I think great digital does indeed sound better than vinyl. One basic reason, I cannot get past all the noise with even the best of vinyl systems. All those clicks and pops etc - they drive me crazy and get in the way of the music for me.
I hear to much noise for my liking.
Sure, noise can be greatly reduced with lots of cleaning effort etc, but I still hear those clicks and pops.
That said, vinyl does indeed sound better if one can get past this reality. I cannot.
I wish I could as I do think vinyl sounds more "natural".
Bill |
Jeff, i have been asked these questions many times. i agree with many here, there are many perspectives. i am one who has always attempted to try to have state-of-the-art players for both digital and vinyl. recently; i have also pursued state-of-the-art reel to reel. to me one of the fun parts of this hobby is comparing formats.
when i have visitors over we first listen to digital then at some point i put on an Lp of the same music we just heard in digital; i love to watch the look on their faces and the jaws dropping.....then a big smile and a shaking of the heads.
what does it take to get this difference?
the big difference between vinyl and digital is that with vinyl everything matters alot. there is so much more information in those grooves that at almost any level of vinyl changing the right thing will take you further.....and you will likey clearly hear the change. this makes moving up more fun.
in the past i have said that the right tt, arm, cartridge, and phono stage purchased for $10k-$12k new or around $7k used would potentially take you to a performance level where most listeners would easily prefer Lps to digital. as you step that up there would be more 'wow' factor at higher levels of investment. as you travel up the foodchain you have much lower levels of noise; better speed accuracy, and higher levels of refinement.
recently 2 things have changed my perspective on this equation. first; i have a new digtial player, the Playback Designs MPS-5, that likely raises the stakes for vinyl to better digital by another level. for a vinyl rig to exceed this might take another level, maybe $3k to $5k more. second; there has been a bit of discovery what the performance of some vintage direct-drive and rim-drive tt's when combined with top level arms and custom plinths can do. this lowers the investment level of very high level vinyl performance.
so digital is better, but very good vinyl performance has become less expensive to aquire if one goes after these vintage tts.
regarding how much Lps vary; i have 7,000 or 8,000 lps; 90% sound good to great. the others are varible. most of those 'others' were purchased for less than $1 each.
i would add in fairness that many Lps have tics and pops, and the sensitivity to those issues varies from person to person. some people enjoy cleaning records and the little tweaky things one does to get the best results. if one likes the sterile and clean aspect of digital then maybe vinyl is not for you.
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 real question is.....is it worth the trouble?
you bet. |
The quality of your phono amp fits into the mix as well. Just another variable to consider... |
Some very interesting views and as normal, Albert Porter summed it up. The main reason you may need vinyl is for recordings not on CD. This would mainly be for classical, some Jazz. There are a wealth of great classical recordings, particularly HMV, ASD series and Decca SXL series, which never got on CD. I also happen to agree that Classical in particular sounds better on LP. To me that is due to the soundstage depth you get, which even top flight CD can't match.
It is ironic, that at a time when CD is dying and I think there is no doubt it is, some of the best CD players ever, are available. I use a GNSC modded Resolution Audio Opus 21 and it is very close to my TW accustic Raven one, Zyx Airy 3 K&K phono stage set up, at a cheaper price.
I would only go for vinyl, as Albert says, if there is music you want, that is only available on CD. |
Violin's response reflects my experience too. Good digital and good vinyl reproduce different things well. How important each aspect is helps determine which is more important to you.
With my digital surround rig, I can play bombastic orchestral pieces such as Holst's "The Planets" or Moussorgsky's (arranged for orchestra) "Night on Bald Mountain" at live concert levels sitting in the first three rows. With 1200 watts on tap and a 200w sub ready to go to 20Hz, I can play Telarc's 1812 Overture no sweat.
My analog rig can creat a great illusion for pieces such as this from the 15th row or the front of the balcony, especially if the orch. used a starter pistol into an oil drum for the cannon.
But for small acoustic ensembles, whether classical chamber music, James Taylor/Joni Mitchell/Gordon Lightfoot folk, or small jazz ensembles such as LA Four, Miles, Brubeck, Coltrane ... vinyl RULES!
And it can be anything. I don't care if it's 40-yr-old vinyl from the $1 bargain bin or a new $50 45rpm pressing from Acoustic Sounds, I just *love* the sound of vinyl on a wide variety of material.
In absolute terms, I'd say my 45rpm Acoustic Sounds reissue of Water Lily Music's "A Meeting by the River" and some direct-to-disc LPs are the best-sounding recordings I have from *any* source.
As for the others, I likes me LPs, but if you're hung up on a little noise and the occasional tic/pop, stick with digital.
By the standards of these wacky A-goners, I have a very modest analog rig: Technics SL1210 M5G, Audio Technica AT150MLX cart, LPGear Zupreme headshell, Cambridge Audio 640p phono stage, Outlaw linestage, 1980s Amber Series 70 power amp, and Mirage Omnisat spkrs w/matching LF150 sub.
Yet this silly little rig beckons me to the sweet spot whenever I spin vinyl on it. And long after the record is over and I put it away--sometimes for days afterwards--the best of this music continues to haunt me in a way that digitally sourced music NEVER did. |
Jeff - Glad you started this thread...very thoughtful responses. In a sense, I'm mainly saying "me too." I worked hard for several years to get the best out of CD's, including picking up a demo Linn CD12 and having Great Northern Sound modify my Wadia 860, and I've had some extended experience with an EMM CDSA. All three are among the best you can do in digital, as far as I can tell. But something was lacking. I had an Linn LP12 that I hadn't used for 15+ years. I had it refurbished last fall, and put a new Koetsu Black in it, and bought an EAR 834P phono stage. I was amazed. Good vinyl is just wonderful. Digital can be fatiguing. Vinyl rarely is (although, as with CD's, there are vinyl dogs out there). And, yes, you end up in searches for 2nd hand vinyl, then you find yourself buying a record cleaning machine, etc.
But I'm fascinated by Violin's comments, and think he's onto something, also. I find that I like classical music more on vinyl...and my "reference" is my typical listening post, mid-hall in a good concert hall. Yet, I tend to prefer pop music on CD, perhaps because, like Violin, I spent a lot of time on the bandstand over the years, playing rock, later fusion, and country. Jazz (except fusion), works pretty well (for me) either on vinyl or CD, although I think vinyl tends to catch the sonic nuances better than CD.
You ought to be able to get a fine rig for around $5-6K. If you go this route, and want some thoughts on places to find good 2nd hand classical vinyl, send me an email. |
Jeff,
Everyone has given you good advice. The Rocky Mountain Show is not far off. If it is convenient for you to attend, I urge you to do so. You will be treated to many analog sources in a couple of days. Finding another A-Goner with a very good analog source willing to share time, music, and knowledge is the next best idea. You might take your Meridian with you and A/B the analog to the digital if you have the same recordings in both formats. Some members have mentioned hi/rez downloading. I am not so confident that this will be better than comparable existing software digital formats. In short, the analog and digital formats are recreations of the original live performance. Go to a concert and assess which format most closely creates the illusion of the real thing and go from there. |
Here is my perspective based on experience. You pretty much will have to go for top- notch Vinyl also. Not necessarily top-notch price bracket, although you may end up at similar or higher prize bracket than you digital. Top notch Vinyl definitely sounds better than the top-notch digital. No question. More organic and complete natural sound. Fortunately my digital comes very close to my Vinyl, sometimes eerily close to the uninitiated. So much that at time convenience of digital playback takes a precedence. But the minute on a whim a same music Vinyl is played back, digital stops. Almost always.
I would listen with my ears first before jumping in to serious investment. I started at entry level Vinyl and graduated to 'top-notch' vinyl rather quickly. No regrets though. |
I have thought for a long time about this difference between vinyl and CD sound. They are in reality two entirely different perspectives on the sound of music. Since Stringreen and I are both violinists and have played for some 30-40 years in symphony orchestras, I think that we may come from the same or similar perspective on this subject. When one is playing say the Mahler 5th symphony , the sound on stage can reach 105-110 db and you can literally feel blown away by the impact of the brass, percussion, etc. A digital recording can capture the tremendous dynamics,bass, and scope of the orchestra spread out around you that one gets when on stage.
A friend of mine and I have measured the SPL with an Ivie SPL meter of the Los Angeles Phil. in the 15th to 20th rows in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in LA during concerts and they run usually 80-88db with ocasionally peaks of 92-94db. This gives an entirely different perspective and is much more pleasurable to listen to.
In MHO, CD gives the on-stage performer perspective and Vinyl the listener in the audience perspective. Which is best? I don't pretend to know.It is different for each listener and only he or she can make the decision as to whether they want to listen with a close up,dynamic,and super detailed sound(CD), or do they prefer the more distant auditorium sound(Vinyl). I only know that I cannot listen to CDs for any length of time without feeling that I am on stage getting blown away,and listening fatigue takes over. Whereas , I can listen to Vinyl, good vinyl, all day without fatigue and feel relaxed.
I do not know if this helps or answers anyone's questions, but this is my MHO. |
Interesting questions. I have found that there is a $5000 factor. In my quest for what I seek I have found you need a table that sells for around $5K, An arm a cartridge and a phono pre in that price range each to get near SOTA play back. And LP's do vary widely in quality. All that being said I have never heard any CD based system that evokes the qualities that a well tuned LP play back system can even with a poorly pressed LP. |
Jeff,
Why don't you post where you live, and see if you can go over and listen to another audiogon member's system, (one with both a decently high end analog source, as well as a digital source), so that you can see for yourself whether you think having analog is actually better than digital. (I'm sure there is another member who would gladly have you over, and might even want to go and listen to your system in exchange. I know I certainly appreciate listening to other peoples high end systems.)
I believe vinyl is better than digital, but then I don't mind doing the whole analog routine, (which includes pre-cleaning records on a RCM, flipping over records for each side, having to get up at the end of every record, etc.)
I think the only way your really going to know is to listen for yourself.
My two cents worth anyway! |
I'm curious to hear from anyone who has been able to obtain superlative vinyl playback through a digital preamp/processor like the Meridian. I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly antithetical to the usual approach of analog uber alas.
If I were starting over & wanted to put short money in all the right places, I'd go cheap on TT with a replinthed Lenco idler, arm of choice, relatively inexpensive very low output MC such as Denon or Dynavector, with the majority of funds into a high-gain SS or hybrid phono section such as Klyne or VSE with 70db or greater gain. This approach gets very close to the best of what vinyl has to offer, while obviating the cost and degradation of a step-up transformer.
|
Jeff, Albert and Stringreen offer excellent perspectives with which I concur. The challenge in answering your question is that the answer will be different for each of us depending on our listening priorities. Like Albert, I prefer listening to vinyl. I've listened to a lot of high end digital, but I continue to stay with vinyl as my preferred source. Ultimately, the only way to answer your first question is with your own ears after listening to some systems that have been set up well for playing vinyl. That will not be most dealer setups, unfortunately. To take a stab at an answer that I think is at least directionally correct: To match or exceed good high end digital these days, my experience suggests you should plan to spend as much on the vinyl playback as you have on the digital playback. Plan on investing something north of $10,000 for turntable, tonearm, cartridge and phono stage. Less or more will depend on how much the strong points of vinyl resonate with your listening priorities. (For me, the match point will be less because of my listening priorities.) To address your second question: In my experience, "bad" LPs are not better than good CDs. OTOH, good LPs are common and their sonic virtues easily exceed those of the same recording released on CD. The quality of LPs is indeed variable, but the same is true of CDs. For both LPs and CDs, the quality of the work done by the original recording engineer, the mastering engineer and the pressing plant all impact the sonic merits of the finished product. If one shifts to listening to some of the 45 rpm vinyl reissues available (the 45 rpm jazz reissues from Analogue Productions and Music Matters, for example), I'm hearing about as close to master tape reproduction as I think I'm ever likely to experience. For an interesting discussion of this topic, read the comments from mastering engineer Steve Hoffman about his experiments when he had the "Waltz for Debby" master tape in house: What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?. |
Albertporter is so right. The goal of this hobby is to get to the music that moves you. I have an Ayre C5xe which is also one of the best digital players around. I remember working on my Masters in Music,when all of my music professors had very, very mediocre record players. When asked about that, they told me that they "fill in" what isn't there...they can actually hear what the second violins are doing by being an "active" listener. To me, however, I get a kick out of hearing what those second violins are doing...so, I listen at least twice to the piece...once for the music, and another time for the sound. I am able to get pleasure from both kinds of listening, but in truth, the music is formost. In listening to digital, it is convenient, and a no worry task. When the drawer opens, you put the silver disc in and listen. The turntable requires vast energy expenditures to make sure its as good as it can be. Cartridges settle, and with it comes more adjustments. Although I have a table that is known for its stability, and not needing adjustments, I seem always to check and slightly change something. There are times when just Redbook CD's can sound much better than SACD, or DVD Audio - or Vinyl, there are times when vinyl just trounces the CD, and SACD can be better or worse as well. I seem to prefer the vinyl sound as to digital - even at its best..and vinyl at its not so best. There seems to be a naturalness of air, that digital doesn't quite have - even if the lows may be lower, the highs sweeter, etc. As I write this, I just happen to prefer that naturalness that vinyl has. I experienced this naturalness with my old Rega P-25 with a Grado Sonata. Although the sound I have now is far better (the table, arm, and cartridge have all been very much upgraded), but I still preferred vinyl even then. This post is very circuitous, because there really isn't an answer. You gave up the big bucks for your Meridian, so - what the hell, get a good turntable setup. |
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. That Vinyl is better than Digital is indeed the consensus of an extremely knowledgeable group of experts, such as Michael Fremer. Check out his website and while you are at it - how about a set of Pear Anjou cables? |
If you're happy with digital save your money for high-rez digital downloads, which I think is the next format we'll see.
You would think that vinyl is the only way to listen to music by reading the audiophile magazines, but the numbers don't back that up. Below are the numbers for albums shipped and albums sold for 2007 from 2 different industry groups.
1. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, manufacturers' shipments of LPs jumped more than 36 percent from 2006 to 2007 to more than 1.3 million. Shipments of CDs dropped more than 17 percent during the same period to 511 million, as they lost some ground to digital formats.
2. According to Nielsen SoundScan, of total album sales for 2007:
vinyl makes up about 0.2%
digital downloads are 10%
cds are 89.7%
The 0.2% equals 990,000 vinyl albums sold in 2007, up 15.4% from 858,000 units sold in 2006.
I think the number of used cds purchased compared to used vinyl purchased would also show that hundreds of used cds are sold for every used vinyl album sold. Just my two cents. I have no problem with anybody who prefers vinyl to cd. We all have different ears, tastes and gear. Listen to what you enjoy most. |
You're going to get answers all over the place.
Basically, if you're happy with digital and never owned analog, you are not likely to be prepared for all the work involved to make LP playback enjoyable.
Musical enjoyment is basically a trade off between quality listening time and the amount of work required to reach that level. Factor in cost of the music and you get an idea of what's worth what.
If your taste dictates that you build a library of Jazz, classical and rock that's mostly older music then LP might be just the ticket. If you listen to mostly new music, it's all on digital with some exceptions pressed to LP.
Me, I'm an LP guy, don't enjoy digital but accept the fact that I must own a digital playback rig because a lot of music is only available that way. That's true for analog too, plus it's (in my opinion) a more musical and natural presentation.
You must decide how much of your favorite music is on each format and if the money and effort spent is worthwhile in terms of enjoyment and access to content. |
