...Any Turntable is never going to sound as good as a good digital source...WHAT ?

[Blue Shadow]

Digital is always best in my car.

Not me at one point. Portable cdp into the aux in on the Concord HPL-550 vs. a tape recorded on a Luxman K-12 cassette deck and the cassette was a better source. But the Sony D-7 isn't the best sounding portable and the K-12 is a great tape machine.

Once the Alpine went in the car with the cdc in the trunk the cd took over but the K-12/Concord system sounded better but didn't make the move to the newer car.

 

[Mark 1234]

Don't have any tapes but Pandora vs my DP80 in the car.. no comparison

 

[knotscott]

8-track has a more realistic clunking noise between tracks than any them.

 

[Pio1980]

I hate it when someone with "credentials" tries to convince others that they know better. Didn't he say he designed tube equipment? Tube technology is equivalent with vinyl. Wouldn't you think he would be a transistor "solid state" guy if he's opposed to old school tech.
I agree that digital outperforms analog on paper but not in the emotional arena. Digital to me sounds too one dimensional or flat. It doesn't breathe life into the music like vinyl does.
I like digital but I like analog more.
If you don't agree with me, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits!

The last line brought this to mind:

 

[Champco]

I hate it when someone with "credentials" tries to convince others that they know better. Didn't he say he designed tube equipment? Tube technology is equivalent with vinyl. Wouldn't you think he would be a transistor "solid state" guy if he's opposed to old school tech.
I agree that digital outperforms analog on paper but not in the emotional arena. Digital to me sounds too one dimensional or flat. It doesn't breathe life into the music like vinyl does.
I like digital but I like analog more.
If you don't agree with me, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits!

NOOOOOOOoooooooooo Not Camel Fleas!!!!!!

OK ok ok ... lets example, on a Friday night.

The Secrets

By Alan Parsons. I have had the collectors box set ordered before distribution. It's on youtube.. The CD sounds better on the same system. Being the collectors set the LP Album Vinyl was to be kept sealed. right? Sorry. I'm getting old and it's mine and I'm hearing it. If per chance one is not familiar with Alan just google or whatever but credentials will most likely never be matched.
After thumbnailing the shrink into the recording department (was truly fun) And placing said record on the turntable....
Keep in mind I have heard this a dozen times end to end. It grows on you. The SECRETS. immediately there were parts I had not heard within the music. Minor sounds what not, may have been how it is mixed??? Very very much enjoyed the record, as it more, placed itself around you. I think Alan engineered it? Not certain. Have not looked. Enjoy...

 

[bluemooze]

...I've been reading/researching 'Turntables and Vinyl Sound Quality' in regards to Digital Sound Sources...Am I wrong here?...

Listening will convince you more effectively than reading/researching. The guy you're quoting obviously hasn't heard a good turntable setup. And it seems like you haven't either. But I have, and the records I play have better sound than their digital counterparts almost always.

My two turntable setups that easily sound better than digital....
Denon DP-47f turntable
Ortofon Quintet Black
Moon 110lp v2 phono preamp

Technics SL-1700 II
NOS Pickering XSP/3003 cartridge / D3000 stylus
Graham Slee Reflex M

You don't need multi-million dollar equipment to hear this for yourself. Well-cared-for/well-mastered/well-manufactured/mint/NM records make a huge difference of course.

Willingness to try different combinations of LP playback equipment is very helpful. For example, finding a good match up of cartridge and phono preamp is pretty important. Phono preamps can drastically alter the sound you get from a cartridge. If you were given a cartridge and three phono preamps, after enough listening you would be able to identify which of the three preamps sounded best with that cartridge. Change cartridges and you might get different results.

 

[AdlerW]

Vinyl is just different. It's not about better/worse for me. Vinyl has a lot more variables, there's a lot more that can go wrong, there are more opportunities for imperfection. But it has things digital recordings don't have, nuances you can hear...I like both and it's not a competition between them for me.

 

[S. Pupp]

I prefer the concept of vinyl, but cannot stand pitch instability, nor the Rice Krispies snap, crackle, pop of vinyl.

 

[Taketheflame]

Once I heard vinyl on a half decent system, I knew that was the sound for me. It may measure worse in terms of technical specs/accuracy (and dirty/noisy records aren't so fun), but that's never bothered me when I'm happy with how it sounds.

That being said, I still think digital sometimes gets an unfair rep due to the amount of poor "brickwalled" masters out there that plague the CD/digital versions of too many good releases.

 

[bolero]

I listen to both

I spin CD's or the media server when I am cleaning the house and just want music playing, without wearing out my tubes or stylus'

but when I sit down with a drink and want to really get absorbed, it's vinyl

I guess the qualifying statement in the OP is "good digital source"

So I suppose ( for example ) if you found an '80's Barry Diament authored CD of Led Zeppelin I or II, it would be very good

 

[Supercool!]

My favorite little game is to play the LP and CD version simultaneously and switch between the two. My Consonance pre allows me to volume match each source and store that volume level for each source. If you offset them you can hear the same section via each format for comparison.

 

[Wolfie62]

All the Sound and Recording Engineers I know, prefer Digital to Vinyl. They are a pragmatic bunch, not really into aesthetics as much as the best "product", and the most convenient format for themselves, their clients and/or their employers. IME.

Digital requires SO much less work to get it “right” than analog. If I was a recording engineer, analog mastering for vinyl would be an absolute nightmare! Too much to compensate for. It requires too much thought and ART!

How many rap and hip-hop digital recordings have been made using a lap top and a few mics in a basement?

 

[Lou G]

I was an avid vinyl user for 40 years. I was always very obsessive with my vinyl setup. I regularly calibrated my turntables, used clean room gloves when handling my LPs, and built my own ultrasonic cleaner in 1975. About 10 years ago, I decided to experiment with wirelessly streaming my lossless ripped CDs to an Airport Express connected to a stand alone DAC. I was immediately amazed at the sound quality. It easily surpassed any of my 3 CD players that I had at that time (Denon DCM 460, Oppo BDP 93 and a Sony CDP-707ESD). To my surprise, it also was more pleasing than my LPs on either of my 2 turntables (a Dual 1229 with a Shure V15 III and a Thorens TD160 with a SME tonearm and either a Shure V15 III or Orthofon OM).

Over the years, I upgraded my DACs and the SQ is even better. Currently I am running a Mac Mini headless as my music server. With this setup, I have never experienced any digital glare or harshness. Instead the sound is very smooth, rich and full sounding with outstanding dynamics and a completely silent background. I could listen to my ripped CDs all day on any of my 3 systems without any fatigue. I can even hear details and nuances that I never heard when playing LPs. Even my wife commented on the detail and clarity of the sound compared to my LPs.

Combined with the SQ, the ease of use and the ability to control music selections from my iPhone or iPad and stream to multiple rooms, it is a no brainer. My wife loves it so much that I had to put together a system just for her.

 

[the_nines]

Hard to choose between analog and digital on a "good" system.

To say otherwise, you haven't really heard a serious vinyl setup.

Sorry.





A few nibbles here and there ...

Now, on with the entertainment.

......

 

[mackat]

I think the bottom line is that there is a difference between what you or I view (or hear, rather) as "better", and what is scientifically proven to be a better technology. Digital has more technological advantages. I don't think you'll find many that would argue that point. It is just that, though, objectively, technologically more advanced. That does not necessarily mean "better" in the subjective sense of the term.

There are reasons that many thousands, likely millions, of people still enjoy listening to analog reproduction of music. Some subjectively think it sounds better. Some simply enjoy tinkering with the various gadgets that come with it. Some like the routine of setting the stylus down on the record and watching it turn round and round. All of these people are valid in their subjective observations.

There is room for both analog and digital in modern day hi-fi. Both have the potential to sound amazing, less than amazing, or somewhere in between. Not everybody has to like both, and that is the beauty of personal preference!

 

[damacman]

I recently bought a VPI Avenger and have enjoyed it immensely. Lately, I'm on a shiny disc kick - and enjoying that immensely.

Life's just too damn short to draw a line in the sand and pick a side in a hobby.

 

[cafe latte]

Vinyl won't ever have the same pitch stability or the same S/N ratio or the same frequency response or the same freedom from sub-sonic noise or the same feedback immunity.
Whether or not that makes vinyl sound inferior is a matter of debate.

Actually vinyl can go up to 40KHz cd cant, and most digital sources cant either to technically vinyl has a far greater frequency response.
Chris

 

[bigx5murf]

Hi Group,
I've been reading/researching 'Turntables and Vinyl Sound Quality' in regards to Digital Sound Sources. and came up with a very interesting quote.
This was from another Vinyl site [International one] and is a quote from a retired BBC Sound/TV Engineer.

"...I design my own Tube Amps, I am an Engineer through and through, being a former BBC Sound/TV Engineer.
I know a reasonable amount about Audio, Recording and Hi-Fi, and not the B.S. Audiophile nonsense, but Real Audio.
To be fair, Any turntable is NEVER going to sound as good as a good Digital Source.
Not ever period..."

WHAT!!??

- Is that a True Statement?

So why then am I (and everyone else here) trying so hard to achieve something closely similiar using Turntables?

Am I wrong here?

Puzzled in Maine

Irv.

Bad digital sources outnumber good ones by a wide margin. Too many have had their dynamic range compressed in pursuit of loudness. This is less likely an issue with vinyl since there are physical limits that must be conformed to.

So yes vinyl will never match the accuracy of a well mastered digital source. But good luck finding well mastered digital sources in the age of streaming, and decades of loudness wars CDs.

 

[Macaroonie]

Digital audio was introduced in 1982 in the US and 83 in Europe. It was the result of a collaboration between Philips in the Netherlands and Sony. The design hinged around the desire to produce a 'familiar' medium , ie. a disc in a compact format. (as you see to this day )
The physical dimensions and the need to accomodate a full album , 45 mins then determined the digital resolution.
The engineers agonised over the problem but in the end the 44.1KHz sample frequency was adopted as ' good enough ' !!
What that means in practice is that at the recording , or encoding stage the highest frequencies are only getting a few samples of the waveform..
This is exactly where all the harmonic information is and is why the current digital system is lacking . Try an A/B of a really good female vocal you will hear it immediately.

Now , 40 , yes 40 years on it has got worse what with MP3.

Can anyone name another digital medium that has stood still for 40 years. Jeez you can get a USB thumb drive with 164GB on it for low money !!
Getting back to the history , at about the same time there were a couple of other digital systems proposed.
The one that seemed most promising came from DBX who had a system running at 700KHz
( ie x15 compared to CD ) I didn't have an opportunity to hear it but those that did reported outstanding quality. DBX offered this across the industry free of license but as CD was ready to go the industry declined. And so there you have it.
I never did understand why with the extra capacity of a DVD the record companies didn't offer standard CD and Hi RES on the the one disc , hence no redundancy of consumers equipment.

Others have mentioned mastering and the horrid compression used. Headache inducing.

In a nutshell , the number crunching that is available now leaves no excuse for crappy sound and 40 year old technoogy..
It's time the RECORDING INDUSTRY wakes up and delivers the goodies , the storage and delivery media are there already.

 

[Frank Sol]

.

I think the bottom line is that there is a difference between what you or I view (or hear, rather) as "better", and what is scientifically proven to be a better technology. Digital has more technological advantages. I don't think you'll find many that would argue that point.

It is just that, though, objectively, technologically more advanced.

That does not necessarily mean "better" in the subjective sense of the term.

QFT