Analog and Vinyl: no longer the benchmark

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kingrex said:
Tape is king. After that it's a toss-up between vinyl and digital. I have also become of the belief that in order to have the very best vinyl you must have some of the best digital. When you have excellent digital such as I believe I have, you are very quickly shown the shortcomings in your vinyl setup. It becomes very easy to hear any bloat congestion or lack of frequency extension in your vinyl set up when you play the same songs compared against your digital.

They also just voice a little different. That is really it. They are both extremely Musical and engaging to listen to. Last night I was spinning some Jimmy Buffett. Well actually I should say I was listening to it from my internal drive on my server. However I had been using my record player and listening to Jimmy Buffett albums which was still spinning and I thought was actually playing. I was thinking to myself, my God this is some of the best audio I've ever heard in my life. This is after just returning from Miami and listening to Boulder, Wilson raidho, OMA Etc. Very fine multi hundred-thousand-dollar systems. In my opinion, mine was more musically engaging and enjoyable listen to. It did not have the scale and size of the Boulder Wilson combo but it was more musical. Anyhow I was getting ready to get up and lift the needle after Margaritaville when I realized the needle was up and I was only listening to my digitally stored red book version.

I used to try and say my digital was better than my vinyl. I now say my digital force me to up the performance of my vinyl. The biggest shortcoming of vinyl is the source albums. But this can also be a shortcoming of digital. All-in-all I find my digital has a little more punch, Clarity, black backgrounds. But source does matter. I had been listening to an old Beethoven record I had. It was like some violin Concerto in D. It has been sounding superb on my record player. I thought how does it compare against my digital. I looked around on Tidal,but could not find the exact album. The exact album as in the same Symphony composer recording studio, you know what I mean. This was just the same song from a completely different album. My record ate that digital recording up. Of course this is one of the only times that has happened. If I take an album such as Cat Stevens, Pink Martini, Tony Bennett, Pink Floyd, and play it against my digital, I find the digital to generally be more satisfying. It plays with more gripping Authority out of my system.

My system may be tuned slightly soft due to its makeup. It consists of 135 watt Altec Lansing 1570b monoblock amplifiers that have been completely rebuilt by Tom to Tutay. I have a first sound Mark 3s preamp by Emmanuel go. My digital side is a Mojo audio server which I have hot rodded myself with software updates. I use an RT audio Ultra USB Orpheus ex DAC. On the analog side I build a turntable based upon the Vertere SG1 tonearm. I use a Denon cartridge in an aluminum head shell with a soundsmith sapphire cantilever and line contact diamond. My phoneo stage is an Allnic H1201. I have pure audio Trio 10 speakers. I have done extensive mods to the speakers. They have much higher quality capacitors chokes and speaker wire lacing. Actually all my gear is somewhat tweet. I buy the components and spend a lot of time making small adjustments to extract the most from them.

I think I have a pretty darn nice sounding system. So to summarize, in short my digital is not necessarily better than my analog, it's just different.
Click to expand...


I do agree they are different in presentation and you may just prefer your digital system , from experience Digital lacks the ease , naturalness and realism of good analog , you may just not have your analog system up to par vs your digital ..


Regards
 
jdandy said:
Interesting to observe that in 46 days since the original post there has been a scant 19 posts from 11 members on the dog-eared topic of vinyl versus digital. I interpret this unenthusiastic interest to indicate a general level of fatigue many audio enthusiasts experience about rehashing what amounts to a personal preference issue. I am not surprised by the low participation when discussing this topic. In my opinion, all that can be said has been said. Despite the original poster's encouragement for a heated debate, stirring this old rusty pot doesn't seem to generate much interest anymore.


ripvanwinkle.jpg
Click to expand...


Easy fix , just throw Magico speakers into the mix and watch it hit 100 .... :)
 
I agree Mike, I have bought some album of late, paid decent money and they have edge warps. Not good. For the most part unplayable on the outside edge. What I feel I keep encountering are many compounding limitations in vinyl. Less so for digital. I have a personal taste in sound as do everyone. I probably have a bias, but I also believe I have a decent ear. I am hearing comparable well tuned system repeating more accurate performance via digital than vinyl. I have seen some great gear traveling the USA. There seem to be an affinity for vinyl , but most all the owners of both keep playing digital as we converse, not the records. Have you noticed most store trying to sell you anything other than a record player use a digital front end as the source. When host play the records, the nicer systems seem to expose the truth of any defects in the medium. It is difficult to find old pressing on vinyl that are pristine. The damage /defects can jump out causing discomfort. I have records that roar on my system. I bet everyone has some that do to a degree. Ironically, the better the system, the higher the level of exposure. A detailed system will easily expose the noise of the record. Lesser system not as much. A CD may have been mastered poorly, but they don't degrade with age (provided the digital package is complete).

I Fully agree my vinyl is not to par with my digital for a variety of reasons. For one I am not as excited to tune it. I have maybe 200 records. 100 I listen to. 50 are decent, 20 real good, 10 are pristine. That means 5% are of the same "fresh" quality as 99% of the digital files I have. I have a few bad rips.

I could also say, for all those that espouse the virtues of vinyl, maybe they don't have their digital up to par with their vinyl. I still hear well seasoned audiophile talking about their great DAC feed by a laptop. Maybe they have moved onto an Ultra Rendu, but there are many level of source improvement above that. And still in digital there is this belief that the DAC is king. I believe the source, the server or CD is king. The DAC is the Queen. It takes both to have a great digital system but it is my experience the source shapes the sound more than the DAC. When you have them both, there is nothing not musically engaging and fully immersing about digital. It's flows with magic. It does not sound any more digital or less in tonal purity than the new record you bought that was mastered on digital then pressed to vinyl.

In closing, do not take my original statement as in any way not absolutely praising any great system I have listened to. My point is, the better the system, the more important the quality of the material. As you push a hyper detailed system louder and louder, the limitations of an older recording, or lesser piece of vinyl can jump out and get you.
5% of my vinyl does not have quality limitations. ​
Maybe less. If you take a good look at yours and honestly evaluate what you have, what percent of those records are flawless? My digital files are flawless and repeatable every time. They play to their highest level every time. That is most likely the reason I keep hearing digital being nothing but as good as the best vinyl our there.
 
@Kingrex ,

Pretty obvious from your posts your vinyl system and library is subpar vs your Digital library and setup. Also noticeable by his absence , is AJ’s demand of a blind challenge test to see if you really prefer digital ..

lol :)
 
Of course. My whole stereo is only $40K. Junk by all audiophile standards. I got 9k in digital and 7k in analog. Just enough to purchase a proper cartridge, let alone the rest of the setup. I have no 45 pressing, 3 x 180 gram records and 4 or 5 new standard records. 2 of those new ones have manufacturing flaws. One I returned, the other I never got around too. I just gave it to a friend. I don't seem to find good records. Even Dischogs rarely rates a record as mint. Maybe my bad luck.

I am considering a new DAC. Rockna Wavedream Signature. Closest I can get to MSB. I would consider the Lampizator Pacific but its out of my price range. I can get a good trade in on my DAC towards the Rockna. Helps the poor like myself continue to improve my setup. I would love an opportunity to do an A/B, blind or not with the Lamp and Rockna and/or even my DAC. Mine is suppose to be good. Quiet and musical, just lacking a little dynamic punch. More liquid and non fatiguing in playback.
 
Good recorded LP’s is a must to beat digital, most standard analog LP pressings are subpar IMO, 7K is more than enuff to show against digital if purchasing some items used...


regards
 
It is a common misconception, that if people have some kind of analog system they can judge whether analogue or digital is better.

First of all, the idea of one having to be better than the other is an unnecessary one. They’re different. Second, before being able to really judge, both would need to be on reference level.

I would guess though, it will be cheaper to assemble a good digital system. So if there is a strong budget constraint, I’d go digital.

But it was surprising at Munich High End, in a reference level system with Magico M6 speakers, Soulution Electronics and DAC and a Kronos turntable, the analog system sounded quite a bit better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The chord dave dac may indeed be a big step forward towards better sounding digital sources.
 
a.wayne said:
AJ’s demand of a blind challenge test to see if you really prefer digital ..
Click to expand...
I'm not challenging anyones preference. That' silly. Prefer whatever pleases you.
It's clear many audiophiles can't grasp my discourse. I'm not saying recording X on "analog" LP/tape whatever doesn't sound "better" than recording X in "digital" CD/File, etc. when heard at home, shows etc. Heck, I have a TT just because of that.
I'm saying that is completely invalid comparison of "analog" vs "digital". So I propose a valid one. A blind test of whatever "analog" one chooses, uber TT playing LP, etc. compared to a "digitized" version of itself in real time. Now let's see said audiophiles pick the "analog" from the "digital" when hearing the only thing ears are capable of, analog soundwaves, since it is they who claim this is audible.
I'll run the trust ears/just listening test and do my best to contain the grin.
Then watch folks go right back to preferring whatever pleases them.

cheers,

AJ
 
It always amuses me to read the first thing said by hardcore vinyl enthusiasts about a person's preference for digital versus vinyl is, "your vinyl system is sub-par versus your digital setup". Without proof source as a reference, it's simply a way for someone to insist their choice is superior with no facts to support the claim. Unless you have actually heard a person's sound system, how would a person know what level the source components play in anyone's system? Comments such as this, with no personal experience to support the opinion, hold no water. It gives me a chuckle every time. Making such a comment assumes you know what is happening without actually knowing what is happening. A comment such as this also discounts the subjective nature of personal choice. It is a subtle put down that essentially says, if you just had a more sophisticated vinyl rig you would see my way is the right way. To me it looks like Yin and Yang. In fact it may be that seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent, very much like life itself. In my humble opinion, it's all good.


9252.yin-yang-symbol.jpg
 
Amen, Dan.

My bone-in ribeye is better than your filet mignon. Never mind, I can’t see or taste yours; don’t know how it was prepared, cooked, or what was served alongside. But let me tell you nine different ways why you’re wrong and I’m right. Factor in personal tastes (pun) or preferences and you quickly realize how difficult this is.

All the while, I’m sitting here and only know that I love a good steak. Why can’t we all win and play nice? [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jdandy said:
It always amuses me to read the first thing said by hardcore vinyl enthusiasts about a person's preference for digital versus vinyl is "your vinyl system is sub-par vs your digital setup". Without proof source as a reference, it's simply a way for someone to insist their choice is superior with no facts to support the claim. Unless you have actually heard a person's sound system, how would a person know what level the source components play in anyone's system? Comments such as this, with no personal experience to support the opinion, hold no water. It gives me a chuckle every time. Making such a comment assumes you know what is happening without actually knowing what is happening. A comment such as this also discounts the subjective nature of personal choice. It is a subtle put down that essentially says, if you just had a more sophisticated vinyl rig you would see my way is the right way. To me it looks like Yin and Yang. In fact it may be that seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent, very much like life itself. In my humble opinion, it's all good.


9252.yin-yang-symbol.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, says the guy raving for days on end about a 2K DAC.

Chacun son gôut.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jdandy said:
It always amuses me to read the first thing said by hardcore vinyl enthusiasts about a person's preference for digital versus vinyl is "your vinyl system is sub-par vs your digital setup". Without proof source as a reference, it's simply a way for someone to insist their choice is superior with no facts to support the claim. Unless you have actually heard a person's sound system, how would a person know what level the source components play in anyone's system? Comments such as this, with no personal experience to support the opinion, hold no water.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Also, I have heard several top analog systems, and while I love what I heard, I cannot honestly say that I prefer them to my digital, which costs in total less than $ 7K, chump change in today's high end world ;). Or that they are across the board better.
 
This is so boring. Poor guys insinuating about stuff they can’t afford.

I think this is the time for me to check out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
OK, this thread has run the course, as said earlier, lets go to cables ..............
 
Kuoppis said:
Well, says the guy raving for days on end about a 2K DAC.
Click to expand...

A DAC that can hold its own against some other DACs costing more than 10 times as much. You think I don't know what I'm talking about? I have heard the comparison -- in a superlative, high-resolution system (and the owner bought the $ 2K DAC).

(BTW, while I am often in disagreement with his review style, Robert Harley from TAS thinks the same, if that says anything.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top