Vinyl vs. top-notch digital

Dan, that's very interesting. I started with the Dyna 20xH and within 30 seconds (of listening to the opening of Rodrigo's Concerto) I was hooked. I must say that upgrading to the XX2 cart better fleshed-out the sound at the end of records but obviously not enough. I bought the Mint Lp protractor as a last resort but never thought about the arm.

I think, some analog Set Ups can create ear cancer. Analog reproduction has a lot to do with precision and the knowledge what-is-responsible-for-what....
Digital can be ok, when the Mastering of this silver thing was made from someone who was not totally deaf. but I think, after 30 years of sonic revolution we are no in the Hi-Rez era and all fans from that deserve it. Let's wait a few years and some will say, they heard a felt drum in a dark cave and that was the most natural sound they ever heard...

Jdaniel13, I understood what you meant. This does come up from time to time. I would agree with Audiofeil that the arm was probably the source of the issue. FWIW, I've been using a 20x2H for the last few weeks and before that a 10x5. It is definitely not the cartridges. I hope you didn't get so discouraged that you gave up. And, no, you don't have to spend
mega bucks to get there.

Be nice, Bill. OH, you were nice. :-)

>>06-17-11: Jdaniel13
FWIW my "best" set up was the Scoutmaster with 9" arm<<

Now it all makes sense.

There are few arms that track as poorly as the JMW-9.

And it rings like a bell.

IMO

Just a general response to your responses; I wasn't comparing Vinyl with Digital, (hi-rez or otherwise), just vinyl in the first 1/3 with vinyl in the last 1/3. FWIW my "best" set up was the Scoutmaster with 9" arm and Dyna XX2 cart.

Dan, your mention of cannons leads me to believe you possibly interpreted my post as a lament about mis-tracking? Needles jumping out of grooves? If so, that wasn't my point. I never had a problem with mis-tracking, it was just depressing to hear sound "thin" as the arm proceeded through the last 1/3 of record. I'm just not interested in spending beyond the Dyna. If your systems do better, fair enough, no argument or suspicion from me. If you've obviated the problem then I'm happy for you. Indeed, I've never heard digital come close to the immediacy of the best vinyl. At least in the best 1/3. : )

I was at that demo with Dan_ed. His description is spot on. The Talea is one of the best arms I've heard.

Mike, I know you'll appreciate this. I heard a pivoted Talea laugh out loud at a Kuzma Airline. The Kuzma does have something special when playing girl with acoustic guitar. But as soon as you add the second girl with guitar the Kuzma didn't know what to do with the extra vibrations so it just dumped them back into the cartridge. Linear trackers have their own set of problems.

dealer disclaimer

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.

to echo Dan's comments, i'll be glad to compare any digital hi rez format to the inner grooves on any of my classical Lps.

yes; i've owned world class linear tracker arms and they do give you some benefits. however, the better and best pivoted arms properly set up eliminate any audible inner groove distrotion. i have many reference and test tracks that happen to be in the inner grooves without ever needing to concern myself.

as far as Carmina Burana, i have 4 or 5 pressings of it....and another 3 or 4 digital examples of it. come on over and let's do the comparison.

Yeah, and then there is the cannons. "yawn" I don't know where you live but if you can get over my way I'd be more than happy to take you up on your challenge.

This theory that there is an inherent flaw in tracking the inner grooves of vinyl is an urban legend propped up by less capable equipment and/or setup skills.

Hi-rez, that which we can reasonably purchase for our homes, still does not give me as good a presentation as vinyl.

If you can find me a turntable/cart combo that makes "O Fortuna" (of Carmina Burana) sound that same both in the opening grooves and the last grooves (the piece opens and closes with the same material), please tell me about it. Maybe a linear tracker?

Or take the spectacular closing of Boito's Mephistopheles Prelude: huge orchestra, chorus, thunder machine, pipe organ, off-stage trumpets, floor-rattling percussion, (gives me goosebumps just thinking about it); it's all just too much for those last grooves.

"the last 1/3 of records are audibly compromised." Huh?

Just enjoying these astonishingly-mellow responses. All I'd add is that "the work," involved in vinyl playback seems just a touch overstated: cleaning the record, setting it on platter and dropping need takes literally a minute. With regard to the "interruptive" necessity of turning a record over, I can report symphony orchestras often re-tune between Symphonic mov'ts, so it's a "tie" there. : ). Tics and Pops? I listen to Classical and was able to put together a pretty large collection that was oh, 98% "digitally" silent. What I've not seen vinyl enthusiasts point out is that--however incredible vinyl's reproductive capacity--the last 1/3 of records are audibly compromised.

Vinyl is better because it can drive you more crazy for longer periods than digital can.

Because music is MADE from materials as they vibrate,ie the WOOD body of a guitar VIBRATING, the METAL strings of a guitar MOVING,ie woods, metals, how cant a material that vibrates, namely, the materials that a plinth, stylus, cartridge body, , the stylus, the record mat be the IDEAL transducer to IMITATE those materials and THEREFORE real life music? (this has to be HEARD to be understood)

You cant get earthy tones from a laser pick up!

The sphere in which it operates is not mechanical or material sciences dependent, unlike real instruments, therefore it has a weakness.

Harnessing vinyls inherent potential and taking it to the extreme with few or any failings is more difficult than doing the same with digital.

Thats why we can get mixed results sometimes and contradictory reports.

On some days the the differences between vinyl and digital are negligable to me but on days when i want to strive for the best, i instinctively turn to "working" with vinyl.

If i am an extremely passionate winemaker i want to start with the best grapes from the best region and not just buy juice in pails or make wine from a kit, its the same with music playback for me, if i am striving for the best playback i start with the inherently better format and hope that as i process it i get one of the best wines ever, but its no guarantee, things can go wrong but nevertheless the potential is always still there, even if i might have to wait for next years grapes to try again. I dont start making wine from pails of juice because the magic wasnt realized! Wine from a kit has no potential to win any blue ribbons or compete with grapes but yes it can taste good and if theres nothing better you can still enjoy it.

The answer to whether a person should go vinyl is a question each must answer for themselves. It depends on how intense and passionate the audiophile is and whether they enjoy striving,working and chasing after mediums of playback that have their pitfalls and foibles as part of their pleasure!. If you are a audio aficionado of the highest degree you will inescapably pursue vinyl. Its unavoidable in my opinion OR you are not as serious as you might have thought and you prefer convenience over the pursuit of perfection.

If you pick apart what vinyl playback is doing or trying to do you realize that it is 'nature' trying to imitate 'nature' BY 'nature', whereas digital, i believe, is something more 'polluted' or one or two steps further removed from that. What can imitate 'nature' better than NATURE?

Thats my take on the digital vs, vinyl discussion.(june 2011)

For many a year I have always tried optimizing my system towards the type's of music that I enjoy the most.
Since 1984 Iv'e used two different sets of speakers and amplifiers right up until recently.

Though many electronics ect. came and went over the years, at lease one component has remained since 1984.
I still have my Quad electrostats that I use on occasion.

Here's one glowing example of what I'm talking about,optimizing your system for the music you listen to.

Member ThomasHeisig...Hungry Ear... the man like a few here on Audiogon is a serious collector of vintage vinyl.

If you are interested read his page.

One major problem with all digital is in the treble region...You do not have to listen very carefully, listen to any vocals, thats a good place to start.

Acutally, I meant both, optimizing each source, and optimizing it within a single system. The sonics of each source will likely differ from one another, thus, synergize with the system differently. For instance, the bass in my digital setup is just right in the present system, the vinyl setup has been somewhat lightweight. This may require changes in vinyl setup only, or may require changes downstream which, will in turn, affect digital sound.

All the components and cabling from the AC outlets to the speakers were optimized for my digital, perhaps my analog rig will never sound it's best within this system. For an extreme example, let's say you have a severely analytical sounding digital source, you may have warmed it up with downstream components and cabling, these may not work with a typically warmer sounding analog setup.

David,

From reading Sns post I think he meant optimizing each source not the system. I have gone thru that to. I started with an $8,000 piece of crap Krell CD player, then went to $4,300(at the time) Lector CDP-7t which blew the Krell and every other CD player I heard away, then I just upgraded to the $11,000 Lector Digicode and Digidrive. Now my digital system is optimized. However my analogue still is not optimized. Why? I have $16,100 into the turntable, cartridge, and arm, and it sounds incredible, so what's the problem? Well because when I can afford it I want the Brinkman turntable. Then my analogue system will be optimized. Of course if you heard my system you would think I was an idiot because it sounds amazing.

"Now for some of the downside (as if cost is not enough) of vinyl for me. First of all, I hear very few speak to the issue of optimizing multiple sources within a single system. This is turning out to be a problem for me, I suspect I'll be working on this for a long time, perhaps I'll never be able to resolve it to my complete satisfaction." Sns

An interesting point from Sns. I have'nt seen it discussed and was not in fact, aware it was an issue. Do others think a system can only be optimised for CD or vinyl and not both? I presume he is saying, that the rest of the system, speakers, amplifier etc, can be optimised for one or the other. Do you think that is true? If so that opens up a large can of worms.

A friend drove in from N.Y. to go listen to my other friends Walker T.T. into a pair of Avalon Radians today.

We spent well over six(6) hours continuous listening and at one point during the session,
we turned to each and I remarked "shit, our damn CEC/Museatex & Audio Aero front ends can't compete with this monster, no way."

06-22-08: Rccc
I dont think its necessary or even wise to spend a ton on an analog rig to experience vinyl. My 2nd system is a technics dd with a shure V15/4 into a 25 yr old NAD int amp and is preferred to cd by everyone in the house.

That's what's going on at my house too, except my number one rig *is* a Technics direct drive. I have made some modest upgrades over the year (Cambridge 640p phono stage, Audio Technica AT150MLX and much faster, more transparent line stage), and now we enjoy both the smoothness and continuity *and* a higher level of resolution and detail.

My wife, who came from a strong background of vocal music, treasures all the operas and oratorios I've been about to pick up at the thrift shops for next to nothing. We always prefer the LP, and especially love it for vocals.

Pryso: I didn't mean to criticize your post. What you said is true. I was just trying to point out how the value of recorded music has dropped since moving to the digital age, and getting back into vinyl demands a reconciliation to the old relationship between music lover and software. Getting new LPs cost about the same in adjusted dollars as they did 30 years ago. From thrift shops and bargain bins, however, you can get whole albums ($1) for the price of a one-song download.

What's true regardless is that going to vinyl requires a different relationship to the software than if you source from CDs, servers, or downloads. It could easily cost more money, and it definitely costs more attention and especially, maintenance.

gentlemen...it has been my experience(over 40 years of record collecting) that on any given release, one format can sound better than the other. its a battle that gets fought one title at a time. records have always been ambitiously flawed, but lots of fun. the compact disc has shortcomings, but sometimes they do indeed sound as good or better. of course no compact disc player can replicate the 'feeling' of watching that record spin, but sometimes records are a pain in the ass. cool, but still a pain.

Johnnyb, my intended point was that starting a record collection today could quickly become expensive. Considering the broad alternatives for purchase (and please notice I included on-line sources) at say an average of $20/record overall, a modest collection of 200 LPs would cost $4K. Yes, bargains will come up and someone could buy them for less if they didn't mind getting dirty and spending quite a bit of time. So it was not about inflation, rather what buyers face today.

I posted because no one else said much about the records themselves and I hoped to help Jeff with that added perspective. But I'm lucky, I began buying LPs in high school and never stopped.

I dont think its necessary or even wise to spend a ton on an analog rig to experience vinyl. My 2nd system is a technics dd with a shure V15/4 into a 25 yr old NAD int amp and is preferred to cd by everyone in the house. If after living with a modest vinyl rig like this for a while, it doesnt float ones boat mabey its best to stick with cds. I would never advise some one to invest heavily in vinyl unless they were sure it was for them. My digital friends buy much more music and spend less time playing with their systems and more time listening.

06-22-08: Pryso
...There are three basic choices for buying vinyl today. First there is a growing supply of favorite (and some not-so-favorite) albums being reissued. Most of these cost from $30-$60 when remastered by established engineers. Other label-generated reissues with unknown mastering may sell for $10-$20.

Ah, but this harkens back to when the recorded music had value and was prized by all. I remember when the going rate for an LP in 1969 was $4.50. Run it through the inflation calculator and you'll see that everybody was paying the equivalent of $26.55 then for any run-of-the-mill mass-produced vinyl LP. If you were a typical teenager/early 20's guy working minimum wage, an LP represented 3-4 hours pay.

As for audiophile special releases, I remember paying $10 in 1974 for the Sheffield direct-to-disc "Lincoln Mayorga and Friends vol. II," which in 2007 money is $46.19. So the $50 I just dropped for the 2-LP 180g 45rpm reissue of "A Meeting by the River" is in the ballpark, and is actually a better and better-sounding album.

So I guess the real question is, are you ready to throw off the de-valuing of music through CDs, CD-Rs, ripping, and digital downloads and pay for a (relatively) laboriously made analog copy of what went down in the studio that day?

Next is the vinyl resale market on line or from a few remaining stores. Here you can expect to pay from about $5 to three figures, depending on rarity and knowledge of the seller.

True enough, though these record stores often have dollar bins, and I've gotten a lot of records in excellent shape from such. Sometimes I don't even know how the record ends up there. I've gotten some ECM releases and some of my favorite rock/pop from the '70s/'80s from these.

I got a near mint 2-LP Gordon Lightfoot "Gord's Gold" at such as store for $2.99. I like Lightfoot, especially what's on this particular collection.

And if you're at a good store that is picky about what they'll accept and put out for sale, the $5-10 range gets you some great music in excellent shape. Last year the store with the best selection in my town (Seattle) had a half-price sale on everything through the summer. I came out with some great music in great condition, including most of the Beatles that I wanted, the Police discography for about $10 total, several of my favorite jazz albums, etc.

And if you like classical music, these stores practically give it away. I typically pick up like new LPs for $1-3, including RCA Living Stereo, DG w/Herbert Von Karajan, stuff with Heifetz, Rubinstein, etc.

Lastly, there is something known as "dumpster diving". This entails visits to local thrift stores to scrounge through their collections of used LPs. Prices can be cheap ($.25-$4) but it can be dirty and time consuming to sort through all the rejects to find anything of interest (artist, music, and condition). Who knew there were so many copies sold of Firestone Christmas music, Ray Conniff and Herb Alpert?

... and Neil Diamond, John Denver, Barbra Streisand, and Jerry effing Vale. Hoo-boy. It's rare to find a popularly prized album (that holds up over time) in a thrift shop. I've gotten one Rolling Stones album at a thrift shop--only time I've seen one. Neven seen any Beatles, Beach Boys, Led Zep, etc. I once saw a Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, but it looked unplayable to me.

But it also depends on the thrift shop and your taste in music. I picked up a huge stack of Haydn on Nonesuch at about 50 cents per, and last week I just came away with 16 box sets from Time/Life's "Great Men of Music" series at $1/box. Each box has 4 LPs, and is of a specific composer. I got (among others) Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Ravel, etc. These are mostly culled from RCA Living Stereo archives, so they feature Fritz Reiner & the Chicago Symphony, Charles Munch and the Boston Symphony, Artur Rubinstein and Van Cliburn on piano, Heifetz on violin, Julian Bream on guitar and lute, etc. And one thing I found out--people almost never played these subscription series box sets. Most of the vinyl looks gleaming and unplayed.

There are two more ways to get vinyl--the Internet via eBay, Amazon, GEMM, and the like, and local private transactions via moving sales, garage sales, estate sales and Craigs List. You can often get excellent condition stuff privately, and I've gotten some really cool things off eBay, including some still-sealed new old stock at reasonable prices and a collection of unplayed special broadcast pressings that included both volumes of Ella and Louis on Verve and The Monster by Buddy Rich (also on Verve).

41 responses so far, but very little mention of the software.

My personal preference is firmly in the vinyl camp but I would not recommend anyone getting into vinyl today unless they truly felt committed to the sonic benefits of analog playback. It is not just the time and expense of selecting the hardware, it's building a vinyl library.

There are three basic choices for buying vinyl today. First there is a growing supply of favorite (and some not-so-favorite) albums being reissued. Most of these cost from $30-$60 when remastered by established engineers. Other label-generated reissues with unknown mastering may sell for $10-$20. Next is the vinyl resale market on line or from a few remaining stores. Here you can expect to pay from about $5 to three figures, depending on rarity and knowledge of the seller. Lastly, there is something known as "dumpster diving". This entails visits to local thrift stores to scrounge through their collections of used LPs. Prices can be cheap ($.25-$4) but it can be dirty and time consuming to sort through all the rejects to find anything of interest (artist, music, and condition). Who knew there were so many copies sold of Firestone Christmas music, Ray Conniff and Herb Alpert?

For anyone who has a collection of LPs they set aside when they sold their turntable years ago or have been given a collection by a family member or friend, that could be a different story. But starting from scratch with no current software could present a real challenge -- for both time and expense.

So Jeff my advice would be to find a friend with a decent analog playback system (not a dealer, you want a relaxed, unhurried experience) and spend some time listening. If you find that you appreciate what vinyl offers and you are willing to face the time and expense of building both the component parts and the LP library, then by all means go for it.

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.

As I sit here typing this I am listening to Joe Cocker played back form my hard drive. A recording I made with an inexpensive a/d d/a interface from my vpi scoutmaster ruby 3h. When I listen seriously I prefer and collect vinyl. Yet listening to this from my hard drive will still stop me in my tracks at times and capture my complete attention to the music. I think like many of the others the enjoyment matters more than the format. At whatever level you can afford buy what sounds good to you and stirs your soul or causes your foot to tap.

I'm presently in the midst of optimizing a vinyl setup in my system. I have spent 8k and tons of time optimizing my digital setup, at this point I'm very satisfied with digital sound.

Now I put the vinyl rig in, I started with a $3.5k setup, ended up giving up on that particular rig, simply not enough resolution compared to my digital. Two months ago went with another tt, started with about $6.5k investment, finally had sound that could better my digital. Since then, more upgrades, and more importantly, optimizing the entire setup (allignment, isolation, etc.), still, its not that much better that I'm ruined for digital sound. I'm now in the midst of further upgrades, $2.3k tonearm next week, a $2k cartridge next month, at least $4k phono pre next. I only point out the costs as an example of what you may have to spend to get your vinyl sounding better than your digital.

At this point in my vinyl evolution, I don't think there is any doubt the best vinyl sounds better than the best digital. However, I've found the better digital recordings still sound better than mediocre vinyl. I'm just a bit skeptical this will change with a larger investment in vinyl, I may only hear the deficiencies to a greater extent. Still, I'm open-minded about this, the upgrades I've made to this point have resulted in greater satisfaction with a larger variety of vinyl. I always expect sonic improvements to bring me closer to what I call, 'the breath of life', I already know that vinyl gives me more of this.

Now for some of the downside (as if cost is not enough) of vinyl for me. First of all, I hear very few speak to the issue of optimizing multiple sources within a single system. This is turning out to be a problem for me, I suspect I'll be working on this for a long time, perhaps I'll never be able to resolve it to my complete satisfaction.

Second, for some of us getting up and changing records every 20 minutes or so is distracting to say the least. I find myself going back to digital during every listening session (listening sessions can go up to 8 hours for me), as turning and cleaning records gets tiresome. With digital I get to hear up to 80 minutes or so of uninterupted music, which really allows immersion into the music. With vinyl, there are times I get a bad case of music interuptus.

While I love vinyl, there are downsides which are valid and real. Its not enough to say you have to put up more tinkering and fussiness. Actually experiencing this fussiness is a reality that imposes on the musical experience, ie. the enjoyment of the uninterrupted album or classical piece. Flow of music is vitally important to me, vinyl necessarily impinges on this flow. It seems rather ironic to me, on one hand, the sound of vinyl more fully allows one to listen in the mindset of a music lover, on the other, it takes away from that mode of listening by it's insistent fussiness.

For me it is a matter of economics. I've collected music since the day this buck toothed little kid forked over his allowance for Meet the Beatles on Vjay Records. I now have over 18,000 black diamonds and to replace them with CD's would be an expense that I could not incur. I would rather use that money to upgrade my analog front end which is what I'm in the process of doing. My digital Cd player is tits up,sounds awesome and I don't sit and compare it with my turntable when I'm listening to music,I mean if my foot is tapping or I'm being swept away by something breezy of airy as the tension from the day is being exorcized then it's all good. Just enjoy the music.

Rushton,

thanks for posting that link to Steve Hoffman's findings. I've read his site, but never came across that one.

Fascinating that he thought a lacquer played back at both 45 and 33 sounded almost identical to the master, and that a pressing sounded so close to the lacquer. I would have assumed much more loss in fidelity at both steps. Nice to know that with a well mastered and pressed LP that we can in fact get so close to the master tape sound. I would have assumed that the open reel copy would have been the best.

The "digital vs. analog" controversy seems unresolvable, from a talking standpoint. As an semi-active musician, I've recorded in both formats and had good, and bad results in each. I've been disappointed with transfers of analog material to digital. I've read a fair bit about digital vs. analog, and talked to my engineer friends. Seems like there are a lot of theories floating around out there about why digital "must be" as good or better than analog, or why analog might "seem to be" more listener-friendly.

What I hear when I listen, using top notch digital playback vs. at least very good analog playback (all as reported above) is quite consistent with what many others (but not all) report: good Lps present a sound that is somewhat warmer, somewhat more detailed, and typically less fatiguing, than what I hear on CD's. I've heard theories that suggest that what I'm hearing is actually a result of deficiencies in the whole analog process. I suppose those theories could be right.

But at the end of the day, who cares? Enough of us hear differences in the formats that I think it's hard to argue that there are no differences (depending on the characteristics and quality of the playback systems, of course). Beyond that, it seems like what matters is what you like. (As noted, I tend to like classical vinyl, and pop CDs. Possibly that plays to the strengths of each, at least on my system.) And, if you're a really serious music and audio junkie, like most of us here, the two formats are at least worth experimenting with. Sure can be fun, and satisfying.

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.

Shadorne, your posts are typially well considered and even though we are not agreeing here i don't take your comments as any sort of judgement on my system.

please understand i am very pro digital and typically listen to digtial 60% to 70% of the time. i am as interested in hearing the very best digital player possible as i am the top level analog/vinyl. in fact; i think my current digital player sets a new digital standard. i say 'think' because i have not heard everything out there. let's just say that i know what top level digital performance is. and that, as good as it may be, is really not very close to what top level vinyl can do at this particular point in time.....although it is slowly getting closer.

i've been going down this path for 8 or so years now; since i purchased the Linn CD-12 in 1999 and the Marantz SA-1 in 2000. so i am not just shooting from the hip here. i have 3500 CD's and 800 SACD's and for many of those i have Lp versions.

that recording session i referred to was a very interesting event. it's too bad more digital dogma believers were not present to witness it. those pro audio guys work with those digital tools daily and certainly came to that session with similar notions as yourself. but listening to 8 to 10 hours of tests and more tests and then doing 2 sets of each recording and having 5 people's opinions on each of those events. there was no place to hide from the truth. and that truth is that digital recording is not able to reproduce the magic of vinyl.

OTOH digital is wonderful in it's own right and needs make no apologies. it simply is not quite as 'perfect sound forever' as some might think.

Shadorne,
You could very well be right about digital recordings and digital in general.

Disregard what Harry Pearson and Roy Gregory have written about digital and analog sound these past few years.
Their just acouple of audio industry whores pushing way over priced analog junk before the trend withers away.

Also,
What possibly would Mike lavigne know about home stereos and music?
Did you get a chance to read anything on his page?

Shurley he has to be nuts...

Jeff,

If you do decided to try an analog front end (and spend comparitive dollars to do so), do not forget (IMHO) two of the most important components of an analog front end - proper set-up and a good record cleaning machine (or process).

A poorly set-up $10k analog front end will be nothing more than a pretty showpiece (until you tire of dusting it). Pay for someone to come to your home and set up your rig.

Also, clean source material is a must. Don't overlook this critical component.

i have one question. if you had been there and heard it; checked and rechecked your gear; and then heard it again.....would you then believe it?

Well I would naturally be alarmed and would want to investigate further. High end pro digital recording equipment should be good enough (based on specifications and test measurements) that one should not normally be able to hear a difference even with headphones.

I don't doubt you have an eye opening system and that is much better sounding on vinyl than digital and much better sounding than anything I could ever aspire to. Please don't take this as any reflection on your system it is just that digital recording equipment really should work much better than you observed.

yeah right. 2 different hi-rez professional recording chains were simultaniously mysteriously faulty and the three pro audio guys plus the producer were oblivious to that. and remember; their recorders were getting the same signal source as my amps and speakers......but could not fully reproduce it at playback. any distortion in my tt would (according to your position) also be in the recording.

Distortion, S/N and other specifications on the type of high end digital gear used should have made your observations impossible provided the equipment was working properly and operated correctly.

i have one question. if you had been there and heard it; checked and rechecked your gear; and then heard it again.....would you then believe it?

here is what the pro audio guys said. "i guess i've never been exposed to a really high performance vinyl set-up before.....it really openned my eyes".

the fact is that even at 386khz with a 32 bit word length it is easy to hear the shortcommings of digital's attempt to reproduce music compared to vinyl.

just listen.

Yeah but that is all because of the tourmaline hair dryer tweak, which gives Vinyl a massive but unfair advantage!

More seriously, perhaps the K2HD guys either made a mistake or their equipment was faulty or you were getting microphonics from the cartridge or preamp when playing vinyl rather than on the digital devices (no microphonics). Distortion, S/N and other specifications on the type of high end digital gear used should have made your observations impossible provided the equipment was working properly and operated correctly.

Why do these questions always degrade to a digital vs. analog debate? Who cares? It's like trying to convince someone to switch religions or political parties.

Jeff just go listen for yourself. Bring your cd player and do the comparisons.

Oh and about the wired article the reason I posted it was to point out that new music is being put out on vinyl. That's it.

Justin

either this is reality.....

Frankly, most modern D to A and A to D has a precision of reproduction that is far beyond human hearing.

or this is reality...

a month ago a friend, who owns a record label, used my tt to record some direct-to-disc Lps to make an K2HD recording. he had purchased the rights to these Lps and no master tape exists. he brought 3 pro audio guys and 2 hi-rez recorders; a Pacific Microsonics II (recording at 176/24) and a DXD (recording at 386/32). during this session; we did many test recordings back and forth between the tt and the two state-of-the-art digital recorders.

you would think that these ultimate digital recorders could make a digital recording indistinguishable from the original Lp. if you thought that you would be very wrong.

as good as the digital sounded; the Lp still smoked the hard drive based recordings. digital (at whatever resolution) simply cannot get the whole picture.

the fact is that even at 386khz with a 32 bit word length it is easy to hear the shortcommings of digital's attempt to reproduce music compared to vinyl.

just listen.

Jeff,

Here is a commentary on the misconceptions in the wired article. It tries to point out there is most likely a subjective basis for preferences.

For those who have a DSP preamplifier with any half decent DAC's from the past ten years, I would suggest trying to listen to your Vinyl rig through 'direct path' versus A to D and D to A (with no filtering or tonal adjustment from the DSP). If you have the volume levels matched precisely and a good quality DSP then it should be impossible to tell which one sounds better or when the DSP is in the loop and when it is not (best to do this blind). If this does not convince you that digital is transparent then I don't know what will.

The easiest way is to do this is with a remote - so you don't move your position - but it is best to have someone else make the switch in case bias creeps in from knowledge of what you are listening to. Frankly, most modern D to A and A to D has a precision of reproduction that is far beyond human hearing.

Like the man or not,
Harry Pearson of the Absolute Sound has repeated over the past few years the Very best digital has not equaled the Very best analog play back.

You can contact the man directly yourself via his e-mail address in TAS or AV guide to tell him he's a fool if you like.

Whom Else on the planet have equipment available to him on a scale like this?

Just recently he took delivery of ClearAudios Statement turntable, to his absolute delight there's even more musical information on these 50 plus year old Lps in his collection.

The best digital player that I have heard to date is the Canadian made emm Labs cd/sacd.
Affordable to many and easy to use like any digital player at this price. Very nice for short term listening.

However, I will put up with the maintenance level of my record player and vintage and reissue Lp collection over digital any day.

If you read the Hoffman link provided above it will descibe the difference very well in the favor of vinyl. I recently had an experience while listening to Bill Evans 45 RPM Acoustic Sounds pressing of "Everybody Digs Bill Evans". We put the recently released remastered CD (Keepnews Edition) on right after listening to the vinyl. The difference in tone was quite noticeable. We turned off the CD and returned to a night of vinyl listening. Also, Violin has it right about listener fatique. Plastic, be it SACD or CD, tire my ears well before vinyl does, which is hardly ever.
If you love music and have the money you owe it to yourself to try vinyl.

"If there's a better format for listening to hissing, popping, and crackling, then on a cumbersome, yet fragile 12-inch piece of vinyl, I'd love to hear it." -THE ONION

Hi Jeff,

If you happen to live in LA or get out this way come over to my house and hear the difference. I own the Lector Digicode/Digidrive. Harry Pearson(and other major reviewers-do a google search) considers the Lector to be one of the most analogue sounding digital rigs out there. I happen to agree with him. Having said that it still doesn't come close to my analogue setup.

If you can't come out my way find a dealer near you that sells turntables. Bring your CD player over and compare. That's what I did. I walked out of there with a turntable.

As far as the time investment it's really not that bad. Unless you buy a really tweaky turntable like the Walker(or any table that has a linear tracking arm for that matter) you shouldn't have to adjust your turntable once it has been setup properly. Yeah you have to clean the records(but I don't do it all the time only when they need it), and yes you have to get up and switch sides but other than that it's really not that bad. Plus not being able to skip tracks is a bonus in a way. You start listening to albums instead of songs.

As far as noise goes 95% of my records(new or used) are as quite as CD.

Speaking of setup it is the key to good vinyl playback. Only a properly setup turntable will sound better than CD. If you do decide to go vinyl do yourself a favor and find a dealer in your area who really know how to setup a turntable correctly.

As to the statement that new music is not being put out on vinyl that is incorrect. Please go to the following link for some interesting info on this.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/riaa-admits-vin.html

One last thing only you can decide what sound you prefer. To me analogue sounds more like the real thing, but there are plenty of guys on Audiogon that prefer digital. So, again, go check it out for yourself and see which you prefer.

Justin

Bravo Violin....

..regarding "vinyl noise". If your table is set up properly and your equipment is good, you will get very little nose. People who hear my system tell me that they are amazed that the old vinyl that seemed to have the sssss sound - just doesn't. I dare say, that I have many records (older ones from the 60's, 70's as well ) that have about the same noise level as CD. When the occasional "pop" comes along, it is reproduced on to a different plane than the music, and everyone - not only I, can easily disregard it.

As someone who is just starting out in vinyl but already having a sota digital system in a dedicated listening room, i would encourage you to get into analog but to think of it as complimentary.

some swear by one or the other. In my opinion, the quality of the recording, type of music,listening room, cleaning and your subjective taste will determine your preference album to album. this makes it fun so get both!

My first tt is not sota and dont own yet audiophile lps and can tell vinyl is natural, organic

Jeff,

I'm an analog guy who's slowly migrated towards more digital time in my
listening room. However, the process has been largely driven by ergonomics
- many posts above note the time required to do justice to analog - and I
have been spending less time in my dedicated room over the years.

To answer the 2 questions you asked

IMHO (and just MHO)

1) $5K ish will put you in a VPI or Acoustic Solid or Galibier w/modified Rega
RB set-up with about $1K available for a cart. Phono stages of concomitant
quality will add from $1K to $3K (and up). This does not represent SOTA
phono performance, but - in my experience (Acoustic Solid Wood/RB300/Lyra
Dorian. I also own a more elaborate and expensive set-up that still hews to
the comments to follow) - it will outperform any digital I've heard. CAVEAT:
Only when the LP in question is a fine recording. Which brings us to...

2) I own many, many crappy LPs which are inferior to most cds. Most (though
certainly not all) rock LPs from the '70s leave much to be desired. OTOH, the
vast majority of my jazz LPs easily outperform their digital counterparts.
IMHO, you should not expect across the board improvement if/when you add
an analog source to your system. However, I suspect that your best quality
listening will be analog.

Good Luck,

Marty