Why no turntable?

[Al M.]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

Sorry to disagree with your changed position. I regularly hear top vinyl playback in my friends' systems, in the range of $ 50-80 K for the vinyl rig (incl. phono stage). While vinyl can sound truly wonderful, I do not hear the increase in natural purity and tone, as well as harmonic completeness, over my digital of about $ 6.5 K total (see signature) that you do. Vocals, acoustic guitar? You're kidding me, digital excels on that with the right recordings.

I do notice that it is very hard to get file playback to sound as natural as physical CD, which is what I am playing at home (with excellent connection between CD transport and DAC; the AES/EBU cable costs as much, or almost as much, respectively, as either of them).

***

PS: Just saw your post, Mike. No, also in terms of 3D presentation, digital can truly excel. The palpable presence of the performers in my living room can be shocking from CD (I truly wish you could hear that in my room!!), as can be being transported to another venue. I have not yet heard better from vinyl.

 

[CPP]

Well said, and also notice the 3D a great vinyl setup can bring. Compare on an album like Ben Webster meets Oscar Peterson. The digital file (24/192) cut from the same master sounds very different from the vinyl pressing (right from the tapes).

And I agree with you whole heartedly on tone and harmonics.

Since I started this thread, it has put a huge smile on my face every day to read wonderful posts like yours and Randy’s, among others. The whole point of my OP was that we can and should enjoy both. Isn’t that what the hobby is all about?

It’s not unlike modern sports cars that have different driving modes. Isn’t it a lot more fun to have options rather than just one “mode”?

Not to start a controversy, but I will bet once you discover your great vinyl rig, you will enjoy your system and your music even more.

And it doesn't have to cost a small fortune to enjoy the music. Just a balanced system working in sync with each other and a good record and there you go.

 

[mep]

Sorry to disagree with your changed position. I regularly hear top vinyl playback in my friends' systems, in the range of $ 50-80 K for the vinyl rig (incl. phono stage). While vinyl can sound truly wonderful, I do not hear the increase in natural purity and tone, as well as harmonic completeness over my digital of about $ 6.5 K total (see signature) that you do. Vocals, acoustic guitar? You're kidding me, digital excels on that with the right recordings.

I do notice that it is very hard to get file playback to sound as natural as physical CD, which is what I am playing at home (with excellent connection between CD transport and DAC; the AES/EBU cable costs as much, or almost as much, respectively, as either of them).

***

PS: Just saw your post, Mike. No, also in terms of 3D presentation, digital can truly excel. The palpable presence of the performers in my living room can be shocking from CD (I wish you could hear that in my room!!), as can be being transported to another venue. I have not yet heard better from vinyl.

Which of your Boston friends has $80k tied up in just their analog gear? You are seriously delusional about the difference in sound between great analog and $6.5k worth of digital gear. You also have a hyper inflated opinion about your system being a world beater. I’m pretty sure that ACK, Ian, and PeterA would agree that your system is what it is, but it’s not a world beater. I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

 

[Al M.]

Which of your Boston friends has $80k tied up in just their analog gear? You are seriously delusional about the difference in sound between great analog and $6.5k worth of digital gear. You also have a hyper inflated opinion about your system being a world beater. I’m pretty sure that ACK, Ian, and PeterA would agree that your system is what it is, but it’s not a world beater. I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

That's a funny comment. I never said that my system is a world beater, there are better ones out there, for sure, and I have repeatedly and explicitly said so, if not here (since the issue did not come up) then elsewhere. Even though it does many things extraordinarily well, I am well aware of my system's shortcomings. By the way, Ian has the same digital set-up as I do, so I can hear it in his system too. Ack has the same DAC, so I can hear it in his system as well.

 

[aKnyght]

Im gonna change my position...

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre....

thanks for this post -- very useful information and another great data point.

at this point, the holdback on an analog source is in deciding what level to play at... in generic terms, i want to aim to be somewhere in the general area where the cost versus performance curve starts to flatten out.

curious as to which turntables fall into the "real" category where analog can vault ahead of ~$10k digital?

all opinions here are welcome and useful - thanks.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical

Occasionally I feel sorry for 19th century tech luddites and their broken systems, but it quickly passes as it is they who have to suffer through them, not I.
FYI, digital was created largely as a response to the severe limitations of analog for...classical music.
Of course audiophiles (stereophiles really) in bubble world are never exposed to tech like this https://web.archive.org/web/20180521025158/http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm or real time ADA of said vinyl, but if/when it happens, it's all rather amusing.
Hope you are staying safe enjoying music.

cheers,

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I recommend you get your hearing checked if you have truly heard very expensive analog setups and you think your rig is taking on all comers.

Yes, none as grounded in reality and possessing superb hearing as the vinyl at the Villages crowd.

 

[Kuoppis]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in rhe hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

Thanks for sharing, good observations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Myers]

Im gonna change my position. Assume I have the best of the best vinyl of something, and the best of the best digital file. Not even the same album. Just I found a great copy of something.

I have not found a digital file that has the same level of natural purity and tone as vinyl has. This is especially true with vocals and unamplified instruments. Digital excels at pop, rap and rock. Digital just can't do what vinyl does on classical, jazz and chicks with guitar music. The vinyl is more accurate and harmonically complete. It has a more realistic recreation of being there.

This is a comparison between 2 sources, both about $13k. Digital maybe more like 11k. The big jump was getting a "real" TT. A $3k table is not the same as a $10k table. When you leave Project, Rega and step up, the world changes for vinyl. Those tables are not the same game.

When I played in the $6k vinyl to $11K digital, the digital was many times better on all source material and genre. The higher level table vaults ahead of the digital on the above noted genre. I just can't get digital to bridge the gap with my best files in the hard drive via HQ player. Its close on some. Digital is very very good. It's just a tad behind a really good piece of vinyl.

I am very sure you are right, however we all do what we can do, and get the best we can get. I am equally sure that a $10,000 phono stage would sound much better than my little SimAudio , but it is what I have now and it sounds good.

Also, I am really enjoying my $3000 table!

 

[Al M.]

Occasionally I feel sorry for 19th century tech luddites and their broken systems, but it quickly passes as it is they who have to suffer through them, not I.
FYI, digital was created largely as a response to the severe limitations of analog for...classical music.
Of course audiophiles (stereophiles really) in bubble world are never exposed to tech like this https://web.archive.org/web/20180521025158/http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm or real time ADA of said vinyl, but if/when it happens, it's all rather amusing.
Hope you are staying safe enjoying music.

cheers,

AJ

You may exaggerate in the opposite direction. I can hardly call top level vinyl playback "broken", since on great recordings / pressings it compares favorably with great digital. Also, until a few years ago I did prefer top analog myself in terms of absolute sound quality (even though I am a digital-only guy) since I thought digital, and CD in particular, simply could not do some things right that vinyl did well, such as saxophone, solo violin or orchestral massed strings. Now, with recent advances in digital, I am not sure if there is anything that vinyl in principle does better; every time recently where I thought there might be, new experiences called this into doubt. I keep having to think harder and harder when trying to find some superiority of vinyl (and I think Mike's idea that analog gives a better 3D presentation simply doesn't hold up; I wish he could hear CD playback in my system).

As for dynamics: Top level vinyl can sound incredibly dynamic on most material. On orchestral music dynamics usually are somewhat less on 33 rpm records, even though there are exceptions, but orchestral music on 45 rpm can sound outrageously dynamic as well.

Top vinyl playback can indeed be wonderful, and it may even be that my audiophile friends hear some things differently when it comes to analog vs. digital while we listen to the same set-up. That's fine, everyone has their own perceptions, and we all hear things differently in general. Even when sitting next to one another in a concert hall for a live performance of classical music, no kidding.

And yes, sometimes the LP of an analog recording is simply better than the digital, but that has little to do with the medium itself, and more with the quality of the mastering. And conversely, sometimes the digital is just better than the analog LP, no doubt.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

You may exaggerate in the opposite direction.

Glad you got it.
However, the message remains.
Btw, I believe audiophiles when they say vinyl is the limits of their systems and thus preferred.
As an oft attendee (not lately!) of live classical/orchestral (10 min drive) and having heard many a vinyl system, my skepticism have been allayed.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Al M.]

Another thing, and perhaps part of the endurance of a vinyl "myth", is that there seems to linger an idea that the digital process somehow loses information.

Even though I am a digital only guy myself (at least when it comes to my own system; I enjoy vinyl elsewhere), and thus perhaps a bit more open and less prejudiced regarding the matter, it took me quite a long time before I was able to sufficiently understand digital theory. Only after quite intense immersion in the subject, including asking technical questions on forums, it finally clicked and I "got" it.

For someone more biased it might be even harder to grasp the notion that digital indeed fully captures the audio signal. An impediment was of course also that until recent years the audible implementation lagged too far behind the theory and the math, which always had been sound.

 

[Mike]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think if you spend much time playing 'big' music in a 'big' system it is easy to very consistently hear vinyl easily sort out detail and maintain cohesion on peaks.......compared to the relative slight congestion of digital. this is particularly true of the little flairs and nuance when the sound stage is very active. and these details have more definition and energy with vinyl. they have tonal shading missing with digital. there is air and weight with vinyl. the vinyl media has information headroom that the better vinyl playback systems can reveal.

i listen 65%-70% digital in my system; mostly classical and high rez, lots of full orchestral at realistic SPL's. i really enjoy it. that said, it has it's relative limitations. and these things that are easy to hear when you push the media to it's limits, exist at all levels of digital and all types of music. they are just not as simple to pick out unless you get the music under stress. but our senses can tell these differences 'all the time' with any music even though our minds might not fully connect about it.

i'm a format junkie and have invested in the very top level of digital. i've pushed it as far as you can go. it's fantastic. it absolutely 'good enough' and needs nothing to be fully satisfying. but it is what it is. listen to an hour of digital in my system, then let loose with an hour of vinyl on my 3 tt's and it's another level. and none of my 3 tt set-ups individually are as expensive as my digital set-up.

i'm not spouting facts; i'm just saying it's how things sound to me in my system with the commitments i've made to musical truth.

and i did not even mention tape.

 

[Kuoppis]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

22 Kg platter, 27 Kg base, 80 Kg total. That turntable is substantial [emoji15].


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BlueFox]

When you convert Analog to Digital and back to Analog, something is lost since decisions and trade offs have to be made regarding bit and sample rates, among other reasons. Also, there wouldn’t be varying degrees of ADC’s and DAC’s, a $99 unit on each end would suffice, but we know there are better quality ADC’s and DAC’s. When you stay in the analog domain throughout the chain, the sound is more pure IMO. That being said, modern digital recordings throw a monkey wrench in things, as does the constant improvement in ADC’s, DAC’s, higher bit and sampling rates and also, storage capabilities and formats.

That being said, let’s get back to the topic at hand.

Here is a turntable I’m jonesing for...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

 

[XV-1]

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

Yes, variety is the spice of life

 

[Mike]

Why do so many turntable pictures have two arms? Is one cartridge needed for one type of music, and the other for another type of music?

Often, Stereo and mono carts or variety. Some carts are amazing for classical, jazz, rock, whatever. But for me, it’s stereo and mono carts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueFox]

Thanks Mike. Mono never occurred to me.

 

[Mike]

Thanks Mike. Mono never occurred to me.

Bud, when you hear a mono record with a proper mono cartridge, the difference is profound. The soundstage literally doubles in width. My old jazz records like the mono cart!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk