Hi Rockvirgo & TM12; I just looked up the definition of ANALOG in a new Webster's New World Dictionary. Definition #3 follows: "designating or of electronic equipment, recordings, etc. in which the signal corresponds to a physical change, as sound to a groove in a phonograph record". I still like CDs too Rock, but I've got to admit that this definition clearly indicates that Lps are a classic example of "analog". Cheers. Craig. |
Rockvirgo,There have been many many comments made on this site.However non are more wrong and off base than yours about analog not being real life.Do you really belive this.If you do then there is no point trying to convince you otherwise.You probabbly belive the world is flat.Give your head a good shake.Pick up the last issue of listener and read the artivle on Analog.It is realit is all around us.We live in an analog world and if you dont understand this you have no bussiness posting on this site. |
Listening to a $500 dollar analog set up will kill many digital setups.If you want to be serious about exploring the possibility of getting into vinyl then you better spend more especially if you are going to compare it to a Levinson set up,although I would probably prefer the analog set up.Im sure the difference in sound isnt worth several thousand dollars more to spend.The fact is digital has always strived and failed to sound like analog.I say if you want analog sound then buy it.Why buy digital when true live music is analog despite what one previous poster said.Natural sound IS ANALOG.A person speaking to you is analog.A live performance is analog.The best thing about digital is its easy to use.I say you want the best sound you have to work at it.Proper turntable,arm and cart. set up is so important. Clean,treated records a must.And in regards to another posters comments about the avaliability of L.P.'s I have found EVERY recording I have looked for on vinyl,including modern rock.Usually $2-3 cheaper than CD's.I understand why many prefer CD over LP.It is lots of work,but its work I enjoy.Nothing like finding a rare treasure LP at a yard sale for a quarter,taking it home for a good bath and treatment.Sitting ack and spinning it and knowing the best MOFI,DCC, etc.. CD will never sound this good.(on todays CD players) |
Hi Gmorris; We were posting at the same time, so I missed your comment. No, I would not be satisfied with a $500. CD player after having my present system. But you don't have to spend as much on an analog system to equal HQ CD--IMHO, eg I think Doug is right, and I would GUESS that his $2K analog rig is as good as my $10K+ (MSRP) digital rig. My problem with analog-- and it's personal-- is that I could not listen past the various background noises of LPs, and for that reason, I found LPs fatiguing-- loud ticks and pops did not bother me. The Audio Advisor sales rep. told me a better cartridge would help reduce the surface noise, but would not eliminate it. Cheers. Craig. |
Hi Mar00; Sorry, I didn't mean to sort of "take over" your thread, but at least all the above is "on topic", and I hope useful to you. John_1; I too had a new LP of CJs "The Trinity Session" and with the MMF-5 TT it had excessive "white noise" that was clearly audible during quiet passages, and I was generally disappointed with it compared to the CD-- BTW that is one of my favorite albums and I am very familiar with the music. YOU OTHER VINYL LOVIN' BUGGERS-- I appreciate your civil responses:), and I suppose this is one of those questions that is trying "unscrute the unscrutable". Cheers. Craig. |
The original poster was unfair in his comparison. Would he be satisfied with the performance a 500 CD player? |
hi brian, no, you *dint* misunderstand me - run thru a cary slp98 preamp, there was absolutely *no* difference between the $500 nad cd-changer & the $1700 alchemist nexus cd player on my system, which is as stated previously. (*everything* sounds better thru a melos music director preamp, tho!). i've not listend to the resolution audio cd-55 thru my system, but my brother-in-law has compared it w/the alchemist nexus on *his* system: alchemist kraken preamp, audio research vt100 mkII, proac 2.5's. miniscule changes between them both, he reports. both also sound better thru the kraken than straight-in. also, a *big* improvement w/a new a-r ls16 preamp he *yust* purchased. so, what's not right? perhaps my nad cd-changer is a giant-killer? it did receive a class-d s'phile rating, after all! ;~) regards, doug |
I'm still listening to vinyl on my first turntable, a Dual 1219. When records were all I had, I replaced the cartridge once a year religiously as part of the vinyl/altar offering ritual. I still clean each one before I play it. Now I'm hooked on CD's. But never ever ever do I think about wasting another buck on vinyl. It sounds as pleasing as it needs to for me. I like it alot. But I don't compare the two, or expect them to sound alike. Vinyl is quite dead in a contemporary sense, unless you groove on finding new titles somwhere and go through the (don't tell me, I now how easy you think it is) hassle of getting them. In fact, years ago I made metal tapes of most of my LP's on my Nakamichi 3-head and much prefer listening to them. Way more convenient, and ya get to hear both sides! Whine all ya want about what I'm missing. I just don't care. Good CD rings my bell. Finally analog, put simply, means a likeness or copy. Real life isn't analog, it's live and if you're lucky, original too. |
Sedond, I may of misunderstood your last message, but if I am reading it correctly, you are stating that after some A and B testing, you have found your $500 CD changer to be darn near as good as a $1700 and $3500 CD player. If that is what you are stating, something isn't right and you are be lead astray from CD's for the wrong reason's, IMO. |
hi craig, i respect your point-of-view, & it's true - w/my ~$500 nad cd changer, my digital is far from state of the art. but, i a-b'd my nad w/a $1700 alchemist nexus cd player, on *my* system, and there was *no* difference between the two. my brother-in-law a-b'd this same alchemist on *his* system w/a $3500 resolution audio cd-55, & he said there were "miniscule" differences between the two, only noticed, & yust "barely", when run in a direct a-b comparison. i can see no reason to upgrade my nad cd player - i wonder how much $$$ i'd really have to spend, if i wanted cd to come close to analog on my system. i agree that cd is way-convenient, but i'm waiting until the 24-192 format (or whatever) is commercially awailable before spending any more $$$ on cd-playback. regards, doug. ps - i *do* have a full-range system, w/a pair of vmps larger subs, electronically crossed over to a pair of meret re's @ 60hz w/a marchand 24db/octave x-over. a pair of bridged adcom gfa 555's drive the vmps', & a pair of electrocompaniet amps drive the merets in a biamped configuration. i get *great* tight, deep bass extension, and excellent dynamics w/vinyl, on my system. cd *is* good, yust more fatiguing, & a bit less dimensional... |
As others have mentioned, it's only fair to compare apples with apples -- e.g., a $500 analogue set-up with a 500 CD player, not as one gentleman did a $300-400 analogue set-up with an ultra expensive Levinson digital front end. I have a Sony CDP-X779ES CD player (listed for $1900 in early 90s) and a Technics SL-1000MKII (similar price in mid-80s). CD has better dynamics and, of course, no surface noise (most of my albums are 20+ years old), but the analogue has comparable bottom end and is somehow less fatiguing. So to fairly compare a $5K+ Levinson digital rig with analogue one should buy one of the many available high-end tables available -- and not a Rega, unless it's a top of the line with a comparable cartridge. For my own part, while I always want to be able to enjoy my LPs, I am looking forward to the day when SACD or a comparable technology will be readily available, both hardware and software. Happy listening all! dr.joe |
I recently visited a friends house who had a rega turntable and a naim cd player. Both high quality pieces. We played 'The trinity Session' on vinyl, and I have to agree it sounded better than the CD version. It just sounded more 'natural'. There was also a little more background information. I would guess the turntable was in the 1000-1500 range. I'll probably try a turntable. More to have access to all the great old jazz/blues albums I see at used record stores than anything. BTW, when you buy used vinyl at record stores, what are the chances of getting a worn out/bad record? |
Craig, I question whether your system has been optimized for CDs. More likely its optimized for you ML components. Assuming a reasonable level of neutrality, your system should not be particularly sensitive to whether the source is analog or digital. Personally, I love the convenience of the CD format, but sonically I've never found it better than "good". I can go for days listening to CDs and not feel I'm missing anything, but the minute I put on a record -- it's a night and day difference (nearly as dramatic as some posters attribute to swapping power cords (just kiddin')). I'm using a Wadia 850 for digital and a RPM table/are, MB Ruby into a Pass phono pre. There's nothing magical about vinyl. Digital clearly does deep bass and pitch definition much better. One thing to remember, vinyl may have an edge over digital, but both pale in comparison to analog tape. Hopefully, the higher bit/sampling rate digital formats will eliminate the gap. Whatever, ya' got, enjoy it! |
Doug; seems we've been here before. And I post the following respectfully. I really like my digital system too and would be willing to "put it up against any comparably priced analog system", but in reality, how do we make this bold comparison. Have you ever actually put together an excellent digital system in your own home? Or just listened at audio stores? My best audio friend is into vinyl, and I've listened to his system many times: Well Tempered TT and CJ pre-amp w/phono, Levinson amp into MG 3.6 speakers. His system sounds totally different than mine, and I don't particularly care for it-- no weight, no body, no substance, very airy, soft mushy bass etc. But I think I'm mainly hearing his speakers character and room acoustics, and not so much his LPs-- of course, he loves it. I've also played MY LPs on his system with the same results. My system OTOH is more dynamic, more rich, more lush, with strong, deep, taut, quick bass; just overall more weight, and IMO more musical. Our music tastes are also quite different. I have treated room acoustics, vibration(s), dedicated AC and ground, HQ wire througout including AC cords. I have carefully, over several years, put this system together TO SOUND GREAT WITH CDs. If I had vinyl as a source, chances are I would have chosen different audio components and wires to complement the sound of LPs. Just because you say your $2K analog system is better than any digital system at any price, does not mean that I or anyone else has to believe it, and in fact, I don't. But I do respectfully agree to disagree. And BTW, I'm glad you've spent time in Oregon-- we agree that it's beautifl. Cheers. Craig. |
ya, i bought my turntable & fono-stage used. but, i have only ~$2k invested in it, & i'd put it up against *any* cd set-up at *any* price. so, yes, mar00, $500 mebbe ain't enuff $$$ to better your nice cd set-up, but ya don't have to drop a huge wad-o-cash to better it. doug |
You have to spend a little more than 500.00 to get into a good Analog sound.I suggest about 1k+ on a good used Turntable with something like a Benz Micro Glider.I have an Anthem CD 1 1700.00 when New CD player.I have a used Well Tempered Classic With Glider Cartridge.I play the CD and the LP at the same time and switch from one to another.On any LP that i have which is in ggod shpe the Lp sound better.If you hear noise and cracle and pops the LP is no good.Even a good leaner wont fix a defective LP.Compare your 500.00 LP rig to a 500.00 cd player.Thats a fair comparison.Remember life is analog everthing around you is analog.Life does not unfold in on off on off 01010101 sequences. |
My neck is out there also.... Takes alot of bucks to play a record better than a fine CD system. BUT if you spend the <10K (New), I think the vinyl does sound better. Making all things equal, I'll suffer a little digital "hash" for the ease of use. Plus, once I have been thru all of my CD tweeks, its not much of a sonic trade-off at all. |
Mar00; I just finished doing essentially the same thing you did-- and we're probably going to get "roasted" on this. I bought an MMF-5 TT and Musical Fidelity Phono pre-amp (M. Fremer of STPH, and Listener Mag. both highly recommended this TT). I used it for a couple of weeks and then happily went back to CDs (I have a Levinson M 37 transport and 360S DAC). I also started out with no preconceived expectations about the sound quality of vinyl, and in fact it cost me $400.-500. to try out this system. I also grew up using 45's and LPs and had fond memories of them. I compared new virgin vinyl LPs to the same CDs and definitely preferred the dramatically quieter background of digital. In fact, I was not able to listen past the "white noise, static, and crackling" of the LPs-- is all that background noise part of "hifi"?-- it gave me a headache. For LP cleaning I borrowed a VPI vacuum record cleaner from a vinyl junkie friend and carefully followed his directions for cleaning used/old LPs. Some new LPs, while quite good, were no better than good CDs. And of course CDs have some significant features such as direct track access, programming, and repeat that cannot be easily dismissed-- and they don't affect sound quality. Having stuck my neck way the hell out on this, I will admit that I would expect Albert Porter's system to be sonically much better than my CD based system, but Albert is at state of the art analog. Cheers. Craig. |
