Vinyl VS Digital
My opinion, says you would be better served by continuing with digital. Do I doubt that properly set up vinyl sounds better, no. But, with an average to better than average system, you aren't going to discern the nuances it can bring. FWIW, I have recently discovered digital music and have pretty much left everything else behind. |
I can't even remember how long its been since I listened to a vinyl recording, its been that long. In fact I no longer have any albums. Don't miss them a bit. The only thing analog I have left in my system is a Sony TC-WA7ESA tape deck because I have 800 tapes from the early 90's that I haven't parted with yet, even though most of that I have in digital format and so I rarely listen to the deck. Once in a blue moon I will record something. I find turntables to be too delicate and not as fulfilling a listening experience as compared to digital. |
Not having a centered image can be caused by phase reversal, which makes everything appear diffused. Usually, this happens when the speakers are connected incorrectly, but I guess it is possible for this to occur anywhere in the chain. Check this out again. Even a cheap tt should provide a centered image. |
ap_wannabe OP Has anyone else heard a sound stage difference between the same recordings at the same volume vinyl versus CD. It is so pronounced in my system. On digital recordings its as if I had a center speaker playing. On albums there is no center speaker.You're comparing different recordings and different mastering, so you can't really call them the same. But if the difference is a consistent one, it's likely you have setup problems with your turntable/pickup arm/cartridge. |
My comments are prefaced with the usual IMHO - but here's my two cents worth (as a first time poster on this great forum) The problems you are encountering sound like as Chayro points out sagely "phase reversal". This can be caused by incorrect cabling set-up. As for the analog vs digital debate, it depends a lot on the quality of the vinyl. First edition pressings in good condition are usually superior to remastered efforts. Particularly with mono 60's era jazz recordings (with a good mono cartridge), you'll notice great soundstage etc. Also a lot of great records have not been re-issued, which means it's mostly analog for me. For new music which is largely digitally recorded, digital is great, and it's mostly pointless getting a digitally made album on vinyl, apart from the coolness factor. Good luck with the cabling! |
I first had a Rega RP3 (400), Grado Gold cartridge (250), and NAD phonostage (200). Vinyl did not approach digital quality. A Clearaudio Performance se table (3000), ARC PH 5 phonostage (2500), and a Clearaudio Maestro (1200) came very close to digital quality. I now have the same table, but with a Stradivari cartridge (4000) and an ARC PH8 phonostage (7000). Finally I have surpassed digital. Not only did staging improve with the many upgrades, the amount of music taken from the grooves by the cartridge increased dramatically with every upgrade. I was taken with my ability to play all my records when I first got back into vinyl 10 years ago. If I knew how much music was being left in the record grooves with my first few systems, I might have sold my records, bought a great DAC, and saved tons of money. Point 1: It takes a lot of money to get CD quality out of a vinyl rig. If you are not spending a lot of money, you are listening to vinyl because you like to (that's me), not because the sound is "better" (IMO); far too much music is being left on the record. I now stream on one all-digital system (4000 all in) and have a main analogue-only system (40,000). Point 2: You have to talk about money invested if you want to compare digital to analogue. That's just my opinion, though; different ears hear the same things very differently. BTW, prices provided are new prices, certainly not what I paid or will ever be able to afford. |
@golferboy I know, its been awhile. The issue I was having turned out to be a bad cartridge. However, I wanted to comment on everything else you said which to summarize is "Pay UP$$" if your expecting the sound of Vinyl to match the clarity, detail, dynamics and quietness of digital. This is especially true if you've spent a fair amount building your digital system. I have been upgrading my two channel system and theater to 4K vid. I have yet to take the analog plunge but when I do i'll be allocating 6K to start. I'll get some pretty stuff too, cause half the satisfaction is watching it work. I've since heard some good analog systems. It's not that I think all things sound better but I will say I feel less listening fatigue with a good analog system. |
One pitfall of analog is that some people just cannot sit back and listen to it without constantly thinking about cartridge alignment, record cleaning, VTA, VTF and whatever else can be fooled with. In that case, you're much better off with digital. IMO, if you buy something like a $2000 Music Hall 7.3 with a pre-installed cartridge and a $300 Pro-ject phono preamp, you will be getting a good taste of analog sound. If you don't like it then, I would give it up and not waste 6k. 6k is not a lot to spend on analog, but it's too much money to waste on something you won't like. Also pick up a few brand new or mint used records because playing old damaged ones won't help your experience any. IMO. |
chayro One pitfall of analog is that some people just cannot sit back and listen to it without constantly thinking about cartridge alignment, record cleaning, VTA, VTF and whatever else can be fooled with.That's true. Those listeners usually don't have their systems set up properly, and their trial-and-error approach using sloppy tools never gets them there. |
The 1600 seems to be highly regarded on VinylEngine: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_reviews.php?make=Technics&model=SL-1600 |
I’d always imagined vinyl devotees were a bit deluded, after all, on paper CDs absolutely destroy the specs of vinyl in terms of channel separation, dynamic range, and frequency response, how good could be a format that traced its origins back to the 19tn century? I had a wake-up call after hearing some of the set-ups at AXPONA. While most rooms had moved to streaming or servers, and some had ridiculous turntables that looked to be over four feet tall and probably cost as much as a house, the Focal room had a Clearaudio Innovation with their Virtuoso V2 cartridge and it sounded amazing through the Focal Sopra 3s. I don’t know if I’d say it was better than a well mastered CD or lossless digital file, but it was at least as good. Still, I don’t think I’ll be getting into vinyl, though I can see the appeal. For me the startup cost is too high, and then there’s the cost of the actual records. A Bluesound Node 2 and a Tidal Hifi subscription gives me all of the music I could want for a low cost, though I suppose it could be cool to drop the needle and sit back and watch the record spin while I listen. |
| Post removed |
wow. It's been awhile, but I guess the debate still exist. Short version: there is much more actual information on vinyl than there is with digital, so it takes a lot less money and effort to build/buy an analog rig than a digital one. But once a certain "level" is obtained in an analog (records) rig, there is no digital that can sound as good. It's been a long time for me, just getting back into it, Barely learning about streaming and such. But what is surprising, is nearly 10 years later, digital seems to sound worse than it ever did. Even though more "bits" are available, the streamers and streaming systems I have heard don't sound as good as the cd players to me. Shouldn't be hard to get an anolog record player to blow away the imaging and pinpoint soundstaging of a digital rig, as well as being nuetral at it. And fun to get there. |
Thinking this is a valuable thread I’m compelled to tell my story. I found my digital fascination during the early days of the digital revolution. I was entranced with the format that offered so much. Analog was dead and gone. Since the mid 80s my analog devices, TT and RR, were relegated to "look pretty but be silent" status. Eventually the RR was sold off to finance a better CD player. The trusted TT sat gathering dust as my digital fever blossomed. Eventually I worked myself into HT and all its associated glamour. My cd collection grew into the thousands. All the early recording conversions AAD, ADD and finally DDD and HDCD are still in my collection. As time and listening went by I started to get the impression that there was something missing in the digital realm. I recalled from days past the warm glow and smoothness that I so much enjoyed. In early 2017 I dusted off the old TT and phono pre and dug out an old LP, James Gang, Rides Again, and sat back and listened. Oh yes the warmth and smoothness were there alright along with the snap, crackle and pop but still it was bearable. Having many of the same titles on LP and CD I did some critical listening. This led me to conclude that digital was lacking the warmth and smoothness of the LP when converted from an analog master to digital format in both AAD and ADD. Digital was cold and harsh to my ears but deadly silent. No snap cracklet and pop. My old. Vintage 1977 TT got a second life as I used it more frequenly. In November 2017 I made the decision to build a basic analog only system as best I could afford. My gift to myself! I purchased an integrated which included a Phono stage and a mid priced TT along with a mid priced cartridge. Needless to say I am blown away by what I experience. I’m hearing details not heard since the 80s, the warmth and smoothness is back and my go to listening has changed from the convenience of digital to tediousness of analog. Tedious it is, gone are the full automatic TT, push a button and skip a track FFW, Repeat, etc. Gone also is the dreaded listeners fatigue. I am impressed with the development of turntable design since the 70s. I’m loving my music more than ever. My old LPs sound better than ever even with the occasional snap, crackle and pop. Sure I still listen to digital. I favor those of DDD or HDCD which come really close or exceed my analog rig but the analog blows recordings AAD and ADD completely off the map. Still have to listen to them as I have accumulated far more CDs than LPs but I fail to get the same satisfaction. I will say that there is a very distinct difference in perceived sound between my digital and analog systems. Both are very good at what they do. This is also as short as I could make it and tells MY experience in a nutshell. My audio evolution has come full circle I’m back to the beginning. |
I'm a "pan format" listener, but I bought some of my vinyl in the 60s, some is new, and one thing is an absolute: Vinyl will only play on a turntable. People who toss their vinyl out mystify me as man, there's some mojo on those things, and although digital also works for me I'm often floored at how great vinyl can sound. |
Indeed Mr. Wolfy. And it's also my understanding not everything is available to stream or be found on the net? To play your music, you have to have it in the first place, right? And also, if you are wanting to listen to something wouldn't most prefer to listen with the highest fidelity possible at the moment? |
wolf_garcia I'm a "pan format" listener, but I bought some of my vinyl in the 60s ...What is a "pan format?" Do you mean those early stereo records with the vocals panned all the way to one side and the instruments to the other? Those must be some of the most awful-sounding records ever, imo. |
Well I am sticking with digital and going "all in." After hearing PS Audio Direct Stream DAC at Axpona, reading reviews and doing further research, I am buying one. I've read some audio geeks are giving up there analog rigs after getting one these. I really want an analog setup but the reality is I only have about 200 albums from 40 years ago. I'd end up spending a fortune in records. BTW Gold Note makes a killer Phono Preamp for the money. |
| Post removed |
I'm a bit confused: Going "all" in for one doesn't mean having to give up the other. I can see not wanting to spend half on two as opposed to all on one. But why give up or get rid of something? Some choices just don't have to be made. One way to maybe look at it...you have 200 albums. makes sense to at least have a bit invested to take advantage of being able to listen to them. Back in the day, the only reason it was important to me to have a CD rig was to have the most music available to me. |
Totally agree with last two posts. My sources comprise of; Vinyl, cassette, cd and Tidal/Deezer streaming. So two analog, two digital. I found by far the easiest way is just to live with the differences period. I do not care if analog sounds like a digital version and vice versa and have no intention of ever trying to even make them sound the same. I have a modest amount invested in each source and I am more than happy with my sq. Are there better playback options for each of the sources I have than I am using right now? Absolutely and as finances and availability allow I do upgrade where possible and practical. Of course somebody whose whole rig revolves around say Vinyl only SHOULD have better sq than my TT setup will produce but that is not a point I am remotely worried about. |
I guess my thinking is most of what I have is CD and even more in FLAC. I enjoy Roon which does a great job merging my FLAC collection with Tidal. Probably 90% of all listening time is either spent looking for new tracks or playing the playlists I spent so long creating. Spending the digital first makes sense for me. I also figure if I spend on analog I am also going to want more records which of course means more money and more clutter. My wife already thinks I'm crazy, after all she could be going on a cruise with this spend, right? If I had 4000 records, I would surely be "all in" on analog and long ago. |
ap_wannabe, I've had a DirectStream DAC since they first came out, and one thing I've learned about digital is that the quality of the AC power makes a significant difference to the level of detail and the sound quality. I used to have a PS Audio P10 Power Plant, and just took advantage of The Music Room's upgrade to the new P15 unit, am happy that I did. Back in the day I had a part-time job at a recording studio and I remember the engineers mastering for vinyl, having to reduce the bass on some tracks, place the bass in both channels, reduce the dynamic range (so they wouldn't ask too much of the cutting head), and sometimes reduce the intensity of things like drum hits, so the music would "fit" on a disk. I think I do appreciate why so many audiophiles enjoy listening to vinyl, I just find that, with the PS Audio stuff I own, that most digital (to me) sounds better. |
EJR1953: That's a valid point, however, just because something exist on a format, doesn't mean it exist or makes it to the speakers or system. For example, components that publish specs often show they can reproduce bass and treble and such, but upon listening, they don't deliver. The difference between resolving the complexities of music and a simple signal. A CD player or record player may be able to measure deep bass, but still miss the deep bass in the drum whack completely. In my experience, the information available from digital compared to the information available on vinyl is a big gap. Trying to extract as much info and fidelity from 16 bits (or less) requires effort, and doing the same with vinyl is less effort, and with a higher standard that surpasses it more definitely. By the time a system is capable of resolving enough detail to hear the compression done at the mastering level to make a difference, you are WAY past what digital is capable of. |
I am not going to get into a debate about sound and what sounds better or why because its too subjective. But, I'll argue all day about which formats are capable of delivering more dynamic range and frequency response. It's clear by every scientific measure that digital is the winner here. I think the loudness wars did a great disservice to digital in terms of what it could deliver to a highly resolving system. Recording Engineers were/are too worried about making music sound good for cheap ear buds and cheap electronics. Having to compress the dynamic range of original recording to appease mainstream (those who are uniformed) is a shame. |
I would agree that early CD copies played back on my $25 1986 Pioneer cdp sound much better, less forced and compressed than newer copies played back through say the OPPO 95 in the ht rig. As I said I appreciate the strengths of each media. I also do spend a lot of time searching new to me music on Tidal/Deezer and the sq is nearly always excellent. But the other side of me just returned from a trip to our LRS with a bag full of new to me vinyl which is spinning right now and sounding very nice indeed. Imho you cannot and really should not even compare the two. |
