Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

I keep waiting to this thread to die but it won't. The undeniable truth IMHO is that there is more SQ deviation with vinyl than digital. There is also more variation as to proper set-up and overall deck quality with vinyl and vinyl playback gear than CD's and CDP's. The best vinyl pressings on a great and properly set-up vinyl rig will eclipse any CD on any CDP for those that appreciate the attributes of vinyl. Yes, lots of variables apply as to software, hardware, and variation of we humans who value various audio qualities. Vinyl is ultimately more rewarding for those of who value the sonic qualities of good vinyl and who are willing to work for it. To quote Timothy Olyphant in "The Girl Next Door", "the juice [is] worth the squeeze!". 

Dear @edgewear: Your guess was rigth-on.

If for " neutral " you mean: lower noise levels, lower overall signal degradation, lower overall distortions, way better bass range management, etc, etc, the it’s because is more " neutral ".

Yes, we have more " fun " with analog but that’s not of what I’m talking about as it’s not:
"" the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes. """

Each one of us " musical tastes " are not directly in relationship with the room/system target: truer to the recording.
Where when the performance of the room/system is " truer to the recording " always will suit our musical tastes.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@rauliruegas 
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?

Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.

With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics  to suit your musical tastes.

@fleschler 
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great. 

Dear @edgewear: AHEE: Audio High End Establishment.

Now, normally our room/audio systems are " optimized " to listen the analog alternative not for the digital one.

So when we want to listen seriously to the digital alternative we must to make changes in our room/system because its overall performance is way different.

We can think that in an analog rig digital will performs marvelous but other important issue is that when we listen to digital we WANT that performs with the same analog characteristics. No way about both alternatives are way way different. Digital is a lot more demanding that analog.

When your room/system is optimased for digital then analog always will performs better than ever. ! ! ! 


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Live music can sound terrible as it usually does when it is played loud in small acoustic spaces, too amplified or in too live or dead rooms.  The acoustics where music is played is extremely important to the quality of the sound.  Recordings are often superior to live performances because they are engineered to capture the sound better.  As a part time recorder of an orchestra, chamber group and choirs and with 78s, LPs, CDs and RR tape, I hear all types of sounds from all types of venues.  I consider them all valid for music enjoyment.  If not, I don't listen.  I've heard great performances in terrible acoustics and on poor sounding recordings.  But when I hear a mediocre performance in great acoustics, I want to run away but with recordings, I just toss them.  

Edgewear, that's your diplomatic way of putting it, but there are clearly two distinct camps here; "sound lovers" and music lovers.

@rauliruegas 
I tried my best to follow your reasoning, but had a hard time catching its essence. It's no help that I don't know what AHEE means. It almost sounds like a conspiracy to hide the audio truth from us. The X-files of the high end? Surely you are joking?

High end audio is a business like any other, subject to technological innovations as much as to fashions and trends. It's not always easy to tell which is which, because a solid frame of reference is missing and objective journalism is mostly lacking. Basically we're left to our own devices. Discussions on forums like this are our best shot at getting some useful information that can help us educate ourselves.

My own preference is still very much with analog. But I'm not in an analog bubble, so last year I decided to purchase a well regarded current model cd player to hear if much had happened in digital in the last 10 years or so. I previously owned Krell KPS 20i and Metronome T2i Signature players, which were well regarded players in their time. I enjoyed listening to them both, but always preferred my analog rig.

So in came an Esoteric K-05x. Way down from their top level of course, but still equipped with the latest generation processor and filter technology. I really wanted the Esoteric to shine, but it didn't appeal to me at all. I just couldn't shake the feeling I was listening to highly manipulated sound and not music. But many people think this is a great player, so what do I know?

Perhaps your distinction between 'sound lovers' and 'music lovers' does make some sense after all. But what is 'sound' to one person may well be 'music' to the next and vice versa. It's all subjective!

Dear @fleschler : I prefer too the 10 row for the same you like. My nearfield experiences were an " open eyes " to say the least and the greattest learning lessons in all my audio life.

So: am I throw away my LPs and analog rig?, certainly not. Because all what I posted here the anlog experiences are " appealing " when the audio system is truer/nearest to the recording.. I enjoy the analog experiences.The only system audio link that I always try to avoid is any single tube in the cartridge signal ( even that I used for many years tube electronics. ), full SS electronics is IMHO the rigth way to go till appears something better to honor the LIVE MUSIC.

I know a very well regarded cartridge designer that marketed and co-designed an all SS phono stage and knowing this gentleman I understand why.

That same gentleman was whom told me in  the cartridge MM extremely long thread that LOMC cartridges were lower in distortions than the very good MM alternative.

But in those " old times " I was really motivitaded/exited for my new MM/MI cartridge re-discovery and I said that MM was better.

Years latter I learned and he was totally rigth LOMC is way superior to the MM/MI alternative and there are several reasons about but this will be for some other thread. 

R.

I love digital through my nuprime dac 10 or iPhone/dragonfly red/sennheiser6xx massdrops. I love analog through my nottingham space 294, Soundsmith zephyr Star, and musical surroundings Nova II.

Some albums sound better on digital. Some sound better on vinyl. I don’t see what the big deal is. There must be something wrong with me??? 

and not only that but that AHEE never never said us why 5 is the rigth answer for live MUSIC instead 2x2=4.

If I talk with a tube lover or even a tube manufacturer always they told me why tubes are the rigth way to go why the 5 is the " true " but never told me any one of them why tubes is nearer to the LIVE MUSIC instead SS electronics that is the real alternative nearer/truer to the recording and the live MUSIC. SS electronics is part of the 4 answer and tube is part of the 5 answer.

Here and everywhere I posted many time supported by common sense facts and with first hand experiences in live MUSIC at near field why the 5 is totally wrong and why the 4 is the rigth answer and till today no one every where told me why I'm wrong other that " they are just sound lovers: that's what I like it ".

The 5 AHEE ha no foundations, precise foundation.

Sooner or latter LIVE MUSIC will win as is winning the digital alternative that always is growing up and minute after minute up-grading its technology, rigth now is almost a reality the 32/768 DACS where the limits of the analog alternative end years ago, exist no real grow up because there is nothing to do about but little refinements of " more of the same " but nothing through different up-grade.

Yes, I'm still an analog lover with over 7K+ LPs and at the same time I love the digital alternative.

Any one of you sound lovers can make an easy test through your 5 audio systems:

buy the 1989 Original Motion Picture Sondtrack Glory in CD and the 2000 from Gladiator CD and buy the respective LPs and then listening both in your analog rig and in any decent 24/192 CDP. Any one with the LIVE MUSIC near field experiences will know which one is nearest to.

Of course that to attest that the roo/audio system must be a true full range one with active/passive speaker " set ".

There are other examples of CD vs today LPs that like those two LPs are audiophile pressings levels. I own both and many more about.

But indeed digital is not superior from 10 years now but just almost from the begining and we can attest it through many of the digital recordings using the Soundstream PCM digital recording electronics in the Telarca LP's or the Delos or Denon labels and many more, even that in those old times the digital alternative was in the begining of its learning shape. 
At any standards many of those LP digital recordings are just outstanding.

R.

Dear @edgewear: I almost agree with what you posted. Of course that always recorded music ( no matter what. ) is totally crushed by live MUSIC and yes any one but a deaf man can identify  live music sound from a street player even if he is playing way out/distance of our sigth/eyes. 

Sound lovers against MUSIC lovers and what am I trying to say?:

all those adjectives that use as " sound/music " characteristics that certainly  we are accustom to by many many years  is a kind of sound that does not exist in live MUSIC events at distance where normally the recording microphones are positioned.

 These microphones are responsables to pick-up/first hand the MUSIC ( of course that at the very first moment that that live MUSIC goes into de microphones and the cable to the mic-electronics the signal is degraded, no question about. ) and from here pass through several steps till we can listen it at our home audio systems.

Now, we analog lovers always want that MUSIC sounds in our systems with all those " sound lovers " adjectives/characteristics but from where came all those wrong MUSIC adjectives?, this is a critical issue:

I learned as all of you from the AHEE where we all belongs and reviewers, manufacturers, audio distributors etc, etc.
What told us the AHEE? things like BD TT is the way to go, LOMC cartridges is the only way to go, tubes is the rigth way to go, tonearms with fixed headshells is the way to go, passive speakers is the way to go, subwoofers? only for home theater, and a lot of more information that still today we all received from there.

The overall audio industry is a business and the AHEE always protect what they teach os from the begining of the analog audio.

All of us learned through the corrupted AHEE that 2x2=5 not 4. Even today we still think in that answer as rigth and never as our self: what if what we learned is just wrong. What if it's?

Digital is what is nearer tothat true 4. It's not exactly the 4 but way nearer than the analog alternative.

Digital is truer to the recording than analog, the microphones signal through digital recording/playback overall process is way way less degraded that the analog alternative but because that disastrous AHEE when we listen to the digital alternative what the adjectives we use to speak against digital are exactly the same true characteristics that LIVE MUSIC owns/has.

So why want we the LIVE MUSIC sounds in a way different way?

I said that overall digital is truer to the recording ( even with all degradation steps where the signal pass through. ) and be truer to the recording means nearest to the LIVE MUSIC.

A few years now I made my self that question: what if many of what the AHEE teach was just wron? and I start to learn for my self in my system and other audio systems that the AHEE teach us wrong " things " on purpose.

From some years now my system target is to stay truer to the recording no matters if I'm listening to the analog alternative or the digital one, my system is builded around that target and to be nearest to that target my first premise is to mantain at minimum every single source of everykind of distortions that can affect the incoming audio signal.

All those discussion about tubes vs SS electronics or LOMC vs MM cartridges  and the like was provocated by our wrong learnend audio information for that 5 and some of us  just can't understand ( even by ignorance of how live MUSIC really sounds. ) that the true/real answer is not that false 5 but 4 and to understand why the 4 is the rigth answer we must have first hand experiences of live MUSIC at near field position experiences.

Pweople do not like SS electronics because belongs to that 4 and like tubes because is the 5 that destroy every audio signal that pass through where SS is truer to the recording and nearer to the 4.

And that's why I posted a difference between " sound lovers " and true MUSIC lovers where sound lovers are in reality hardware lovers and it's not their culprit but that corrupted AHEE that till today almost never gives us that 4 answers.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

@rauliruegas
I think I agree with much of what you’re trying to say, but your distinction between ’sound’ and ’music’ is not very helpful. Music is organized sound waves, there’s really no way around this.

What you could say is this: recorded music (whether analog or digital makes no difference) will always be absolutely crushed by live music. There’s a fundamental divide here that apparently cannot be bridged.

We’ve all heard street musicians and you can always tell even from a distance if they play live or not. It doesn’t matter if they play acoustically or with the aid of amplification. If it’s played on the spot, you will recognize it immediately. Especially in cases where musicians play live on top of a pre-recorded tape you can easily hear the fundamental difference between them both. Live music has a different ’gestalt’.

I’ve always wondered if this ’gestalt’ is already lost when the microphone picks up those airwaves. That would make the analog versus digital debate rather moot, because the essence was already lost before hitting the record button. But I have never heard a mastertape in a controlled studio environment, so I might be very wrong about this.

Perhaps the essence of live music does get captured on the mastertape, but gets lost somewhere downstream in the playback process? If this is the case the characteristics of the used ’sound carriers’ (analog tape, cassette, LP, digital tape, CD, SACD, streaming, etc.) become more important. What sound carrier and audio playback system are most capable of approaching that essence? Here opinions are all over the map, which suggests one thing: it’s all subjective. Which goes a long way to explain all those tired ’debates’ about analog versus digital, MC versus MM, CD versus SACD, tubes versus solid state, class A versus class D, horns versus dipoles, etc, etc, etc.......

It seems to me that no recording and/or playback technology is capable of capturing/reproducing the ’whole beast’. I’ve never had the same unmistakable awareness of hearing live with any audio system as I always do when I hear a street musician. Even playing through a crappy amp and loudspeaker and even from a wider distance without any visual contact. You just ’know’.

@ rauliruegas  I agree with you concerning nearfield listening with its less than optimal sound for music listening comfort.  Back in the 70s, I reviewed concerts at UCLA Royce Hall and traded my front row tickets for 10th row.  The first couple of rows were too direct sounding and could be too bright, hard, loud, etc.  

However, despite your criticism of the analog process of music reproduction, I thoroughly enjoy listening to "antique" music recordings from the 1900s to 1925, when eq didn't exist, speeds varied per recording artist and company and many more variables caused sonics to be less than good.  It's the performances I'm after.  After 1925, electrical recording produced very fine sound, limited by the technology, but thoroughly enjoyable on my system.  On most audio systems, the dynamic compression and lack of complete harmonic structure greatly limits the sound quality and enjoyment of post 1925 records which have the ability to transport the music listener to a blissful state.  

I also enjoy a well mastered digital recording (I am an amateur recording engineer for various choirs and chamber music which better results then most current professional recordings).  I abhor the current technique of recording at a great distance and large hall for most acoustic recordings, especially anything smaller than an orchestra.  I prefer the direct sound of pianos to cavernous recordings of them.  A touch of room or hall ambiance is beneficial but not like Yarlung recordings for example.  Sometimes I hear modern recordings such as a flute splayed across both channels as huge as a symphony in a cavernous hall.  Yuk, who would want to hear that live?   

Dear @fleschler and friends: As I said almost all the gentlemans posting in this thread and overall all Agon forums and almost everywhere the internet audio forums always speaks of sound and its quality they are accustom to but almost no one speaks about MUSIC.

What mean I with that statement?, well MUSIC is percieved by us like a sound but it’s not the same speak to just " sound " that the true sound of live MUSIC at near field position experiences and with out these kind of first hand live MUSIC experiences seated at near field position we just can’t even try to compare not only digital vs analog but almost any home audio room/system issues or characteristics.

What we read at almost any audio forum from the " audiophiles " when refering of the characteristics of what they are hearing and like in their systems are adjectives that only exist in their home audio room/systems but that certainly does not belongs to the unique live MUSIC characteristics at near field at near field position.

Some of those adjectives by " audiophiles " are: swetness, delicated, rounded, softness, inner detail, depness in the soundstage, tactile, calm, peace, organic, musical, relaxed, warm, etc, etc.

If we attend to a live MUSIC event and we are seated at near field position ( say 1-3 m. from the source. ) what we can hear is: brigthness, agresiveness, thunderous, very high SPL, even some one could say: harsh and some other adjectives and things are that this kind of MUSIC sound is what the recording microphones pick-up at near field position where the mics are " seated ", some times even closer than 1m.

Ask you how many times were you stand up at 1m from a Grand piano where the player was playing at real live concert SPLs ?, the true sound of that experience tell you that you even can’t " support " to listen it maybe for more than 15 minutes and then you will get back but what if you do it not with a piano but a horn like a trumpet or a Sax alto: you will blow away in a few seconds ! ! ! !

Recording Microphones are really wide frequency range ( say from even lower than 10hz to over 60khz and support SPLs higher than 130dbs with very low distortion levels ) and way superior in many regards that our ears.

Now, if that kind of characteristics are the ones along other like the very fast transients in live MUSIC and fast harmonic developments why we " audiophiles " use other kind of vocabulary with audio systems and by " coincidence " when analog lovers ( like me that like digital too. ) talk about digital recordings the adjectives usually used are precisely the ones I named that are the ones we experienced in a near field live MUSIC events ! ! ? ? ! ! ? ?

My opinion is that not all audiophiles are true MUSIC lovers but " sound lovers ", that’s way different. If some of you never had that near field live MUSIC experiences then do not understand what I’m talking about.

What’s the main diference between live MUSIC and recorded MUSIC?, well transiente response of the notes perceived by our ears/brain/body.

In live MUSIC event at near field exist only AIR between the MUSIC source and our overall body: nothing in between that can degrades the MUSIC sound.
At near field position we listen direct sound coming from the instruments and when seated at 10-15 rows ( in a concert hall. ) that direct sound certainly is not the same because between other things the hall chairs/seats absorb or dissipates that direct sound as does the people seated at our sides, at back and in front of us. The microphones are neither affected by all those. Near field position is way different.

The recording process in analog and digital are way different as it’s too ( and even with more " dramatic "/critical differences ) during play back in our sytem listening sessions.

First recording differences comes in the low bass range where the microphones pick up a stereo signal that never chnges to mono in the digital alternative as always happens in the analog recording process.

Second difference a big one is that the analog process apply a huge equalization of around 20db over the whole frequency range between 20hz to 20khz to even the RIAA eq. curve. This just does not happens in the recording digital process.
The degradation implications in that recording RIAA eq. curve are to many between other things that not only affect note to note but the developed harmonics too.

Third difference is that in the digital recording what is recorded in the recording tape are only zeros and ones that’s way different to the analog recorded signal in the tape where that signal is always added by the frequency range limit of the tape recorder, its noise levels, its distortion levels, etc, etc. that does not exist in the digital recording process.

Fourth difference is that cutting development process to make the mother stamper ( LP grooves ) to press each copy of a LP where at each pressing single LP the next pressed one is degraded by the degradation of the used stamper. All this does not happens with the digital alternative where each single track is an original master due that what is copy are only zeros and ones each time.

But the worst degradation, I can say a " nigthmare ", for the LP recorded signal comes during the playback process that starts with the off-center LPs and surface waves and micro-waves that the cartridge/tonearm must track.
After that the LP recorded signal is added of full of noise/distorions levels at each link where it pass through the playback process: TT own kind of noise/distortions ( evrykind. ), cartridge own distortions, tonearm own developed distortions/noises including the ones coming from the tonearm internal wiring, headshell connector input and tonearm connector output and even from the phono IC cable. In the digital playback process things are different and with lot less signal degradation. Additional and due that the cartridge output is a tiny one level the signal is " open " to be degraded by noise pollution.

The " nigthmare " only began and is followed by the cartridge/tonearm alignment in pivoted tonearms where even if we made that alignment perfect ( that never is. ) always eist a developed tracking distortion levels.

After the cartridge/tonearm/alignment the LP recorded signal is almost at " random " additional degradations due that the relationship between the tonearm and the cartridge mounted on it develops many kind of distortions starting with the in between resonance frequency range that affects the recorded signal.
All those followed by the cartridge tracking abilities to follows the LP grooves modulation in accurate way that never can be achieved loosing signal information.

And that’s all?, NO because way before we can listen in the speakers the signal reproduction the cartridge signal must goes to the " signal killer " named: phono stage where the signal, sometimes, has to be amplified 8k-10K times, depending of the cartridge output level, and inside that " signal killer " the cartridge signal must pass again to the RIAA eq ( this time inverse curve. ) to achieve " flat response but here exist several problems to achieve that " flat response ":
first no single analog phono stage comes with zero db deviation in the frequency inverse RIAA eq. and due to that can’t mimic the original signal ( we loss signal information here: adding or losted. ) and second even with zero deviations in the inverse RIAA eq curve no one knows for sure if in reality can mimic with the RIAA " deviations " developed in the recording process.

Instead digital playback is almost like the direct sound in a near field position listening: starigth, with a lot less signal degradations of everykind that exist in the recording/playback analog process.

After all those no one needs to be a " genius " to attest that analog got absolutely crushed by the digital alternative. Just no contest.

I’m not a sound lover but a MUSIC lover and that’s why I like analog and digital alternatives but I know that exist no superiority in the analog alternative no matter what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

dynaquest4  Let me know what you don't understand and I will try to explain it better

Hondo, my friend has that table and it sounds amazing, with both clear audio and soundsmith carts. 

The cartridge is no where near SOTA on any level. You need a much better cart on that table to get anywhere close to your excellent CD player. Like a thousand dollars or higher. Listen to the 2k sound smith made for that arm and table and then get back to me.

chadsort, 

Whatever happened with your turntable?  Did you get it sorted out, move up the chain, give up on it, or what?

I had a VPI Classic 1.  Tried a variety of cartridges with it, including the ZU 103.  I liked the ZU the least.  Never could get satisfactory performance from the Classic 1.  I think that its problem is poor motor isolation.  

I suspect that is why it was deleted from their product line.

Dyna / Thanks

....Actually most music I would say.

Interesting thread this. But I must admit I find some music or recordings better on regular red book cd's

Spatalking seems to be trying to compress 8 pounds of reasonable audio knowledge in a 6 pound bag - and the terminology he uses, which appears more intended to impress than convince, doesn't
help in determining what he is actually trying to tell us.  Perhaps if you used less words we could better understand your point.

I prefer the Nakamichi 7A to the Dragon as do some other owners.  It is mechancially more stable with no auto reverse and has manual azimuth adjustment.  I've used mine for 30 years.  Otherwise, sonically, I prefer the Tandberg cassette decks.  Excellent S/N ratios with beautiful rich sound that I've only found in Tandberg decks.  Tandberg decks were very unreliable, especially their older ones I've owned.  

I've been reading this post for a long while now and I have to say there are some things that everyone has missed.   First, there are distortion mechanisms in digital that do not exist in analog LP, likewise there are distortion mechanisms in analog LP.  Consequently, one cannot compare digital to analog without stating what they are comparing.   As casually mentioned above in a few places, a very good turntable with good source will trash a cheap digital player with good source.   Likewise, the reverse is also true.   It isn't possible to compare pure analog to pure digital and make a consensus about which is better.  What is worse, is I don't know of a single high end source material that was recorded in analog and digital simultaneously.   Sheffield Labs did a few but I don't know if they were ever released since they were recorded in digital format that is not what we use today.  If someone knows of one, please enlighten me.

Second, back in the day when digital was first designed, Sony had to go to Burr Brown to produce suitable DAC's since Japan didn't have the analog semiconductor processes to develop a suitable chip.  The first thing BB told them was the sample rate was too low for a 20 KHz data rate.   (Yes, I know about the 2x Nyquist limit, having published several technical papers on the subject.)   What most folks don't know is the stipulation in the Nyquist limit - in order to sample only twice per bipolar waveform then the two samples must occur at the precise peak levels of the analog data stream.   That is at the maximum positive peak and maximum negative peak.  So, that means that the ADC will know when the peaks will occur - yet it isn't possible for the ADC to know that since 20 KHz may or may not occur at any given sample period.    For a random occurrence near the Nyquist limit, the sample rate must be at least 5 to 7 times the maximum frequency (there are a number of papers published on this fact by Analog Devices, National Semiconductor, Burr Brown, and Linear Technology as well as others).    That puts the ideal sample rate at about 3 to 4 KHz.  But, in order to fit the amount of music onto a the predefined disk size, significant compromises were made. 

Lastly, as we all know, there are a number of distortion mechanisms in analog LP.   These are just as destructive as the ones in digital and we perceive them differently.  There is no point in me repeating them all here.

If someone on this board is going to make a blanket proclamation that digital is better or analog is better regardless of what they play it on, then I argue that they prefer certain types of distortion mechanisms over the others.  

There is no question that digital is getting better year by year as it has much growth potential in terms of sound quality.  Analog LP technology is mature, so the growth potential for sound quality is slower and harder to come by.   With digital downloads, there is great potential to eliminate the limitations of the standard Compact Disk.  32 bit data and 384 KHz is already in experimentation stages and I personally anticipate 32 bits at twice that rate in the future.  With advanced digital signal processing, some of the early destructive distortions in digital can be reversed, although the resulting data file will no longer fit on the original CD, it will be a download only format.  

@rockinroni 

the unipivot tonearm you're using is not ideal for the 103 because of the High compliance of the cantilever a new low compliance cartridge would be more ideally suited to your turntable 

 
It's hard to understand you message
DL-103 is a fairly low compliance cartridge
Low compliance cartridge match well only with high mass tonearm

Hello I haven't read all that responses but just thinking the unipivot tonearm you're using is not ideal for the 103 because of the High compliance of the cantilever a new low compliance cartridge would be more ideally suited to your turntable next get a new phono section like maybe the New Black Ice 149 f then get a nice LP like a analogue Productions 45 RPM Tea for the Tillerman

Digital is getting much better these days. no doubt about it.  I was listening to a great digital setup the other days and was floored by the quality.  its got me thinking.  there is music that was recrded years ago that I cannot get to sound good on digital.  there is digital that has never been released on vinyl.  At this point, the investment in a great transport and DAC may be a thing to consider.

Boxer:

I assume that you have read my recent posts above.  I stopped listening to records in 1992...after about 32 years of my life of that being the best media around.  I do not have to spend thousands of dollars to buy turntables (again) and music (again) that I already have on digital (mostly CD) in order to be fairly certain that vinyl is merely a current fashion.

Yes, I have auditioned vinyl on modern ultra-high end equipment.  Sounds great...like well recorded records always did.  Different than digital?  You bet.  Better than digital?  To my ears, no.  Convenience?  No contest.  

My main issue with vinyl, in addition to a long list of other inconveniences, is that you are stuck with the song selection and order pressed onto the record.  And you have to flip the damn record.  As in the old days, albums (with many exceptions) are typically two or three really good tracks and seven or eight of filler.  Even if analog discs were scientifically capable of providing a better than digital playback, I could not tolerate being forced to listen to tracks I don't like to accommodate a out of date (albeit cool looking) media.  Makes zero sense to me...and I've been around a while.

To your question....it has been 27 years since I've had a turntable.  Audio memory is so perishable (a fact) it wouldn't matter what turntables I had back then...I'd be unable to compare that analog playback memory to present day digital playback of a well recorded CD or FLAC flie.

In recent memory, a number of digital "systems" failed though they were supposed to be better than CD's - DVD-Audio, Digital Tape, SACD and others.  I fell for SACD.  Was it better?  Yes it was.  But it failed because it wasn't better enough to buy all your music again.  I dumped SACD after three years but I can still play my discs on my Oppo 105. Vinyl, I suspect will eventually fade away in the same fashion.

When the absolute sole "proof" of the superiority of records comes from vinyl aficionados, who tout that system as "sounding better," I'll take my ears, experience and science any day. 

A sorta long-winded answer to your very polite question.  My apologies.

Dyna,
"My opinion of vinyl use being mostly about nostalgia and "retro-coolness" stands."
Obviously you can have any opinion you choose. I'm just wondering what your vinyl standard was to come to this conclusion. I don't think you mentioned another table other than the zero. If you did, my apologies & I'm asking you to please reiterate...

Thanks

I think it was the best comment in this thread and my personal award goes to @millercarbon

That is why, anyone tries to tell me a turntable got absolutely crushed by a CDP, all I can do is ask, from how high was it dropped?

It is sad that a relatively archaic thing like vinyl works so well even with the digital revolution having occurred...how can all those people be enjoying well sorted analog when their iPhone is RIGHT THERE. So what if a great vinyl pressing sounds astonishing? You're never gonna get that minute back that you spent cleaning the needle and running the dust brush over the album...life is too short for all that hassle when all you get from it is music that's analogous to real sound. I get it man.

Dyna, I’m going to go out on a limb here & say you missed there point. You have suggested vinyl as being antiquated & inferior (sound wise / I guess you like the looks) to digital, while using a Garrard Zero 100 as your standard. Probably not a fair comparison, unless you have another vinyl standard.

Boxer:

Hmmmm....misunderstanding all around.  I grew up with records.  Listened to my parents' and my schoolmates' systems.  The Zero-100 I purchased in 1972 or '73 was my first turntable.  I owned others up until about '92 when I quit records altogether.  I referenced the Zero-100 as an example of how turntables can "look cool."  Both immediate respondents erroneously assumed that 50+ year old turntable was my vinyl SQ standard.  They did not read (or understand) the context of my post and got it wrong.

Plus, Elizabeth shows me no favor because, in jest, I teased her about using her refrigerator to "burn-in" her uber-expensive AC plugs.

My opinion of vinyl use being mostly about nostalgia and "retro-coolness" stands.  I find that outdated "system" terribly inconvenient and mechanically complex; others find it fun and completely listenable.  However, IMO, no matter how much money your throw at it or how much you like it, the phonograph record cannot compete with digital as a playback method...assuming equality of other factors. .

Again, in my opinion, analog equipment/media vendors are getting rich pandering to those that crave the latest fashion.  Smart - but often dishonest - marketing.

Dyna, I’m going to go out on a limb here & say you missed there point. You have suggested vinyl as being antiquated & inferior (sound wise / I guess you like the looks) to digital, while using a Garrard Zero 100 as your standard. Probably not a fair comparison, unless you have another vinyl standard. 

Elizbeth: thanks for your input trashing my first turtable from 50 years ago.  Being you, and with my experience with you, I suspect you would trash any gear I mentioned.

Chakster: ditto.  The Zero-100 was definitely cool looking.  That was my point.  You both completely missed it.

@dynaquest4 I'm not sure, but maybe you never owned a high-end turntable, cartridge, phono stage ? What i can read about that Garrard Zero 100 is comments about problems with this turntable from many users.  

If you imagine me with automatic retro turntables like that playin advocate for retro analog then and you're wrong.
 
I think most of the analog lovers here on audiogon are pretty serious about turntables, cartridges, tonearms, phono stages and everything else to make analog system superb today in competition with digital. 

If you reference in analog audio is Garrard Zero 100 then i understand why do you like digital. Maybe you can recall a better turntable from your arsenal ? 

P.S.  I thought the Nakamichi Dragon is superb cassete deck, but i never tried one, if you think it's so awful you can send it to me :) This is definitely retro cool looking japanese deck. 

Chakster said:

This is a proof of how cool those analog formats really is, otherwise they would not survive in the digital era.

They are cool!  That is part of the appeal of retro.  Listening to vinyl, as I've said before is, in my opinion, is all about nostalgia, the equipment, the process of loading a record and listening to that old familiar needle in groove sound.  I get all that.  Just does not make analog vinyl a better performing media (all else being equal).  Like nostalgia? Great - go analog til your hearts content.

I suspect, for me, like with film, the complete inconvenience of an antiquated system (records) totally eliminates vinyl in a competition with digital.  Would I go back to having a turntable?  Maybe...they are still very cool to look at (like my Garrard Zero-100) and the experience might be fun; but.........

I loved and would drool over my Nakamichi Dragon.  But the cassette tape was an awful medium from the get-go despite Dolby's (and others) later efforts.  But I did love making compilation tapes using two Sony ES CD players and a mixer.

Of seven Corvettes I've owned, my favorite was a '67 big block.  But it is an antique; and while still very attractive, there is  absolutely nothing mechanical about it that makes it a better automobile than just about any modern car with a 3.5 ltr motor.

It is OK to be happy with analog - as you are...but you don't need to justify it by touting it as an overall better media.  

@dynaquest4  

Chakster:

Not sure I get why you uploaded that "slide" image. To me it just looks like a a digital scan of a blurry purple haze. And since it is now a digital image, what I supposed to compare it with.    

It's an example. 
Actually i have uploaded original cross-processed slide film scan, no phonoshop, no filters, nothing, this is just a film as it is. Digital only help me to share it. I can make print right from the analog scan in superb resolution. 

I do the same with the music, if i want to share it (or if i want to discover new music) i will use digital, but to play music in my system i will use original vinyl. 

I can understand a lack of enthusiasm about analog formats in certain age, so i do not blame you or anyone else on here, but younger generation think different. I'm not so young, but i'm happy with analog. I'm happy when i see young people buying and playing record, taking pictures on film cameras and buying books in analog format. This is a proof of how cool those analog formats really is, otherwise they would not survive in the digital era. 

I would never trust a digital source to store my music or even pictures, many information lost on broken hard drives, old computers, cd-rs etc. Digital is good and bad at the same time, many formats are not supported on newer computers, i just don't like it. 

What i like is that i can pick up even a 78 rpm record from 1930s made by RCA Victor from my grandpa collection and i can still play it in 2019. Not sure you will be able to play your digital files for such a long time. I can not open some of the digital files made 20 years ago. 

This year’s "Records To Die For" in the February 2019 issue of Stereophile, which according to the magazine is comprised of recordings that are, "both musically and sonically impeccable," includes 17 Lps and 30 Cds (or other digital formats, but mostly Cd). I counted 47 instead of the 46 the magazine states because one was recommended in both the Lp and Cd formats.

This is not new this year, Cds usually outnumber Lps. So that leads me to believe that the absolute sonic superiority of Lps that some proclaim is based more on ego than hearing.

Analog is only better if you like the sound of real unamplified music.  If you have ever played in bands and orchestras you have been at least exposed to live music.

I can not imagine the OP background in music even if the arm is to light etc.  Unless his step up and or phono amp are really really bad!!!

I want a grand piano to sound like it made from wood and the strings are hit with a felt hammer not a metal one.  For the people who can not understand the last sentence why bother with vinyl.  Unless you totally dig the art work or rituals.

Enjoy the ride
Tom

akaim says:

...the differences really jump out at you with headphones. the ambience and depth with analog is superior.   it's not something you'll always hear playing it through speakers in a room. it's a subtle difference...

I do not agree that analog has better sound quality than digital.  Different for sure, but not "superior."  And, I was raised on radio, records and tape and my first car out of college was a new 69 Firebird (400ci/335hp).

I note in your quote above that you reference the difference (between analog and digital) as "subtle" but also describe the difference as "superior...and will jump out at you..."  Seem like a contradiction there; though not as bad as some who will describe the subtle difference as "jaw-dropping."

Chakster:

Not sure I get why you uploaded that "slide" image.  To me it just looks like a a digital scan of a blurry purple haze.  And since it is now a digital image, what I supposed to compare it with.  

in the case where a listener prefers digital to analog, most likely it’s because the listener cannot discern and hear the holes in the sound that exist with digital. in that case, stick with digital. if you have really good ears, then nothing but analog will ever suffice, especially if you grew up listening to analog since the dawn of stereo sound in the late 1950’s. the new generation grew up listening to digital so they can’t tell the difference. it’s sort of like the young kids who have a 4 cylinder Honda car that they think is really fast....but Dad had a 1969 GTO with a V8 and 360 horsepower back in the day, and he knows better....I've yet to hear a CD that could compare to analog tape on an open reel machine, the differences really jump out at you with headphones.  the ambience and depth with analog is superior.   it's not something you'll always hear playing it through speakers in a room.  it's a subtle difference yet it's definitely better and more authentic with analog recordings.

@dynaquest4

 You covered too many bases and a response from me would just take too long. I'm glad, though, that my post got your chops churning and interested you enough to provide such a verbose reply.

I used film from 1972 to 2004. After digital reached 8mp I never looked back at film.

 
Just because i start uploading my film scan archive online recently, actually all of them are from 2004 to 2010. I see a lot of feedbacks, much more than with digital. So i assume there is still something special about analog film. This is one of my cross-processed 120mm slide film, on that picture you see a Great Canary Telescope sited on a volcanic peak 2267 metres above sea level in Atlantic Ocean. This is the world's largest single-aperture optical telescope. I can not do a picture like that with digital camera. It's a magic of the film. 

I think the lack of enthusiasm about analog film photography or vinyl records in a digital world does not affect everyone. There is and always will be something special about analog formats. 

No surprise to me. That model esoteric is very good  sounding....

Right you are, simao. Except I would add, its not just the pressing. The MoFi Dire Straits 45 is an awful pressing. Mine skips on Walk of Life, there are pops and crackles everywhere, and the whole pressing is just depressingly noisy across all sides. Its so bad I called Acoustic Sounds and said this is the worst MoFi ever! They agreed! Set a record for returns! And yet, even so, the sound that is there is so glorious that when they said they can refund but not exchange as there are none to exchange it for I said, well then I'll keep it!

So its not just the pressing. Another example. I have a really nice reissue of Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. Pulled it out recently. Looks and plays like new. Quiet as can be. Perfectly fine pressing. Could hardly stand it. Awful detail, congested, harsh, glaring, pretty much crap. Pulled out one of my old MoFi's from back in the 70's, probably played 40 times by now. Ahhh, sweet, pure, natural, clear, that's the ticket! 

The MoFi is of course famously made from an Original Master Recording, and comes with a two page insert documenting all the obsessive steps taken to preserve fidelity in the process. My hunch is the reissue was made from gawd knows what source tape, knocked off on whatever gear was cheap, by whoever was available, so that by the time it got to the final step in the process it really doesn't matter what vinyl they use or how its pressed. The recording was an abortion from the get-go.

I think something like that happened on the LP of The New Basement Tapes. They messed that one up so much it sounds better on YouTube.

Comparing apples to apples recording quality wise its no contest. Even the crappiest MoFi ever crushes any digital version.

Yep, back in the day, we used to say "garbage in, garbage out".   Today, we have not only that but we also have far better equipment to hear that garbage.  

I'm going to offer this for comparison:

The MoFi 45lp release of Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" against both a Tidal streaming and a reissued cd version. 

Analog: VPI HW-19 Mk 4 with a Hana SH through a basic Lehmann Black Cube phono. 

Digital: Tidal lossless FLAC through an Oppo 105 and AcousticZen XLR's through the Pathos Classic One. 

That 45 pressing completely outsized any digital version. 

Some digital Versions are better than their analog counterparts, especially with a poorly pressed vinyl version. But I tend to research the best pressed vinyl version of a release and they almost always sound more complete and the digital version. 

And, then again, some inferior pressed versions of LPs can sound absolutely horrible. Like, I played REM's LP of Life's Rich Pageant, and that just sounded awful through the system. but the streaming version through TIDAL sounded incredible.