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.
let me help you out here with some relevant information; " Per
the RIAA: “Revenues from streaming music platforms grew 30%
year-over-year ... While physical media sales were down 23%, CD sales themselves slipped 34%
I'm not sure how relevant that info is. That data is mass market data, just as your CD ownership player info is mass market. It includes people who don't care about sound and music, and those who do and think their Bose ownership proves it. It doesn't tell us anything about audiophiles, some of whom (such as yourself) still use analog tape.
... no doubt CD’s can sound very very fine ... but don't spin any ... it’s not ’Top Notch Digital’ and it’s not
relevant to that subject.
CD is absolutely relevant to this thread. Please note the OP asked:
How much would one have to invest in analog to easily top the sound
quality of the Meridian 800 (or similar quality digital player)?
let me help you out here with some relevant information;
" Per the RIAA: “Revenues from streaming music platforms grew 30% year-over-year to reach $7.4 billion, contributing 75% of total revenues for 2018, and accounting for virtually all the revenue growth for the year.”
"While physical media sales were down 23%, CD sales themselves slipped 34% for the year to $698 million. That’s the first time CD yearly revenue has come in below $1 billion since 1986."
here is what CD has to say.......
"I’M DYING’.
btw; i like 16/44 redbook and no doubt CD’s can sound very very fine. i own 4000 of them, but don't spin any. i’m not knocking it and listen to redbook files often. but it’s not ’Top Notch Digital’ and it’s not relevant to that subject.
that’s not true. less than half have active CD players in their systems. and few are being added.
maybe they have an old CD player or transport in storage. for the last 4 years i’ve had an ’old’ Oppo sitting in my closet in case i needed to spin a disc. not had to plug it in.
and the heading of the thread is "Vinyl-vs-Top-Notch-Digital".
in case you’ve been under a rock the last 5 years, "Top Notch Digital" is not CD’s........and has not been for many years.
It is a rare cd that betters its vinyl counterpart. This is especially so with recordings made prior to the late 1990s I’ve compared many on my system--Wilson Alexia 2s, ARC Ref 160 monos, ARC Ref 40 preamp, Spectral SDR 4000SV, cd player, BelCanto Pl1 Player (alternate cd player), VPI HRX w rim drive, superplatter and a number of 12’ arms and carts, the most often used being 3d tonearms w Lyra Atlas and Dynavector XV1-t carts. Except for some recordings made entirely in the digital domain, the differences are not subtle.
While streaming might be top-notch, maybe yes, maybe no, like everything else it probably depends on many factors, I was directing my comments at CD players, which was the subject of the OP.
“Top-notch digital“ is a misnomer since even the most expensive digital players produce serious audible errors. The three most serious errors are external vibration, vibration and flutter of the disc itself whilst spinning and our old friend scattered background laser light. Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking, “but I thought all modern CD players solved those problems a long time ago, doesn’t reclocking and buffering eliminate those problems?” Better think again, buddy boy. And yes, I know what you’re thinking, “but my system sounds fabulous!”
CD? what’s a CD?
spinning disc? what’s that have to do with digital audio?
that’s so "5 years ago". now it’s PCIe drives. agree on the effect of resonance on circuits though. that is major.
“Top-notch digital“ is a misnomer since even the most expensive digital players produce serious audible errors. The three most serious errors are external vibration, vibration and flutter of the disc itself whilst spinning and our old friend scattered background laser light. Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking, “but I thought all modern CD players solved those problems a long time ago, doesn’t reclocking and buffering eliminate those problems?” Better think again, buddy boy. And yes, I know what you’re thinking, “but my system sounds fabulous!”
been there, done that. multiple times, in multiple ways.
i have 800-900 needle drops. these are 2xdsd vinyl rips of my vinyl i have on my NAS. play them often. and hundreds of digital tape transfers at various hirez levels i can compare to the vinyl transfers.
No, you haven’t quite "been there, done that." Creating a "needle drop" is not making your own recording. Dubbing the recordings of others is not the same as actually making your own recordings from a live source.
... then there was the recording done in my room back in 2008 where pro audio guys ...
2008? That was 84 dog-years ago! Just as DACs have improved since then, so have ADCs.
i can dub vinyl with my tape deck that get’s it all.
Me too! That’s easy to do! I can also make a CDR that is indistinguishable from the LP. Easy to do!
i claim that no digital recordings i’ve heard capture music like 1/2" tape
That statement would have more value if you’d experiment with your own recordings, but I understand that takes a lot of time and effort.
been there, done that. multiple times, in multiple ways.
i have 800-900 needle drops. these are 2xdsd vinyl rips of my vinyl i have on my NAS. play them often. and hundreds of digital tape transfers at various hirez levels i can compare to the vinyl transfers.
then there was the recording done in my room back in 2008 where pro audio guys dubbed a direct to disc record off my turntable and tried to get it to sound as good as the source.
try as they might, they could not capture the musical nuance of the vinyl on their state of the art digital recorders. i can dub vinyl with my tape deck that get’s it all. or dub my tape to another tape and get it all too. look at my system pages........
... on paper digital recorders do all sorts of magic tricks as far as dynamic range and bandwidth. and data on analog recorders misses the fact that analog recorders record data into the noise floor, whereas digital recorders have hard limits that cannot be really approached. i claim that no digital recordings i’ve heard capture music like 1/2" tape ... this subject has been beat to death, stomped on and kicked dozens of times. i have the highest level digital playback gear and daily compare the highest rez digital to vinyl and tape. the results are easily heard.
Understood. What you are doing is assessing the potential of digital and analog recording based on what other people say and record.
If you really want to understand the potential differences, I suggest you make your own recordings. For example, you might want to take one of your better analog recordings, dub it to digital, and then A/B the two. The results might surprise you. Then, do the reverse: Dub to analog an excellent recording you made first on digital.
A/B the two.
Absolutely Mike, it is the music that counts. Quality is secondary but it always helps. When it gets down to brass tacks it is the quality of the final end user material that counts and one magic thing about digital is that it does not deteriorate over time and generations unlike analog. So, although under the best circumstance analog sounds better this may not be true with the program sources we get. A great example of this is the telephone. Anybody remember what analog cell phones sounded like? Yuk, what a mess. There is no comparison to modern digital phones.
the phrase ’technically superior’ is a misnomer relative to our listening to music. on paper digital recorders do all sorts of magic tricks as far as dynamic range and bandwidth. and data on analog recorders misses the fact that analog recorders record data into the noise floor, whereas digital recorders have hard limits that cannot be really approached.
i claim that no digital recordings i’ve heard capture music like 1/2" tape and if you throw 30ips into it the delta is even greater.
here is a link to an interview with a well known recording engineer that talks to this issue and it’s real world consequences. scroll down toward the bottom;
@mikelavigne Wow. That’ sounds like an impressive sounding vinyl setup you have now. I heard tape at your place many years ago and was very impressed. That was my only real experience with hearing tape. I always thought 1/4” tape was regarded as superior to vinyl. Very cool. I stand corrected. Steve. Vancouver, B.C.
there are a few labels that disclose a choice of 1/2". and those sometimes disclose the source tape’s details. so you have to dig a little to find this information. the cost of 1/2" is typically 66% to 100% more. it’s not just more expensive tape stock, it’s also setting up the 1/2" machine.
with grey market tapes this is a ’grey’ subject. how do you know the exact source tape? was it 1/2" or 30 ips? again; hard to know.
i have maybe a dozen 1/2" albums i know are 1/2" sourced, then another 10 i don’t really know. a 1/2" dub of a 1/4" tape will sound better than a 1/4" dub.
read Lp jacket covers and many times you will see a 1/2" tape source.
how many legit 1/2" tapes are out there to buy? can’t say, but would guess a few dozen. a separate question would be how great is the music?
Yes. 1/4” tape. I’ve never heard any debate from the vinyl crowd on which is more superior, many discussions though. All seem to agree that tape is the best. I don’t know if this is also the same consensus the digital crowd shares too.
here’s the rub.
i love my tape (observe my system page), and have plenty of great tapes. but as my vinyl has improved over these past few years, more and more times i find that my vinyl equals or even slightly betters the tape reference that i had. it’s not that tape should not be better, more that tape varies so much as to the provenance, quality of transfer, and age at transfer.
i have now 20 year old 45 rpm re-issues that were transferred when the master was much younger. now we see these same titles offered on tape that are not as good as my vinyl. OTOH; acquiring those fantastic 20 year old 45 rpm reissues might cost you more than the tape, so a case can be made to own that tape for less.
the answer is, like most things, is that ’it depends’.
tape is king, but only when it’s optimal. i have been very selective as i’ve acquired tape titles over the years, and my tapes are generally a cut above my vinyl, but i do find lots of exceptions. and this has caused me to slow down my tape buying considerably and be very picky.
now when you get into 1/2" tape titles, or 30 ips tape titles, sourced from 1/2" or 30 ips, then it’s easy to be confident that it will be superior. nothing quite like 1/2" tape. if digital people think it can compete with 1/2" tape, i have to laugh, that is just ignorant.
sdr, he does not know and you will confuse him by asking:) I love R to R. I grew up with an Ampex in the days when you could get prerecorded tapes for just a little more than the vinyl. But when you have to pay $350 to $500 for just one title and when you can count the number of titles on two hands? Does not seem very practical. If you were a rich guy who just wanted to use it for demonstration purposes I suppose It would be fun. If you had access to live venues with permission it would be a lot of fun. Music is emotional. Digital and analog are methodologies.
@millercarbon Your last post, I didn’t understand what you meant. Sorry but I have to ask. Did you agree with me or was that a disagree. Either way. All good.
Yes. 1/4” tape. I’ve never heard any debate from the vinyl crowd on
which is more superior, many discussions though. All seem to agree that
tape is the best. I don’t know if this is also the same consensus the
digital crowd shares too.
The digital consensus is, "Its better." The analog consensus is, "Its not."
The digital consensus, well I hate to get all technical and everything but its what we call, "Wrong."
Some of us record music ( live stuff not a copy of ) using high speed tape and great A2D converters and are well aware of the manifest advantages and disadvantages of each format. Both can provide stunning realism and emotional connections....
Yes. 1/4” tape. I’ve never heard any debate from the vinyl crowd on which is more superior, many discussions though. All seem to agree that tape is the best. I don’t know if this is also the same consensus the digital crowd shares too.
Well, if we could always listen to master tape dubs we wouldn't listen to either vinyl or digital. Both are consumer grade not pro grade formats. Digital cannot, at least at present, capture the emotional content of music. You have to 'imagine' it with digital, with analogue you don't have to. That said, compressed analogue recordings are no fun, but still better overall than digital. Sadly, I too listen to more digital on youtube through headphones than vinyl and Nak tape deck through speakers because there is so much new to me music over there. Mint good pressing vinyl can be very quiet, no ticks and pops. Most of my favourite records do have some noise, though. Also depends on your table set-up and how well the records are cleaned.
Yes. For people that can’t hear past the ticks and pops, digital would be the better choice. As with many others, I’ve learned to be able to tune out the noise and just focus on the music. If you’re able to do this, vinyl I believe will always be preferred. I wonder why some people aren’t capable of this and some are. I found that it takes time. Maybe the digital only listeners just didn’t give it enough time. I’ve never heard this phenomenon discussed, it probably has been though, how we can train our brains to filter this noise from our records.
The only sure distinction between high res digital and the best vinyl is vinyl is noisy and digital is not. As for the sonics, it depends more on the mastering than anything else including the format. High res digital 24/48 and above has the capability of sounding superior to vinyl. If you do not believe this get Chick Corea's Chinese Butterfly in 24/96. Steve Gadd on drums. God knows how many records I have but I do not have one that sounds better than this. Playing vinyl is almost an art firm, digital not. I still buy vinyl and like it very much but to dis digital is a big mistake. To do it right all you need is a Mac Mini, Channel D's Pure Music and a hard drive.
I find streaming and vinyl can be equally engaging. That’s the top consideration - does it make me happy. I appreciate detail, imaging and all the other buzzwords but if it’s musically dry, reality or not, all that crazy priced gear is a waste. I prefer a record and a charcoal bar-b-que. I’ll stream and cook on gas though.
I used to listen to CD and vinyl equally for many years. Although I always thought my turntable sounded better, I really enjoyed my CD player too. Very similar to what Mikel stayed about his digital. I then sold my CD player about 6 years ago and only use the turntables. I now get little satisfaction from anything digital. I think if I got used to it again I might hear it in a pleasing way again. My point is I understand you can enjoy digital as much as analog, and love it, if that is what your regularly listening to. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Nothing inferior about loving digital if you are a digital listener as I once was.
@tomcy6 it’s of no concern to me what you listen to. If you want to listen to inferior digital and enjoy it then great! I don’t blame anyone for listening to this lesser format as it’s a lot cheaper and easier to manage. I’ve been there myself trying digital but it couldn’t compare to vinyl so I ended up sticking with the best.
My point stands, when a DAC is really good it's described as "analog
sounding" (MSB, Lampizator, Aqua, etc). Sounding analog for a DAC is
the ultimate compliment. Sounding digital for a turntable is the
ultimate insult.
Getting your turntable to sound digital is easy. Play most of the reissued/new release albums. They sound like the CD you could have purchased instead of a record that needs to be handled with some care.
Maybe a look at a simple tube phono stage schematic vs a DAC schematic might shed some light on the subject.
For you non technical guys maybe the KISS principle might apply. For over 30 years they have been telling me how great digital is. Well I have a system which I have modified beyond belief and I use it on stuff that did not make it to vinyl.
If I want something that really sounds like real MUSIC out comes the black disc. The best thing digital has done for me is it bought down the price of albums for a few decades.
You're both missing the point I guess. I'm not talking about surface noise. That is what it is and nobody strives to achieve that. I'm talking about the actual reproduction of the music. My point stands, when a DAC is really good it's described as "analog sounding" (MSB, Lampizator, Aqua, etc). Sounding analog for a DAC is the ultimate compliment. Sounding digital for a turntable is the ultimate insult.
Of course DACs don't sound digital. The noise is missing. No turntable can sound digital. Too much noise. Sound quality as in fidelity between vinyl and the best high res digital set up depends on the master. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Blanket statements either way are an indication of personal bias not reality. Like Mike I simply go where the music is.
"and better vinyl (even sometimes but not always digitally sourced) is still easily better than the very best digital
"
mikelavigne-I'm glad you made that statement, and not me! Some of the digital rigs I've heard have been truly been wow, but I still don't hear WOW!
There is still an emotional engagement(not technical/scientific) that a record(no reissues!) provides to my ears.
Maybe it's just me, but a 1960 mono copy of Ella Fitzgerald singing "Black Coffee" from "Let No Man Write My Epitaph" versus the latest file, is still "missing" something I can't explain?
Also it doesn't necessarily need to be on a stellar phono setup, just properly set up.
That said, If I did have a streaming setup, I likely WOULD use it more than my table. Nothing like typing into your Ipad, whatever you want to hear!
Particularly convenient for entertaining, hanging out with non audio friends.
i notice a few 9 year old posts from me in this thread. my digital is much, much better now, but what's crazy is so is my vinyl much, much better now.
and better vinyl (even sometimes but not always digitally sourced) is still easily better than the very best digital. but the very best digital is now super good and streaming has opened up so much music that digital is really amazing.
so it's now 'best sound' verses best way to listen. i have top level vinyl, but mostly listen to digital. i follow the music.
Overall...I do belong to the "vinyl is superior" camp BUT there are times when one track, of one record, in one "incarnation" of digital based system will beat the same track, of a particular pressing, in one "incarnation" of a different vinyl based system.
In other words...Judging which sounds better must be done on a system to system , track to track, case to case basis. The heated arguments begin when we make blanket statements about unheard, unfamiliar systems, of unknown cd or vinyl pressings, of which we have no reference to be able to make informative and meaningful discussions and statements just dogmatic statements.
My digital front end is pleasing to listen to. I say this against the backdrop of my vinyl front end listening. But the pleasantness of my digital front end must be interpreted in the context of how each independent system of my system, ie, my tube amp, my preamp, my speaker cables, etc, is contributing to the final "digital" sound i am hearing.
To date, with the best moments of my vinyl playback i have not been able to get the quality of timbre from my digital front end that i get from my vinyl front end. On occasion, if the vta is out or the recording is just ok, then the virtues of vinyl sometimes seem "awol".
To sort through this maze of differences in outcome, i prefer to judge on a case to case basis as listed in the first two paragraphs of this post.
For me this argument is a very simple one to answer....
Listening to vinyl for several months at a time before switching to a CD based session (and this because someone requested a current album that I didn't own a vinyl version of) pretty much tells me everything I need to know about each medium.
Newly acquired, unfamiliar, music becomes a hypnotic experience on vinyl, but a chore to listen to on CD. There is a feeling you can take the most "difficult" music e.g. 15 Shostakovich String quartets and listen to all of them in sequence with ease. With CD, I challenge anyone to get past one Shostakovich string quartet before reaching for the Iron Maiden or Killing Joke as light relief....
The popular belief of CD as strictly a "background medium" is not inaccurate. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the theory... As for the "high res digi formats" that cropped up in the 90's etc. If they were any good, the market would be bulging with them, we'd all be using them now and vinyl would be a distant memory. I rest my case.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
