Vinyl vs. top-notch digital


I have never had an analogy rig. My CD player is a Meridian 800, supposedly one of the very best digital players out there. From what I've read, it appears there is a consensus in our community that a high-quality analog rig playing a good pressing will beat a top notch digital system playing a well-recorded and mastered CD. So here are my questions:

1) How much would one have to invest in analog to easily top the sound quality of the Meridian 800 (or similar quality digital player)? (Include in this the cost of a phono-capable preamp; my "preamp" right now is a Meridian 861 digital surround processor.)

2) How variable is the quality of LPs? Are even "bad" LPs still better than CD counterparts?

Thank you for any comments and guidance you can provide.
jeff_arrington

Showing 3 responses by mapman

The best vinyl played on a decent system properly set up beats the best CD digital in regards to sound quality, without doubt. Also, the artwork and liner notes on album covers contribute to a more enjoyable overall package than the CD equivalent in most all cases.

There are only so many bits to work with on CD (though theoretically enough) which limits the possibilities, even if perfectly captured from analog digitally and then transformed again back to analog for listening as of course is required in the end by human ears.

However good sound can be obtained more cost effectively on CD. CD players are also more user friendly, which is important. They play longer, are easier and more convenient to use and require little from the owner to set up properly.

I purchase both CD and vinyl regularly. These are the factors that always come into play whenever I have to make the CD versus vinyl purchase decision.

Albert Porter made a good point inthat it is true that I will out of necessity tend to go for vinyl on older, otherwise unavailable recordings whereas for newer recordings, CD may be the only option. Also, used vinyl these days is relatively inexpensive and often provides good sound more cost effectively than CD.

Buying vinyl and then burning to recordable CD for the stated benefits of the medium is not a bad option. Strangely enough, the resulting CD preserves the sound of the vinyl recording pretty well, often resulting in a CD copy with sound quality preferable to those mastered commercially to CD.
I'm thinking electronic music that is mostly digital or electronic at the source (and perhaps lacking in higher order harmonics?) works better in general on CD than vinyl (perhaps also with SS versus tube amplification) but "acoustic" sources with more complex harmonics that are inherently not digital can work better if captured properly on vinyl.

In the end, for someone who enjoys all genres of music from classical to pop to new age to death metal would be ill served by not leveraging both, though many still would not miss not having vinyl unless they already own a lot of records (like me).

Classical lovers and to a lesser extent jazz lovers so inclined to deal with the extra demands of vinyl may be able to get along without CD just fine if desired. Toss the more electronic genres in the pot and I think vinyl alone becomes a bottleneck that might limit ones listening options in a way that matters.

Technicalities, aside, I would just like to agree that its the music and whether or not you are able to enjoy whatever is presented that really matters and leave it at that.
Not all grooves are created equal.

Just one of the snafus of 33 1/3 lp vinyl.

Better rigs will care less.

All formats have snafus. You just have to choose your pleasure/poison and then make it work.