictable and potentially fatiguing than the same efforts in analog. High res digital really demands that you have your system in good order, especially the current generation of hyper detailed digitial sources. |
But, re analogue waveforms and analogue wiggles in groves...music isn't plastic, music doesn't go round at 33 and a third etc. The argument for analogue from analogy isn't convincing. It's not hard (it's certainly not a logical impossibility) to think of a totally digital system that is better than anything we have heard yet. And who's to say that 100 years from now the best music reproduction system won't be some technology that we don't even know about now? |
Analog is much more work than digital. To do it seriously, you have to be prepared to do the outlay not just for hardware and software but also for cleaning (which need not be expensive) and the time for cleaning, whether you're purchasing new or used records.
Is it worth it? My turntable had very little use for close to a 10 year period. In the past year I've gone back to analog almost completely, listening very occasionally to CD's in the house and mainly in the car. I've bought a ton of records (probably 500-600 in the past 10 months) for next to nothing, many of which I've recycled or traded for other music on vinyl that I really want. I like the sound of vinyl. Just sounds more like music to me. In fact, I'm about to cue up an expensive album I just bought, a Speaker's Corner reissue of Oliver Nelson's Blues and the Abstract Truth. Just spun Gene Ammons "Boss Tenor" a while ago and there is nothing like great jazz on vinyl.
But, as I said, it's a lot of work. |
I don't believe digital is yet better than high-quality analog. In fact, I would argue that vinyl has higher resolution.
Having said that, my Exemplar 2900 digital unit is extremely musical and provides joy every day.
Digital has come a long way, but the two formats, while attempting the recreation of the same event, are not likely to ever sound the same in my opinion.
Music is an analog waveform; a stylus in a groove moving a magnet or coil is an analog mechanism. |
It depends on what you prefer - both can produce excellent sound. |
