Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

The deal would be in finding exactly the same recording, recorded simultaneously in both formats, and then have analog on vinyl and digital on CD or whatever other digital format possible

"Reminds me of the old Linn Analog/Digital issue of tracks from Ossian -- one side recorded analog and the other digital..."

The compliance of your cartridge is quoted by Zu as 5cu which is stiff for your arm if 5cu is really the correct number to use. Japanese manufacturers specify the compliance at 100 Hz instead of 10 Hz standard. A practice is to derive the compliance at 10 Hz by multiplying it by 1.5 or 2. That would place the compliance of your cartridge between 7.5 to 10 cu which is better for your arm. Overall though, this cartridge may be too stiff for your arm. Regarding your arm, did you check the amount of damping oil in the well? VPI says “if you feel the sound to be constricted (overly damped), remove some of the fluid.” You can check your guide for advice on the amount of oil and whether to thin it.

I use a Denon DL-103r in a Denon tonearm with Denon AU-320 step up transformer (SUT).  The r version of this cartridge has a 14 Ohm impedance but still works well with the transformer at the transformer’s 40 Ohm setting. Your cartridge has the 40 Ohm impedance that the transformer expects. These transformers are always available on the auction site for $350 or less including shipping from Japan. If you don’t mind spending a little more money a SUT might be worth a try. You can always sell it on the same site if you don’t like it and get most of your money back. The input impedance of your phono stage to work with the transformer would be about 47K, i.e., the moving magnet input or setting.

Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa.

One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital.

minorl,

I don’t understand why that reissued album is so expensive.  

It was not that expensive when it was released, I think I paid $60 for it (it is three records in a very protective packaging, almost of Japanese kind). It is not something that I ever listen to, but bought it just because I was curious why it got such a treatment. I have a feeling they simply tried to make it as good as they could and wanted to charge for it. Sort of, expected it to be a "reference" level for the record people actually want to listen to. I may be wrong on all accounts. I really wonder how it would sound on some truly good gear that all of you have.

"Digital recording pressed in vinyl vs a digital recording on digital. Now, listen to a real analog recording on analog record vs a the CD of that recording and we can talk."

If Exile On Main St. is considered analog, I prefer the record but CD I have around would be objectively better. I think I like the record because it is how I heard it when it mattered. That is not that much of a recording pinnacle so it may not be fair to judge based on it. Beggars Banquet, Italian pressing from about 1980, is, to me, not as good as 2003 SACD. Same for German pressings of It’s Only Rock’n’Roll and Goat’s Head Soup vs. CDs. However, I enjoy watching the yellow label rotating and that is where record is unbeatable.

For now, digital recording pressed on vinyl vs. a digital recording on digital seemed to me significantly better which is about the opposite from what OP found.

Based on a minuscule sample of one, it may be less to it than all the theories we make would make us believe. I did no fine adjustments, obviously crossed analog/digital recording divide, and used less-than-revered analog equipment using integrated amplifier’s phono input.

Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa.

"Whereas Cleeds’ info was good, and presented fairly and with civility."

"...based on the best, most reliable, researched data that I have does not even own a music reproduction system!"

...made by user "cleeds" who is like a festering, infected boil upon this forum he is ignorant, misinformed....

chakster,

One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital. More toys you might have not even thought of. You, basically, double the fun and that is really fun.

iamhe,

The basics in that link are still standing, I think. It is the DVD-Audio part that I thought I should mention to you, in case you were not familiar with it and were expecting it to make a change at some point in the future.

chakster,

 I understand the concept of master tapes and them not being for us and vinyl being some sort of our "original" although it is not truly original. I approach it that way, too, but original it is not.

"...created by musicians for us (buyers) at the time when it was actual for them."

Historically true but, if chasing the true sound that artists from then thought we would be hearing, we should not be buying turntables and cartridges now. Much less multi-thousand-dollar cartridges which are surely way better at extracting whatever is on the record. Artists in 1966 were not expecting us to use such things. They probably did not even exist. We should be playing on "period instruments". 1960s record on 1960s turntable etc. All else, following the logic "artists made it that way for us" may be overshooting the target.

"Why do i need a copy from my record if i can play record ?
This is much simpler, don’t you think so ?"

In your case, I would say that a good digital copy may prolong the life of your record. I assume it is much easier to buy fancier and fancier cartridge these days than it is to buy records that you seem to prefer.

It is much simpler to play digital files than records. There is really no comparison. I am not saying that the overall experience is better, but it is way simpler.

"I can not take seriously anything in digital, i want an original phisycal media format (vinyl)"

This is where you may be doing yourself disservice. Explore a bit. I am not saying you should stop buying records, but see if digital these days is as bad as you remember. Not your iPhone, of course, but some more audio-focused set-up. I also want everything in physical format, even if I put it on a hard drive as soon as I buy it, but that is a preference based on growing-up and what not. It is not some fantastic advantage.

"Digital have no fun at all, it’s so boring even in top bit rate and high resolution."

Most of the "younger" people out there would disagree, if they ever cared to consider thinking about it. As far as higher resolutions go, I would disagree. It does get quite good.

"Again, this is cultural thing, not just a fidelity."

That is true, it cannot be more true I think. That does not make digital horrible and those preferring it having no taste, though. I prefer the idea of records, convenience of digital, and sound of whatever I have around.

"I had more fun with cassete tapes many years ago than with all that digital files today."

I've been following this particular forum for awhile and I find it very interesting to say the least.

The typical digital vs vinyl arguments pop up again and got a little heated.

as with most things in life, people try to simply things that are not simple.

most people are not "audiophiles". They couldn't care less about expensive equipment or even accurate sound reproduction because of many reasons.  Some people listen to music as background music while doing other things.  not even in the same room.  most younger people were brought up on some pretty bad digital recordings mp3, etc.  that were just terrible, but to them, they may not even know it was bad.

how may of us actually know what a real violin, cymbal, organ, piano, etc actually sound like.  Or are they use to hearing electronic music?

In this case many hear correctly pointed out some flaws in the OP's vinyl system. particularly, the cartridge/phono stage loading.  That is a big one.  The other was the cartridge/tone arm compatibility.

This is one reason why many people really don't want to get into serious vinyl.  It can be a real PITA.  setting up the table, arm, cartridge and phono stage can be daunting. most people do it wrong and the results show their digital rigs out perform the analog rig.  Well duh!!

some suggested that people were either stupid or sheep when they went from analog to digital.  Remember a few things first before making that statement.  The vast majority were not audiophiles in the first place.  They listened to what was mass produced and available, which at the time was cassettes and records.

CD's and digital technology was introduced by companies (Sony, Phillips, etc.) that basically colluded to force the industry towards digital and CDs.  It was convenient and easy. Plug and play. no more needles, scratched albums, phono stages, hum.  So the mass market was basically forced to adapt or not hear their favorite artist anymore. It only came out on CD in the vast majority of cases.

Also, to really hear the difference between proper analog and proper digial (apples to apples), one must know what to listen for.  Just like wine.  If you don't really know what you are tasting, and more importantly what it is suppose to take like, then most wines taste the same to some.

No digital rig I have heard beats a nice analog rig and I have heard some really nice digital and analog rigs.  That is not to say that the digital is not good.  Quite the contrary. Digital now a days is really quite good.  and one can get decent sound from a relatively inexpensive digital rig. Which is the point entirely.  But to hear real music from digital, you must go  up a little in price and equipment. Separate DAC, transport, isolation, cables, etc.  not for the average person.  For analog, it is the same.  you can get decent sound from entry level turntables.  But the phono stages in older receivers don't allow for cartridge loading changes and therefore, there could be a major problem there.  Also, phono stages in most receivers were okay at best. 

Who in their right mind wants to go through all the trouble and expense to get a higher end turntable, cartridge (most people think they just need a needle.  funny), tonearm, cables, phono stage (what the hell is that?), and get this properly matched and set up correctly?  What a PITA.

But, if you really love music, it is worth it, if you can afford it.

This is a high end equipment site. With audiophiles.  not your everyday listener.  most of your associates will laugh you  out of the room if you tell them how much you spent on your equipment.  These same people have no problem at all understanding the difference between a Toyota and Mercedes however. Both get you from point A to point B okay.  And if that is your only basis for comparison, then yeah, they are the same.  But in reality, they aren't.

 No offence, but the OP's analog rig wasn't properly set up.  I'm sure he did his best, but to this day, I still have professionals set up and adjust my analog rigs.  Also, the esoteric CD player was quite nice.  Not the same level as the analog system.

So, to him the digital is better and it was.  The real question is whether he is willing to take the time and money to do the analog system justice.  Again, Analog systems can be a real PITA, but once done correctly, can be really nice. 

enjoy

iamhe,

The link you provided, as informative as it may be on some basic level, is a bit old and outdated on some level. DVD-Audio has practically died many years ago. Yes, it was better sound quality than CD but that might have been the only advantage and someone came up with other ways of file storage and here we are, 2018.

Vinyl is a copy, too. It is not the original source.

Try copying into good digital copy.