Buy The Very Best Source You Can Afford

[Rich]

1. RB kills the high frequency "air", for lack of a better term, truncating the decay of instruments like cymbals and other high percussion instruments, making them all leading edge and no decay.

2. The overtones of strings, woodwinds and brass instruments are "wrong." Violins, trumpets, flute all sound hard in their middle and upper registers compared to the real thing.

digital bass is dry and lifeless. Basses, the string type, don't sound like wooden instruments, organs lack the air and movement of the real thing and well balanced vinyl.

I beg to differ. I have not experienced any of this with my digital setup, except when playing a poorly mastered CD. On the majority of cds played on my Marantz, highs have great "air" with extended delay times, woodwinds and brass sing with beautiful tonality and acoustic bass has incredible and deep tonality -- nothing dry or hard-edged about it on my system. Edgar Meyer's Bach Cello Suites performed on Double Bass is an excellent example of this. It easily rivals any live performance of Double Bass that I have heard.

4. Regarding noise I would argue that for those of us who pamper our vinyl noise is rarely an issue. Yes we have RCM's, fluids, antistatic guns and numerous and varied brushes but for the vinyl lover these are part of a comforting ritual and make the music more enjoyable.

I grew up with vinyl and still have many old albums, most of which are scratched in some way. My turntable is in my attic. I well remember how much effort it takes to keep records clean and scratch-free. No thanks. The perceived sound quality difference is not worth the inconvenience. And trying to pass this off as a "comforting ritual" that "makes the music more enjoyable?" Please.

6. Some music that I think shows the superiority of vinyl when compared to CD are: 1. Brothers in Arms Dire Straits LP

Interesting that you should choose this record as an example. When I originally auditioned my Ascents, the guy played this album, making special comment that this was the "vinyl edition" as opposed to the cd. I listened intently for any differences that I could make out since this is one of my favorite cds (more due to content than quality), but I could make out no difference between his vinyl version and my cd version.

Bottom line for me: for the money that vinyl costs, and for the headaches associated with it, vinyl just can't compare to cds as a listening source. And I just don't get the sound quality differences that others seem to hear. Perhaps I haven't listened to an expensive enough analog rig, or perhaps others haven't listened to a good enough digital rig. Or perhaps we just all have our personal preferences and that is part of what keeps this hobby interesting.

 

[Pcar928fan]

Bottom line for me: for the money that vinyl costs, and for the headaches associated with it, vinyl just can't compare to cds as a listening source. And I just don't get the sound quality differences that others seem to hear. Perhaps I haven't listened to an expensive enough analog rig, or perhaps others haven't listened to a good enough digital rig. Or perhaps we just all have our personal preferences and that is part of what keeps this hobby interesting.

Some people would say that same thing about Ferrari, Lambo, or Porsche too! Sometimes the BEST things in life take a little working with and fiddling with to be their very best, and that very best can be WORLD BEATING!

 

[Steve]

Here's a different perspective on the debate...growing up, my older brother had boxes and boxes full of 60's and 70's classic rock. That's what I started listening to. Although I am all digital at this point, I still have trouble listening to Stairway to Heaven without the crackles and pops. It just doesn't sound right!

I need to add an old record player with a dusty Led Zeppelin IV record to my system at some point.

But seriously, I've heard an AB comparison of identical recordings on fairly high end equipment and I prefer the sound of the vinyl. Unfortunately, my time and budget are limited, so I haven't moved towards vinyl (yet).

My wife is perfectly content with an iPod or sattelite radio...she just doesn't understand, making the money harder to justify!

 

[twich54]

Or perhaps we just all have our personal preferences and that is part of what keeps this hobby interesting.

BINGO !!! It is a fair assumption that for the most part those who favor viynl are over the age of forty (some of us well beyond that) and we have accumulated a sizeable record collection which adds to our passion.

would I recomend a young person with no viynl dump his/her CD's and switch over to analog, of course not. Yet as a middle aged person with a collection of both analog and digital I can say I find both formats engaging, exciting and damn good !! But when the lights are low and a "dram' of my favorite single malt is poured........it's analog !!

The door is open here in SE Pa to any of the "doubtfull" members who may be in the area and would be interested in a digital / analog comparison. While my set-up my not be the true "high end" both my digital and analog compare quite well.

 

[Robonaut]

And remember Digital out, let it be CoAx, Fiber, or HDMI does not equate to "stunning sound". It all depends on the transport, DAC's, and processing circuits on the other end.

True, but don't you need a good receiver/pre-pro to get the best out of vinyl, too?

Transports can make a WORLD of difference in sound reproduction on players.

Can you explain to me why that would be? About the only thing that I can think of is that a more expensive transport might have less jitter--but I'm not convinced that jitter is even something my ears are capable of detecting. I've done A/B comparisons with FLAC files on my PC (which, I think, should have no jitter) against the original CDs, and I couldn't hear a difference.

 

[DTB300]

True, but don't you need a good receiver/pre-pro to get the best out of vinyl, too?

I do know the Phono Pre is one part of the equation to how well your vinyl setup can sound - but that is only one part and the Vinyl folks here can better answer all the other parts involved and their affect (table, arm, cartridge, force, tracking, cleaning, etc.). Once the source and its components are taken care of, the rest of the chain has the same affects as digital.

Can you explain to me why that would be? About the only thing that I can think of is that a more expensive transport might have less jitter--but I'm not convinced that jitter is even something my ears are capable of detecting. I've done A/B comparisons with FLAC files on my PC (which, I think, should have no jitter) against the original CDs, and I couldn't hear a difference.

The ability for a drive to track a disc and read the data off the disc with as little error as possible, and with as little disruption from vibration, equates to better reading abilities and less "guessing" or error correction of the data - just like the ability of a vinyl setup to track the grooves in a record. For example the drives used in the Esoteric are far superior in their build and quality, hence they make for a great transport. Here is a link to some pictures of the drives used by Esoteric and those used in most players...it is picture 3 and 4 in the article...BTW, these are ridiculously priced players....Cost of the transport alone is $3k bought in quantities of 50

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/esoteric4/trio.html

Jitter is discussed more with the digital stream and processing and not the reading process. To be able to hear what less Jitter can do for your sound, get one of the new Super Clocks (I hate that name) installed in your CD player and hear the difference with just that change. LC Clock, Audiocom, and Tent Clock are a couple of names that you will hear about when discussing upgraded clocks for players. Modwright, Vacuum State, and Audiocom all do clock replacements.

Of course there is much more to mods on a player than just upgrading the clock to significantly improve the sound. Most of the top-notch modders have designed brand new circuits for the DAC and Analog playback.

Dan

 

[jjqiv]

well put. I went the spend less on speaker route, and I won't do it again or advise anyone to go that route. All points are valid, I just feel that when you audition a great speaker, you should get the best speaker you can, and get entry level source, and amps. The entry level electronics, are pretty good these days. This way when you have a chance to get a great source, and amps you don't have to worry about how much you're not hearing, because you know what your speakers are capable of with great electronics.:musicnote:

Not in my experience. I have found that realy good electronics on a decent, but modest speakers will usually sound more musical than decent, but modest electronics on highly revealing speakers.

 

[MiTT]

True, but don't you need a good receiver/pre-pro to get the best out of vinyl, too?

Can you explain to me why that would be? About the only thing that I can think of is that a more expensive transport might have less jitter--but I'm not convinced that jitter is even something my ears are capable of detecting. I've done A/B comparisons with FLAC files on my PC (which, I think, should have no jitter) against the original CDs, and I couldn't hear a difference.

First off, I too want to applaud the group as a whole for a very active, passionate thread that has continued to be both civil and respectfull - one of the greatest aspects of this community. Thanks guys for a great thread!

Robonaut, I'll continue to utter my mantra that in things audio EVERYTHING matters. Part of why my analog rig sounds as good as it does is because of the Aesthetix phonostage driving the signal to my pre-amp, just like the reason Redbook CD sounds very good through my system is because of the great DAC's in my Esoteric digital rig, or the Dodson DAC I use for my secondary digital rig. For that matter, the cartridge I use, the headshell leads, the interconnect etc., all of it has a contribution to the overall synergy of the system. As we all upgrade our systems we add new levels of resolution that continue to enhance our systems ability to detect the differences in those levels of resolution.

The Oppo is a VERY good ~$200.00 digital player, but I suspect that if you were to listen to it in a very highly resolving system next to one of the newer Rega players, your appreciation of it as a $200.00 player may not waver, but your desire for the Rega might make you lust for a change based upon the difference you could readily hear. I can appreciate the sound of the Rega players, but in my system I can hear some dramatic improvements wrought by the addition of the Esoteric player. It is clearly (to my ears) superior, as it should be for the difference in price.

So it is with my analog rig, and truthfully, so it is with this hobby we all love so much. For most of us, there will always be something that is just a little better. The key I think is in appreciating what we are able to manage within each of our own lives and priorities.

Regarding the differences between transports, I think Dan hit the proverbial nail on the head. Again, everything matters. A rock solid, stable tranport, free of external vibration, mechanically grounded with close attention to resonances and such would logically need to do less error correction thus freeing the rest of the system up to deal with music rather than noise and data correction. Take a good look at the picture below comparing the Esoteric transport with those use by Denon, Pioneer and Marantz (and coincidentally McIntosh, Ayre, Meridian etc.) and it should be readily apparent why the Esoteric transports are regarded as the finest around.

In my own system I've had friends over to listen to the differences between music direct from my hard disc via a friends SqueezeBox via my Dodson DAC, compared to the same music via my Anthem CDP-1 through the Dodson DAC, compared to the same music via the Esoteric player via the Dodson DAC and the differences are very notable and repeatable with the Esoteric always coming out on top. The differences have to do with imaging and soundstage for the most part, but also with tonal balance and even decay time as well. The Esoteric setup simply sounds more musical and real - though to be fair, none of it sounds like dreck.

The analog rig simply takes it all to another level, but I think Risabet did a stellar job of describing what most of the differences are with regard to the format. Also, like Dave, my door is always open to any of you who would care to come listen and decide for yourselves. Sincerely, if you're ever in Denver I'll make time for a visit. Nothing should convince you but your own ears.

Last, but certainly not least, as many here have advocated, it's all really about the music. As long as it moves you - F*^K the equipment, you're engaged in ART!

:rocker:

 

[amey01]

Givens: digital is more convenient, it certainly is more portable. Other than that I don't believe digital competes with vinyl.

Though I doubt you'll be swayed, here are some of the differences I hear between vinyl and RBCD as compared to the real thing which in my estimation is unamplified music played in a real acoustic space. This in no way indicts SACD/DVD-A which are in my opinion much better than RBCD but still not up to vinyl.

1. RB kills the high frequency "air", for lack of a better term, truncating the decay of instruments like cymbals and other high percussion instruments, making them all leading edge and no decay. Vinyl gives these instruments a better presentation and integrates the fundamental with the harmonic better, IMO. This integration makes the instruments more believable sounding and adds the dimension of space to the music that IMO digital doesn't provide.

2. The overtones of strings, woodwinds and brass instruments are "wrong." Violins, trumpets, flute all sound hard in their middle and upper registers compared to the real thing. Vinyl tends to be more correct in reproducing these overtones and when well done allows the listener to better differentiate between similar sounding instruments, e.g. English horn and oboe, violin and viola, trumpet and cornet.

3. Regarding the bass and dynamics of vinyl I would point you to the Classic Records 45 rpm reissue of Ravel's Alborado del Gracioso (LSC-2222-45) which is a reference for both wide dynamic swings and dynamic bass impact. Where CD falls off IMO is in bass dryness, yes bass is extended but, except for mega expensive unit such as the McIntosh separates, digital bass is dry and lifeless. Basses, the string type, don't sound like wooden instruments, organs lack the air and movement of the real thing and well balanced vinyl. Once again a type of dryness seeps into the music that isn't there in life or on well reproduced vinyl.

4. Regarding noise I would argue that for those of us who pamper our vinyl noise is rarely an issue. Yes we have RCM's, fluids, antistatic guns and numerous and varied brushes but for the vinyl lover these are part of a comforting ritual and make the music more enjoyable. The majority of my albums are perfectly quiet.

5. Taken together I find digital to be like a simulacrum of the real thing whereas analog (vinyl) is more like real instruments playing in real spaces. The warmth and tonal balance of vinyl is simply more consonant with the sound of real music as I hear it.

6. Some music that I think shows the superiority of vinyl when compared to CD are: 1. Brothers in Arms Dire Straits LP WB 125264; CD
2. Copland Appalachian Spring LP RR22; CD RR-22CD
3. Rickie Lee Jones S/T

A-ha! Thank you Risabet! This certainly sounds very interesting and gives me something to listen out for next time I hear analogue. I'm actually going to try to hear a C-5xe or SRCD3 in the next few weeks and compare this with a slightly less in cost TT and see what I think - I don't think this is an unfair comparison. I must say though - it is going to have to be vastly superior, not slightly superior for me to add another format (and all the inconvenience that goes with it) to my system! I will also have another little listen to my junky Dual TT and see if I can hear some of what you are talking about.

 

[jjqiv]

A-ha! Thank you Risabet! This certainly sounds very interesting and gives me something to listen out for next time I hear analogue. I'm actually going to try to hear a C-5xe or SRCD3 in the next few weeks and compare this with a slightly less in cost TT and see what I think - I don't think this is an unfair comparison. I must say though - it is going to have to be vastly superior, not slightly superior for me to add another format (and all the inconvenience that goes with it) to my system! I will also have another little listen to my junky Dual TT and see if I can hear some of what you are talking about.

Yes, that's not a fair comparison. You should try to demo a much better digital source to equal things out.

 

[Pcar928fan]

True, but don't you need a good receiver/pre-pro to get the best out of vinyl, too?

Isn't that true for ALL formats?! I mean I do see $15k transports and $12k DAC's out there for them so that you can get THE BEST out of your CD's! Sure there are $100k TT's and then add in a phono stage for $20k and you are well beyond the top of the line CD/digital gear, but it is true with everything. The BEST will always cost you! And it will usually cost you dearly!

Now all that said, I would argue that for the same X dollars you will get a better CD player than TT. Does it actually SOUND better...that is subjective FOR SURE!

I also agree that the best reason to get a TT is to play your valuable and irreplaceable vinyl collection... If you don't already have vinyl and/or a large disposable income I would probably tell folks to stay in the digital domain and enjoy it!

YMMV!

 

[Pcar928fan]

Not in my experience. I have found that realy good electronics on a decent, but modest speakers will usually sound more musical than decent, but modest electronics on highly revealing speakers.

It is all about perspective. You get less of the information from cheap speakers because they just can't produce it. You get less information fomr cheap electronics that can't produce it. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I guess if you have GOOD speakers you just KNOW you missing stuff! If you have cheap speakers you may not even REALIZE what you are missing!

 

[Pcar928fan]

I must say though - it is going to have to be vastly superior, not slightly superior for me to add another format (and all the inconvenience that goes with it) to my system! I will also have another little listen to my junky Dual TT and see if I can hear some of what you are talking about.

Keep in mind to it does depend on what you listen to. I have a lot of Christian Rock from the early 80's that is not now, has never been, and never WILL BE available any other way than vinyl! Well, ok there may be some cassette tapes that have not turned to dust yet...BUT THEY WILL and then all that will be left are the records! That is the MAIN reason why I have a TT in my system.

 

[amey01]

Yes, that's not a fair comparison. You should try to demo a much better digital source to equal things out.

I have said it this way because I already own a SACD player with some value - that would be traded in on a digital source but would have to be kept if I were to obtain an analogue source, meaning there are more funds available for a digital source!

 

[jjqiv]

It is all about perspective. You get less of the information from cheap speakers because they just can't produce it. You get less information fomr cheap electronics that can't produce it. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I guess if you have GOOD speakers you just KNOW you missing stuff! If you have cheap speakers you may not even REALIZE what you are missing!

No, with good speakers and not so great electronics, its hearing what you don't want to hear (distortion, noise, glare, digititius, etc.). You will get some boxiness and colorations with less expensive speakers but its more a problem of ommision. Its a trade off between sins and omissions.

 

[jjqiv]

Keep in mind to it does depend on what you listen to. I have a lot of Christian Rock from the early 80's that is not now, has never been, and never WILL BE available any other way than vinyl! Well, ok there may be some cassette tapes that have not turned to dust yet...BUT THEY WILL and then all that will be left are the records! That is the MAIN reason why I have a TT in my system.

The Exact cartridge is your probably weak link in your analog chain. Clearaudio make some nice entry level cartridges that would do your system more justice. There are many others. Rega is known for there tables not their cartridges.

 

[jjqiv]

I have said it this way because I already own a SACD player with some value - that would be traded in on a digital source but would have to be kept if I were to obtain an analogue source, meaning there are more funds available for a digital source!

Analog has a higher entry-level point. But, I believe you can get a really high-end sound for less with an analog set-up if you shop wisely. You also need the software. If you live in the right area, used, inexpensive, and clean vinyl is easy to find. A HUNT Carbon Fiber brush will remove most of noise from a relatively clean LP. Make sure the table is set-up correctly and placed on level, vibration free surface. I would say a wall shelf is almost a must if you have suspended floors.

 

[edwinr]

Robonaut, I'll continue to utter my mantra that in things audio EVERYTHING matters... Regarding the differences between transports, I think Dan hit the proverbial nail on the head. Again, everything matters.

A rock solid, stable tranport, free of external vibration, mechanically grounded with close attention to resonances and such would logically need to do less error correction thus freeing the rest of the system up to deal with music rather than noise and data correction. Take a good look at the picture below comparing the Esoteric transport with those use by Denon, Pioneer and Marantz (and coincidentally McIntosh, Ayre, Meridian etc.) and it should be readily apparent why the Esoteric transports are regarded as the finest around.

:rocker:

Obviously a stable transport will give the subsequent data processing electronics less work to do. This must result in a better sound overall - free from unecessary error correction. Some of the lessor players that feature less well engineered transports obviously rely on sophisticated error correction to deliver the high quality sound. I think this may be apparent in listening comparisons with more esoteric players which appear more analogue sounding than their competition.

Regardless of how the manufacturers achieve their goals, I believe it is only recently that manufacturers have caught up with the potential of 16 bit CD. Some of the latest upsampling players have attracted my attention, and the sounds I have heard have made me seriously consider a source upgrade.

The Mark Levinson currently in my care, has revealed detail that I never knew existed on my CD's. I have pulled CD's out that I haven't heard in years. They sound better than ever. Unfortunately, some CD's that I thought were very good, have revealed themselves to be rather poorly mixed and recorded. For example the solid bass lines that I previously liked in some CD's have now revealed themselves to be rather plodding one note bass lines with little extension...

 

[silver98]

edwinr, if you really want to be blown away, get rid of that No39 and replace with a No37 CD Transport and couple it to a No360 DAC. Now with that source combination, take a look at the interconnects and you will quickly find that a $100 Wireworld interconnect is crap when AB compared to a higher-end cable. So yes Virginia, cables DO make a difference, but only when the components that are being connected have sufficient resolution and transparency to warrant the extra $$$ on cables.

oh, my system??? ML No37, No360 and No380 connected with Purist Audio Maximus cables. I have heard the difference better source and cables make. You owe it to yourself, but not your wallet, to audition as many components and cables as you can get your hands / ears on!!

Enjoy the ride, your ears will love you for the experience

 

[Robonaut]

The ability for a drive to track a disc and read the data off the disc with as little error as possible, and with as little disruption from vibration, equates to better reading abilities and less "guessing" or error correction of the data - just like the ability of a vinyl setup to track the grooves in a record. For example the drives used in the Esoteric are far superior in their build and quality, hence they make for a great transport. Here is a link to some pictures of the drives used by Esoteric and those used in most players...it is picture 3 and 4 in the article...BTW, these are ridiculously priced players....Cost of the transport alone is $3k bought in quantities of 50

Please stop! :stop:

All this talk about the benefits of chunky transports is making me fantasize about getting a Sony SCD-1!

I've seen a lot of CD players that cost a lot more money, but I think that the SCD-1 is the most aesthetically pleasing to my eyes.

And it's supposed to sound absolutely gorgeous, too... :drool:

Jitter is discussed more with the digital stream and processing and not the reading process. To be able to hear what less Jitter can do for your sound, get one of the new Super Clocks (I hate that name) installed in your CD player and hear the difference with just that change. LC Clock, Audiocom, and Tent Clock are a couple of names that you will hear about when discussing upgraded clocks for players. Modwright, Vacuum State, and Audiocom all do clock replacements.

Hmm, from the quick bit of reading that I did on these mods, it almost sounds like that they're adding some kind of word clock to the player. I wonder if a pro-audio player like the Tascam DV-RA1000 (which has word clock in and out) would offer a similar advantage?