Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

Not so fast on doing a comparison. When I first got a TOTL sacd player this summer I thought it was going to slay my TT when I first heard it. I was impressed at first by the clean digital signal. Kinda like being blown away when u heard your first CD player especially if your TT was under par. After awhile I noticed that clean digital signal was not so clean on a lot of CDs. There was distortion jitter call it what you like. Some CDs are better engineered and will beat analog but on others that colored but warm analog sound is hard to beat.

chakster: 

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.  

I would recommend that when you make a point that is an opinion, you state it as such.

@dynaquest4

When digital photography was limited to 4 to 8 megapixels, "purists" said film was better; despite all the many disadvantages and expense of film and film processing. Now with 24 megapixels being the standard, nobody (hardly) argues that film is a better medium.

You can go on instagram to realize how many young people taking pictures on film today (simply follow tag #filmphotography). You may never understand why they don’t need your 24 megapixels when the instagram picture size is limited to 2048 x 2048 pixels maximum and the actual size today is just 600 x 600 pixels. You can not upload your huge digital file on facebook, it will be compressed like those mp3 digital files people are sharing. Those huge digital pictures are for your home computer or for the actual prints in the frame on the wall, but not to share online on social media.

All digital pictures became cool ONLY after analog filters became popular, those digital filters simulate the analog film effects, some of them are stupid (like default instagram filters), but some of them like VSCO Cam® are really cool. People who never really took any picture on film enjoying analog film filters for digital photography. Withoiut those filters digital phogography for majority of the people was extremely boring. Because of the instargam and companies like VSCO Cam® (and related) who developed apps to make digital pictures looks like analog film we have popularity of instagram etc woldwide. Now everyone is a "photographer", film photography is extremely popular in Japan as much as Vinyl in Japan. This is the county who invented DIGITAL, so what ? 

Those huge digital cameras are for professionals in fashion industry, but normal people are on iPhones. But actual film photography is not dead at all, many professionals still prefer analog film, many amateurs are happy to take pictures on cheap film cameras, because it’s unique experience for artistic people.

Same with vinyl. Though I’m not sure why it came back at all, other than being retro-cool, soon most vinyl aficionados will realize that it just isn’t worth it to put up with the long list of reasons of why digital audio is so much better and convenient.

Vinyl is like gold, it’s not only the best media format that lives longer than the actual owner, but it’s an investement, the price for rare records goes up every year. If you don’t understand why "it came back at all" the record collectors know well what they are doing, they are getting rich every year with their favorite music on original vinyl, they can buy/sell/trade it with a lot of benefits compared to digital.

Your digital media is free to enjoy all kind of music online in the car or in the cell phone streaming all albums in mp3 right from youtube without paying anything for it. We already have all that.

Vinyl is just something more, no matter how good is your high-end digital set up. Vinyl is highly collectible, this media for vinyl lovers is not just about fidelity like for audiophiles, it’s a culture that you can not replace with digital crap, never.

The rare and difficult to transfer correctly acoustic recordings prior to 1925 are currently not streamed and in the future, will require someone other than the owner of those recordings in 78, LP or CD format to permit or actually do the transfer to streaming or other digital format. 

I have many ethnic recordings which also have very limited copies issued and could be lost forever if reliance were made for convenience only. 

My hope is that future generations learn music history and performance, learn how to perform musical instruments and vocal technique and not squander the incredible musical intelligence of the past several centuries.  Civilization will be greatly diminished otherwise.

When digital photography was limited to 4 to 8 megapixels, "purists" said film was better; despite all the many disadvantages and expense of film and film processing. Now with 24 megapixels being the standard, nobody (hardly) argues that film is a better medium. Same with vinyl. Though I’m not sure why it came back at all, other than being retro-cool, soon most vinyl aficionados will realize that it just isn’t worth it to put up with the long list of reasons of why digital audio is so much better and convenient.

I’m currently living with family as we transition from Austin to Dallas. All my gear is in storage and yesterday I was listening to music on a cheap Bluetooth soundbar streamed from my phone. I was tapping my foot, really enjoying the music, when I realized (once again) it is so much more about the music than the equipment.

Vinyl is much too expensive to last, but the only thing that can beat it is reel to reel which is also expensive.

Vinyl will live as long as the people who are willing to pay those high prices live.

lol  The "JMW stuff"  omg

One point that hasn't been mentioned (or I can't find it) is the sound quality you can expect from the jMW arm.  For years i had a JMW 10.5i arm and several extra armtubes and was amazed when an audiobuddy of mine with the same arm claimed that his was roundly beaten, SQ-wise by a Jelco SA-750.

Since the Jelco came in under $500 and i trust my friend's ears, I bought one, and he was absoluely right.  No contest at all.  I ended up with Jelco 750s on both my tables -- much modified Lenco L75 and Empire 298 (for which the 9" Jelco is a drop-in replacement).  I actually cleared over $1K by selling the JMW stuff.

In 5 years CD will be dead. In 20 years, vinyl will be dead.

Most people would opine that the CD is already dead, we just don't know it.  Vinyl has been dead for 30 years but has risen from the grave for some people.  This passing fad can't last.

As the father of two teenage daughters - they could care less about CD or vinyl. Streaming is where it is at - same with 99.99 people under the age of 21.
They still love music, but don’t really care about the absolute SQ. My Daughters know vinyl sounds better, but that does not inhibit them loving streaming - in fact they don’e even think about formats.

In 5 years CD will be dead. In 20 years, vinyl will be dead.

hopefully full bandwidth streaming will be the then defacto.

anyone thinking anything different is wrong.

@dayglow - that is a very interesting observation!   3x on analog to equal or better digital playback.   Yeah, now that I think about it, that makes a whole lot of sense!

IMO never liked any entry level VPI deck. They appear to be made well but Rega tables always seem to be more musical despite the "sub par" build quality. No one can deny Rega has great value in tonearms. I own a Rega P9/RB 1000 with an AT-OC9 mk 2/Allnic 1200 and estimate i'm getting 75%? of it's potential. When compared to my North Star Sapphire CDP it's almost 50/50 despite the Rega/phono preamp/ cartridge being 3x the retail of the North Star Sappire. Both of us will be better off when we upgrade our phono cartridge. In summary an analogue set up needs to be at least 3X(IMO) to equal or better digital playback. The debate over analoge vs. digital is outdated both can reach reference levels but be prepared to spend a lot more to equal or better good/great digital playback.

 So, yes a cheap LP set up can conquer a cheap CD player with low end ancillary equipment.

lol! The CDP my Technics first trounced was a $1200 California Audio Labs that I had selected only after home auditioning a dozen contenders. I really liked it. Wife really liked it. Except compared to vinyl.

That first system was anything but low end. Nor was the next one it trounced. Budget, yes. Low end, no. This was a CDP based system I put together as a gift, that sounded so good I had friends over just to prove to them you do not have to spend a lot to have truly good sound. I'd say about a dozen people, none of them audiophiles, just normal people. Every single one was stunned- at first, how good a budget system can sound and second, that the records killed the CD. Not even close.

By the third time it became painfully unfair because the Kenwood was gone so I had to use the ARC PH-3 SE. Only did this once because of the hassle and the ARC being like using a microscope to look at a flower.

Later on it was a Basis 2001/Graham 2.0/Glider when a friend challenged me for playing records when he could be listening to "better sound" from CD. (I forget what CD it was, CDPs being eminently forgettable.)  Now its true, if you compare a crap recording on vinyl to a good recording on CD the good recording will, uh, may sound better. Duh. Which I told him. Which he asked well do you have the same thing in both formats? Yeah sure, MFSL Original Master Recording. Ten minutes later my friend is telling me, "I kept thinking you were playing one louder, or that you did something, but actually no everything was identical. The record just sounds better." And his wife, equally amazed, nods in agreement.

Main thing I always make a point of saying, these are all normal people. Normal people who just love music. Normal people, in my experience, always hear the better power cord, interconnect, Cone, whatever. Always. I've had parties, room full of people, swap a power cord, everyone hears it. I've had wives shout from the kitchen which one sounds better. Even one old guy who thought it would be a waste of time because he wore two hearing aids.

Ancillary equipment doesn't seem to matter. Cost doesn't seem to matter. Only one thing seems to matter: Is it a person? Or an audiophile?

We report.

You decide.

RR is still around - https://referencerecordings.com/

It is a Reference Recordings LP, RR-7, 45 RPM, "Professor Johnson's Astounding Sound Show"  All the tracks are excellent, the track I mentioned above is 3rd cut on Side 1.  I don't know if this was ever put on CD.  If so, I'd buy it!

Which LP are you talking about the Ramsey Lewis or the Mitropolous?  Both are stereo, great stereo at that on CD.  Stereo Columbia orchestral recordings are particularly peculiar sounding, bright and thin relative to Living Stereo, Living Presence and Decca Stereo.  The more recent remastered Sony Columbias can be superb-it's all on the tape and finally revealed via the CD.

@fleschler - Actually, that LP was recorded in stereo.  Very early stereo but indeed stereo.

I agree with spatialking that mono LPs can be breathtakingly great sounding (I have many jazz LPs that prove that), I also despair at the inferior sound of many LPs, especially minor labels who cheaped out on the vinyl and/or mastering or major labels such as Columbia classical.  I have many of those inferior sounding LPs remastered on CD and they can be awesome.   Some examples are the Mitropolous Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet (2 original and 1 Odyssey LPs).  Then an early CD which sounded just as murky as the LPs.  Then, the recent remastering-fantastic audiophile sound.   How about not great sounding, noisy Ramsey Lewis Down to Earth on Mercury.  3 LPs with different labels/pressings are okay.  The Mercury CD release is out of this world great.  On the other hand, many of my Decca CDs are inferior sounding to the original LPs.  So it hit and miss on both formats.  I wouldn't want to be without either. 

As to millercarbon's post-my 2000 analog set up was a VPI 19-4 with an SME IV arm and Lyra Lydian cartridge.  It killed every CD player I heard by a mile.  I hated CDs until I got the EAR Acute in 2006.  Then I fell in love with it as much as my 2006 purchase of a VPI TNT VI, same arm and Benz Ruby 3 cartridge.  So, yes a cheap LP set up can conquer a cheap CD player with low end ancillary equipment.  My suggestion is to try out some very good used CD players and see how great they can sound (a used Acute sells for $2000).  CD players have come a long way towards sounding like great analog.

An interesting discussion, I found the posts quite informative. I won't speculate on the particular setup or why one sounded better than the other did.

 

I will say no one can deny the LP has made a significant comeback. Clearly, it is not from ease of use, the CD blows that away. It is not from "Long Playing" even though that is what LP stands for; the CD has room for two LP's on it without compression. It isn't from lower initial cost or lower long-term costs again the CD wins here. With a CD, there is no stylus to wear out, no fiddling with it, just plug it in, and play.   Yes, a good audiophile will fiddle to extract the most from a CD but a CD is plug and play while an LP is less so.  

 

America votes with their wallet - no one spends more when they can spend less unless that "more" gives them something. In my opinion, the only thing left is the musical sound from the LP. There are way too many LP's and turntables sold today than from a few esoteric audiophiles looking for a sexy setup.   (Although, I do have to say, a state of the art turntable does look a whole lot sexier than a CD player, it's just another black box in the rack!)

Case in point of my own system - I have a Wyred4Sound DAC and a BlueSound Vault 2 music server as well as a duplicate NAS of the server for backup. I can draw digital files from either for playback. I use Roon as my controlling software. I put together a demo playlist of the very best digital recordings I have, about 25 to 30 minutes’ worth of various types of music - jazz, classical, rock, etc.   When that is over, I play a Reference Recording LP of Professor Johnson's African Drum Ensemble. He recorded on the UC Berkeley campus in the mid 1950's using a state of the art all vacuum tube tape recorder and vacuum tube mic amps. (A complete redesign of the original tape unit by Professor Johnson). My system for playback is all vacuum tubes. If you were to listen to this, you might say the digital system does this a little better or the LP does that a little better, as there are differences. However, the fact is overall that old LP recording sounds amazingly good and everyone who hears it wonders afterwards if we have come as far as the advertisements proclaim.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely spoiled by the convenience of the digital system and the "sit in the listening chair controlling everything" ability. However, I would be quite happy having that sound quality of the LP for the remainder of my life. Just don't ask me to give up the convenience of the digital!

ALSO: I don't really think it takes super expensive turntable/phono stages/cartridges for vinyl to compete with digital.

 
I'll say! Back in 1998 when I "thought" I was done auditioning and assembling the best system I could afford, I made the mistake of digging out my old Technics SL-1700. Bought new in 1976, it had after college sat in a box for years. It had the Stanton 681-EEE. It had patch cords (remember those??). It had... a bent cantilever?!?!? How'd that happen???! Dang! Oh well: pliers!

Thankfully I was able to straighten it out without breaking the cantilever off. Plugged the patch cords into the only phono stage I had, the one built into an even older (1974?) Kenwood integrated. Pulled out one of the few records I for whatever reason hadn't been able to part with when the rest were dumped for next to nothing at a record store. (Stupid, stupid, STUPID!!!)

Eventually the stylus drops onto the vinyl and..... WTF?!?! I mean WHAT the @$#@^#!?!?! All I could do was sit there slack jawed as this beat up old relic was positively blowing away my CDP! The CDP I had just spent months auditioning contenders to find. The CDP with a power cord, and Cones, and Shelf, and green stuff around the edges of the CD, which had been treated, and.... revealed to have no there there.

So the turntable trounced the CDP. Impossible! Jedi mind trick?

Hours later, wife comes home, "What's that you're playing?"
"Tom Petty." (She knew that.) "Why?"
"It sounds really good."
My wife by the way, it takes major improvements for her to notice.
Without tipping her off I lured her into the room. No way she could see the turntable sitting on the floor. To her eyes it had to be the CDP.

"How does it sound?"

"It sounds really good!"

Me, "Its a record."

She, "Well, it sounds really good!"

Yeah. Let that one sink in. Woman with no skin in the game. Loves music, couldn't care less for the equipment, the technology, any of that. And she prefers the record. I mean really, let it sink in.

I could share a dozen other similar stories. 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?

I have an Esoteric K-05 and it’s awesome. Won’t need another CD player ever. Everything sounds great on it. I have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC Jr that I use for Tidal Streaming via Roon. It also sounds awesome. If I didn’t have $5k or more invested in records, I would stick with digital and be happy. 

I have 100 or so MusicMatters Blue Notes and Analogue Production Blue Notes and they sound magical on my VPI Classic 4 with 12 inch Reference 3D arm and Ortofon Cadenza Black. Using. Bobs Devices Sky 20 SUT to my Luxman 590axII integrated’s MM phono section. 

The anologue costs many more thousands than the Esoteric. Really makes you think about the expense of dipping your toes into the vinyl game. 

Jason

dynaquest4, you are correct. 

But he was popular: my point being that popularity does not necessarily align itself with quality. 

Promised utopia and not delivering: sounds like that someone who is currently draining the swamp... and replacing it with a cesspool. But I digress. 

i totally disagree. Commercially available CDs and other digital formats, due to corporate imperatives (profit) are by design not equal to analog.  

This above is an opinion though stated as if it were a fact.

Hitler won an election. If he was so popular, how could he be so bad?

The only election Hitler ran in, he lost.   He bullied himself to power in the Nazi party...he then forced the government to give him "emergency" power as head of the government...which lead to dictatorship, war and the total destruction of Germany.  He was popular with the poor because he promised utopia....but never delivered.

Roberjerman,

With tegard to the popularuty if the Denon cartridge, warning: I’m about to be totally crass and utterly tasteless here, if you can’t tolerate it don’t read further. 

Hitler won an election. If he was so popular, how could he be so bad? 

Prof

1:19
well put.

1:52
i totally disagree. Commercially available CDs and other digital formats, due to corporate imperatives (profit) are by design not equal to analog.  

I’m not saying digital can’t get there. I understand Neil Young is trying. But it’s not there now.

As others have said, get a really good cartridge.  Yours is not.  In the meanwhile, check your arm mounting geometrics.

My best recordings (on vinyl) were bought for $1-$10. 50-70s jazz and blues, many live. Columbia, Red RCA etc. The Tidal versions do not hold a candle to many of them, if you can even get them.

Despite my rather large collection, I rarely paid more than $25 for a record, 78 or CD.  Most of my collection was acquired between $1 and $10 each.  I listen every day for 1 to 2 hours.  That's my wealth, having the time after working, etc., to listen, not the cost per unit.  True from junior high through law school (restricted to chamber and non-vocal classical music and jazz while studying).  I'm 62 now so I've been privileged to hear a lot of music besides performing and recording.

I hope analog recording stays alive. Question is how many audiophiles are prepared to pay $100 for a record with excellent music and great recording ? Or $200 ? I am, a few records a year, no more. And I would need to listen to it before buying, entire record not samples.

I use digital recording equipment now.  Even the DCC recordings made in the 1990s sounded great.  I still have a Tandberg 9100 and a Pioneer 1500 for playback.  That Tandberg made some great recordings back in 1980s, better than early digital by a mile.

The reason I prefer many CDs to LP originals is due to remastering and unavailable good pressings.  Some of our great remastering engineers use the mastertapes without the LP compression and know what their doing with e.q. and multi-track mixing.  The other reason is that many of my great performances originally on LP had crappy pressings and the CD eliminates that hindrance to musical pleasure.  

Most of my collection, both 78s and LPs are not and will never be transferred to CD due to economic reasons and limited demand.

Music heritage recorded in analog, mastered in analog and released in analog has much longer history. That was the one and only standard for all recordings made in the golden age. Fact? Yes

When anyone is talking about Digital, claimed is better than Analog you’re talking about recordings made in the beggining of the digital era and til the presend day. You’re all agree that digital in the 80’s and digital today is not the same quality, there is an improvement in modern digital standards. Fact ? Yes

When we’re talking about fidelity we don’t want our analog source (decent records from the 70s) to be digitally remastered for some reason other than to sell them again in digital format by the labels, claimed they are even better.

I am sure there is no problem in modern music originally recorded in digital in top quality and released in digital. This is fine!

But when you’re talking about music heritage such as amazing albums recorded 40-50 years ago in analog and release originally on vinyl, i hope you understand that this is much better than a digital copy?

So please don’t mix together new digital music that you can copy with no loss in fidelity and analog heritage (recorded prior to digital era in ) that is better to have on original source as vinyl (or tape if you will ever find it).

Personally i don’t need a digital copy of whatever quality, made from the analog album recorded in analog in 1969, if i can buy an original vinyl. Digital reissue is always inferior compared to a decent original vinyl. 

-In my opinion digital is for new music recorded digitally in the digital era. 
-Analog is for music heritage recorded in analog at least 40 years ago. 

P.S. For some reason many modern live bands make their recordings in analog on mastertape using vintage studio equipment. Even in music industry analog is not replaced by digital even in 2018. 

I agree rauliruegas. I like both when they recorded and mastered correctly.

When I record a chamber group and choirs, I use a near field technique. When I record an orchestra, I use a mid-field technique but close to row 3 through 7. I do not place mics above the orchestra 10’ like so many current recording engineers do.

I do not record in the Yarlung recording method which is so amophous sounding compared to the classic Decca, Living Stereo and Living Presence techniques.  Yarlung records deep into a hall and way above the musicians heads.  Yuk.  But they do master what they've recorded well (especially Steve Hoffman work).

I once considered CDs inferior sounding, until about 1995 when I acquired higher end CD playback equipment. By 2005, I fell in love with well mastered CD sound as much as LPs..

Btw, some one said in the thread that the ones that likes digital are " stupid ", well then I'm " stupid " and so what?. That person is less stupid because dislike digital? . Maybe the other way around, ignorance/poor knowledge levels always exist.

R.

Dear friends: This thread as some others ones shows the wide/big diversity of opinions or audio references or way of thinking on each one of us something like a Babel’s Tower and is impossible to have a true agreegment between 5-6 gentlemans.

We are in an audio analog forum and analog and digital we use it to listen MUSIC but on all this thread no one of us speak about MUSIC, no one speaks why digital or why LPs preferences against near field live MUSIC as a reference. Many not even has a refrence or the reference is other LP or other CD. The reference almost all of us have has nothing to do with live MUSIC at near field position.

If we can’t understand or even not experienced live MUSIC seated at near field position then our way of thinking always be and will be: " that’s what I like it " and we are and been not MUSIC lovers but only " sound " lovers that means almost nothing ! but the ones that like " sound ".

Digital and LP/analog technologies are only the " media " to really enjoy MUSIC not only to just listen " sound ". Of course that some of us only target is to listen " sound "  with out care about the Sound of MUSIC.

Both technologies has its own trade-offs and like many of you I enjoy digital an analog.

The OP thread tittle is rigth: digital crushed analog with out doubt and not because I said or say that but because exist facts behind the digital superiority against so many analog trade-offs facts.

Yes, I love the art work in the LPs but this fact makes no MUSIC, I like R2R analog " sound " but is imperfect and inferior to digital, I like what surrounded the analog experience at home but I like it not for make " sound " but to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC always.

The digital and analog recording proccess are not exactly the same as are way different the digital and analog playback overall proccess.

If we try to understand  those digital and analog recording/playback proccess then all of we could speak more or less the same language that’s the live MUSIC language and not only speak of sound.

Reading through this thread many of us have some kind of misunderstood on all those proccess and we speak according to those misunderstood of facts.
Example: LP’s samples never are " original " and faaway from been " Original master recording " but a copy of. Digital always is the master not a copy.

Seems to me that even that we are in an analog forum our targets are way different and not always related with near field live MUSIC experiences and nothing wrong with that because it’s a privilege for each one of us to decide about.

In the latest years my main target is to stay truer to the recording that permit me to stay nearer to the near field live MUSIC.

Today my room/audio system is not just a hooby but a lot something " else " something more than a hooby because MUSIC is an important part of overall way of life.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

fleschlerThank You for the hot tip. 7000 CDs is not bad at all.  Happy Listening!

jafant - Marston records can be found at https://www.marstonrecords.com/ He has won Grammys for his work on other labels and does many Naxos label CDs. The defunct Romophone label and nearly so Biddulph were great sources of excellently remastered 78s. Pearl label didn’t remaster, just copied with all the record noise remaining.

Inna-who says that 78s aren’t audiophile quality? The late great Michael Lane made early acoustic 78s of pianists sound like great 50s mono, limited in bandwith but gorgeous sounding mids and dynamic. He made junky labels like Remington and Plymouth sound audiophile-like on his fantastic equipment. 78s often sound quite audiophile-like on my equipment as well. Stereo recordings sound more impressive if recorded and mastered well too but so much of the recordings of the past 60 years sound mediocre to awful. I’ve sold 18,000 records which I found lacking in performance and/or sound quality. I’ve kept 32,000 records in my permanent collection (7,000 CDs). I’ve found it easier to find great sounding CDs than records, mostly based on who did the mastering.

Watch out for those English jazz box set knock offs such as RealGone Jazz. Sure, they’re cheap and comprehensive but often use bad LPs as source material poorly copied. I’ve purchased two dozen of their sets. Some are quite good. None which are CD copies are as good as the original CDs. The Chico Hamilton set is excellent with some really great sound. The Ramsey Lewis sets have some truly awful LP copying on some of the CDs. Many CDs on the sets sound compressed and/or harmonically thinner than the originals.  It's obvious that they don't license the original material despite claims of "remastered sound." 
I try to buy the original/licensed CDs or the original LP (which can be difficult and/or expensive such as Blue Notes and Pacific Jazz labels).  

analogluvr,
Yes it sure was a good table!  Had to go quite a bit further in build quality/engineering (and new cartridge) to do better.

Again, who cares about non-audiophiles on this forum ? They don't even exist.
Well done cds from 78s would be okay for some and not okay for others. I don't have to choose because I don't listen to that music.

@prof 

A Micro Seiki DD40 is a pretty great tableand that was a good cartridge you had on it too.  Miles better than a entry level Rega for less money. 

the only reason I have cd is because there is music that is not released or readily available on lp

While super expensive is not required, there is a minimum. More important, is the effort and knowledge required for the setup; this can not be overemphasized, it's essential for experiencing the magic.

fleschler

I would like to read your writings on another Forum. Tell me where to find.

Happy Listening!

There are too many fantastic CDs of historic performances, never to be remastered again.  I've commented on another forum. 
Anything by Ward Marston is usually rare in 78 format and expertly remastered.  LP transfers of acoustic 78s were generally mediocre and the originals when played back at the correct speed, equalization and stylus size beat it.  However, that's where a master like Ward Marston excels.  He does this, a collection of 24 tracks at $18 a CD for $1000s of mint recordings.  What a bargain.

I just received a CD today, and the only reason I ordered the CD is to determine how much I'll be willing to pay for the LP.

It's NOLA music by a Nawlins artist, and I'm here to tell you, every note of this music drips with that town;  you can visualize the bawdy houses where this music originated.

Needless to say, I will pay top dollar for the best LP of this music; while the CD sounds good, I'm sure the LP will sound much better and have me riveted to every note.


See if you can guess the music; it has received much discussion on this forum.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It’s the digital playback system that’s the problem. We know it has many problems. The most critical part of it isn’t even digital really, it’s analog  - the optical reading of the data. The digital part is later downstream. The digital media per se is not really the problem. In the same vein I mentioned recently that digitally remastered cassettes sound great, too, unlike their CD brethren. Rich, full, dynamic and natural.

Apros of what I mentioned earlier in the thread:

I just received a copy of one of my favorite movie scores, Jerry Goldsmith's score for Start Trek the original motion picture. 
It was remastered by La La Land for both digital and vinyl release not long ago, both from a high quality digital master.

The vinyl version is just glorious.  It's clear, rich, huge sounding, silky strings, clear grain free top end, soaring horn section, and huge dynamics.  In some ways it sounds better than I've ever heard it before.This is why I'm ok with vinyl sourced from digital masters as well as analog.  If it's a great master, it's a great master. 


I seem to have somehow misplaced my original copy of this LP from the 70's, but I've ordered a (supposedly) mint version from discogs, so I'll be able to compare it when it arrives.  I may like some things better about the original anolog, I don't know, but in either case I'm extremely pleased with this version.

ALSO:  I don't really think it takes super expensive turntable/phono stages/cartridges for vinyl to compete with digital.  Previous to my current Transrotor table, I had an old Micro Seiki DD-40 Turntable, with the original arm, and an Ortofon MC 20 Cartridge which originally came with the table in the 80's (all bequeathed to me by my father in law, years ago).  Then through a cheap Rotel solid state phono stage.  It sounded so amazing it got me on the road to buying new vinyl (which of course led to the turntable upgrade bug).  The sound from the Micro Seiki set up
wasn't as accurate sounding as my digital source, bit it did all the magic vinyl things - warmth, clarity, organic quality.  In sonic terms it was a yin-yang thing between digital and turntable.  I wouldn't say one was "better" than the other, but there were certainly many times the sound from the turntable made me swoon with music in ways the digital did not.

Upgrading my turntable and phono stage brought more refinement, getting it closer to a best of both worlds presentation for me.  But I didn't have to buy my more expensive table to have experienced "vinyl magic."People's mileage will vary, of course.

It is never about being too old .Wisdom does come with age but it knocks on the door, most people do what they are always have done , refuse to let him in . .