Audio Chews: the hi-fi and music community

Alan

I recently read an old chestnut on another forum, one that has been repeated many times, namely that 'an average vinyl system will beat a very good digital system'.

I am the first to admit that DACs have really moved on in the last two years or so, things are now stupidly good for around £500 - 1000, instead of the usual 'high end' budget (perhaps even less money if you account for decent soundcards on a PC).

I also believe that CD transports are prohibitively expensive when engineered adequately, and that even a basic computer transport can be superior to the majority of CD spinners. Spend some serious dough on a specifically designed and engineered computer transport that is solely for audio and there may be another level of performance available (this is beyond my means at the moment).

But - are audiophile expectations and received wisdom correct here? For instance: a TT will cost a certain amount, say £300 ish, then a cartridge for £200 ish, maybe another lump for a different tonearm. And some more for a suitable shelf/support, so anywhere from £500 ish for a budget setup to £1500 for a middling rig and easily (and often) substantially more if you start with a better deck/arm/cartridge, or want to re-plinth it.

Then a set of decent phono cables to a phono stage, which may be £100 or £700.

Then consider the care needed to set up the system properly, all of which is a black art AFAIAC and demands careful attention.

So there are audiophiles with vinyl rigs costing (more often than not) in excess of £2-3k making bold claims that digital cannot compare. Often these claims appear to be based on a £3-500 DAC hanging off the back of a hand me down CD player or the family laptop. This half arsed approach is a real disadvantage for digital, and this is before we take into account that much of the music already out there is mastered better for vinyl. (Surely mastering quality is more critical than format anyway).

If anything like the amount of money and thought went into a digital system as does the average 'decent' vinyl rig, I am not so sure there would be any clear winner.

I use digital. Because it is convenient for me and my family. Vinyl is neither suitable nor affordable from our POV right now. But having heard several really good vinyl rigs recently I am struck by how much they sound like really good digital. Or is it really good digital sounds like really good vinyl? Or more likely that really good sources, with enough thought and money behind them, will both be excellent. Viv la differance!

uglymusic

All of what he said.

I prefer to focus on digital because digital does what I want better than 90-odd% of TTs, so why split my budget?

Brain_Dead

Having tried a few DAC's and other digital lies, I found that if you use the best devices you can indeed get a very nice sound from them. But I still think TT etc has a warmer nicer sound especially on piano (sorry Alan), now could this be a added effect from this mechanical music media or real? maybe. But it is the sound I like the digital lies are just to hard for me, and often sound like finger nails run down a black board eh horrid.

Now I have tried a 24bit and a 32bit devices it is very close for me, but I would miss the crackle and pops that my beloved vinyl brings to the media.

Alan

Brain_Dead said:
Having tried a few DAC's and other digital lies, I found that if you use the best devices you can indeed get a very nice sound from them. But I still think TT etc has a warmer nicer sound especially on piano (sorry Alan), now could this be a added effect from this mechanical music media or real? maybe. But it is the sound I like the digital lies are just to hard for me, and often sound like finger nails run down a black board eh horrid.
Now I have tried a 24bit and a 32bit devices it is very close for me, but I would miss the crackle and pops that my beloved vinyl brings to the media.

That's cool, Col - nice observations. It's all about what you like at the end of the day (calling the hobby 'High Fidelity' is almost an oxymoron), I wasn't challenging preferences.

A 'warm' sound is particularly pleasant (and often desirable, it seems) but I have never heard a real piano sound 'warm'. No one ever listened to an ensemble and responded by saying it didn't sound real, or was too detailed or not warm enough...these are all 'sonic condiments' that we can add to our music by our equipment choices, whether analogue or digital. TBH, one probably wouldn't want too realistic reproduction at home, especially dynamically.

My observation is that digital is not always given a fair crack either in terms of careful thought or money spent. As I said, the best TT sources I have heard sounded just like the best digital I have heard.

Alan

Funnily enough, listening to the TQblack in my system I feel I can tell
you (as it's designer) favour a 'class A warmth'. There is a slight but
definite character to the cables that leans in that direction. As I
think I said in my original impression of the TQ, my previous cable was
ever so slightly more neutral (and occasionally harsh on the HF - can't
remember if I mentioned that?) but that the TQ does something special
WRT imaging, which I was and still am quite taken with, though I would
anticipate any character would diminish further up the range.

Docfoster

My vinyl front end (TT, cart', phono stage, cabling) is about £1700 all in. The TT was SH.
My digital front end is about £1900 including cabling and a bit of extra software.
The similarity of these costs was not aimed for. At least not consciously.
Obviously the TFS has a bit more functionality than the TT (video, Internet, etc.,... Unless the most recent LP12 upgrades now include google chrome...?).
Both require a certain amount of fiddling and maintenance. Tho neither require very much.
The TT is very revealing of the cleanliness or otherwise of records, so RCM expense and time are a further consideration for my vinyl listening. For the purposes of comparing sound quality I will assume that records or clean.
I am very happy with the sound from both my Pioneer and my TFS. In many ways they are similar in that imho they are neutral, realistic and musical.
For reasons of convenience, control and laziness I listen more to digital, but sound wise I'd be hard pressed to choose, though I am most pleased with my system when it is playing some (tho not all) of my hi-res digital files.
For me then, sound wise, pound for pound it's a close run thing.

PAC

I don't want to throw a spanner in the works here, but buying used, you can assemble a giant killing vinyl front end for under £1000. garrard 401 based (used from £300 to £400), Shure cart (M95) for £70 odd, a half decent phono stage from £150 and a decnt tonearm for as little as £300. Add say something like the RFC pluto's at under £100 and you have a great front end.

The argument for me isn't about vinyl V's CD but whether a good recording sounds acceptably good on vinyl and acceptably good on CD (and here I'll confess that what I consider as "acceptably" good is very good!). Given that the speakers are there and we know they deliver (for argument's sake) then for an equivalent recording with at least (say) 50dB dynamic range on a all engineered recording, CD has it by virtue of lower noise floor and often better separation. The differences could be minute though. A good well cared for (or new) vinyl album v's a CD of the same or similar recording compared often demonstrates that both are equally as good (or as bad) as each other.

The point is though that to achieve this comparison, far greater care is needed to assemble and set up the right vinyl front ends, but give me £1000 budget for both and a few really good recordings and I can almost guarantee that both will sound acceptably good and very similar.

All to often what we are really comparing are poor quality recordings with perhaps better quality recordings or a good digital front end with a poorly set up vinyl front end when in reality that is like comparing apples with oranges.

Vinyl can sound more coloured (and that's not necessarily a bad thing) by virtue (?) of increased distortion over digital. That distortion is not only related to the record itself (condition and mastering) but to things like temperature and humiditiy (affects cantilever suspension), pitch stability, record warp, tonearm set up etc etc.

In short, both can sound incredible but CD technically is the superior format. That isn't justification for it being branded as better as there are many CD's (most of mine!) which are inferior recordings. There's room for both but to my mind it's all about the recording and about the collections we already enjoy. If I were starting afresh with no vinyl, CDP would be my preferred front end but I'd still have vinyl for a) the challenge! and b) for the tactile nature of the medium and the enjoyment had from visiting record shops to buy 60's and 70's music on first pressings which often far exceed (technically) some of the later digital remasters if in good nick.

Alan

Definitely room for both Paul, no doubt at all. £1000 gets a pretty nifty 'puter based system too of course, say a few hundred on a MAC, £30 on Audirvana+ and £5-600 for a second hand Young or MDAC.

BTW, Your old Hornings are for sale on the Wam this morning...

Docfoster

Dave's point about splitting budget is one worth making.
If I was starting out now I don't think vinyl would feature in my setup. But, as it is, I have loads of LPs that I bought in the 80s and 90s, that I can't part with!

uglymusic

Yeah. That point about format is the practical reason why we have what we have.

That's fine, but that doesn't excuse the 'Vinyl is better than digital. Period' claims.

We (hi-fi enthusiasts) should be past this now.

</grumpy outburst>

uglymusic

PAC said:

In short, both can sound incredible but CD technically is the superior format. That isn't justification for it being branded as better as there are many CD's (most of mine!) which are inferior recordings. There's room for both but to my mind it's all about the recording and about the collections we already enjoy. If I were starting afresh with no vinyl, CDP would be my preferred front end but I'd still have vinyl for a) the challenge! and b) for the tactile nature of the medium and the enjoyment had from visiting record shops to buy 60's and 70's music on first pressings which often far exceed (technically) some of the later digital remasters if in good nick.

I think i'm in agreement with you, there, Paul.

I find myself in almost a 180 degree reversal of your buying habits. Nearly all of the new jazz I buy (and that's probably 50% or 60% of what I buy) is only available in digital. The small independent/artist-owned labels I buy a lot from just don't make the material available on vinyl. Choice made!

PAC

PAC said:

In short, both can sound incredible but CD technically is the superior format. That isn't justification for it being branded as better as there are many CD's (most of mine!) which are inferior recordings. There's room for both but to my mind it's all about the recording and about the collections we already enjoy. If I were starting afresh with no vinyl, CDP would be my preferred front end but I'd still have vinyl for a) the challenge! and b) for the tactile nature of the medium and the enjoyment had from visiting record shops to buy 60's and 70's music on first pressings which often far exceed (technically) some of the later digital remasters if in good nick.

I think i'm in agreement with you, there, Paul.

I find myself in almost a 180 degree reversal of your buying habits. Nearly all of the new jazz I buy (and that's probably 50% or 60% of what I buy) is only available in digital. The small independent/artist-owned labels I buy a lot from just don't make the material available on vinyl. Choice made!

In your shoes, I'd do exactly the same Dave. I'm discovering new music every day and most of it is digital based. Due to owning a substantial lump of vinyl I've kept and optimised my TT's as well as plumped for a decent CDP. I had tinkered with DAC's and computer based front ends (in fact I still have a DAP which I use as a source and refresh the playlist every now and again) but for me, its more trouble than its worth when I can get what I want on CD for the most part. I agree that we should all vbe over the "which is best" argument as it's really a non argument to music lovers. I have one original Django LP from the late 1950s and pops, crackles and all, I wouldn't change it for the world, it's fabulous for the music and atmosphere it conjures up.

The new arguments over CD v's streamed high res or DAP high res are also a non-starter for me. For someone more concerned with the OCD of absoluteness, I can see there may be a chink to investigate, but IME, its usually at the expense of enjoying music plus I can't really honestly hear that much difference between high res and a decent CD because (probably) my ears are not capable of resolving such differences and I suspect very few are.

It's all about the music for me, but saying that, I can't bring myself to part with either the 401 or the Gyro so both still clutter up the living room!

PAC

Alan said:
Definitely room for both Paul, no doubt at all. £1000 gets a pretty nifty 'puter based system too of course, say a few hundred on a MAC, £30 on Audirvana+ and £5-600 for a second hand Young or MDAC.

BTW, Your old Hornings are for sale on the Wam this morning...

I saw that Alan and was very surprised that Steve has decided to let them go so soon! Truth is, he has quite a collection of loudspeakers and wants to clear the decks by listing them all and seeing which sells otherwise knowing Steve he may decide to keep them all! I know he lkes the Agi's so my guess is that if the others sell first, he'll keep them. They're fabulous loudspeakers and now, very rare indeed.

uglymusic

PAC said:

PAC said:

In short, both can sound incredible but CD technically is the superior format. That isn't justification for it being branded as better as there are many CD's (most of mine!) which are inferior recordings. There's room for both but to my mind it's all about the recording and about the collections we already enjoy. If I were starting afresh with no vinyl, CDP would be my preferred front end but I'd still have vinyl for a) the challenge! and b) for the tactile nature of the medium and the enjoyment had from visiting record shops to buy 60's and 70's music on first pressings which often far exceed (technically) some of the later digital remasters if in good nick.

I think i'm in agreement with you, there, Paul.

I find myself in almost a 180 degree reversal of your buying habits. Nearly all of the new jazz I buy (and that's probably 50% or 60% of what I buy) is only available in digital. The small independent/artist-owned labels I buy a lot from just don't make the material available on vinyl. Choice made!

I had tinkered with DAC's and computer based front ends (in fact I still have a DAP which I use as a source and refresh the playlist every now and again) but for me, its more trouble than its worth when I can get what I want on CD for the most part. I agree that we should all vbe over the "which is best" argument as it's really a non argument to music lovers. I have one original Django LP from the late 1950s and pops, crackles and all, I wouldn't change it for the world, it's fabulous for the music and atmosphere it conjures up.

The new arguments over CD v's streamed high res or DAP high res are also a non-starter for me. For someone more concerned with the OCD of absoluteness, I can see there may be a chink to investigate, but IME, its usually at the expense of enjoying music plus I can't really honestly hear that much difference between high res and a decent CD because (probably) my ears are not capable of resolving such differences and I suspect very few are.

For me, the streaming set-up wins all round. Sonically, and in terms of usability. But then, I'm pretty relaxed with pooters, even if I haven't attained the level of pure geekery that some have around here.

Sometimes things go wonky (as Jim will testify), but then so do TTs and their associated mechanicals. I like having all my music on the NAS, where it can be played on the big rig, in my office, in my wife's office or in the kitchen (no hi-fi in the bedroom - yet!) by the miracle of iTunes library sharing. (As a side issue, our DVDs are finding their way on to the NAS, where we can share them via iTunes to our Apple TVs, Macs, iPhones, iPad and iPod.)

Good Redbook sounds better than bad hi-res; good hi-res outdoes everything.

Alan

That last bit is so right - really good redbook has an awful lot of juicy goodness hidden away, which I never really heard until I went over to streaming and a high quality DAC. Some of the 24/96 and above has to be heard to be believed - again the mastering is more important than the format.

I was just kicking out at the status quo, that digital is the poor relation to vinyl.

uglymusic

Alan said:
I was just kicking out at the status quo, that digital is the poor relation to vinyl.

And so you should!

PAC

Good Redbook is as good as I will ever need I suspect. I have some decent high res, but the differences don't seem to be night and day, just subtle differences in detail and then its hard to tell as they're on various recordings! I think that the level of kit and source material has got so predictably good these days that never has it been more true that the recording (mastering) is everything. Was playing a few classical pieces today on Vinyl and must admit I sat there thinking "can it get any better?" Don't shatter my bubble! ;)

mattlynch

hi guys,

just a quick 2p's worth, we all know that i am a vinyl fan ,but, considering how new digital still is , i suspect that in ten years time vinyl will be shown a clean pair of heals from digital media in the lower budget and mid price scheme of things , at the top end i cant really tell the difference when a good clean lp or well turned out cd are being played in a blind listening test , but the clicks and pops do give the game away a bit ;-)

PAC

I'd agree with that, although the primary reason for me anyway investing in a good vinyl front end has more to do with owning 600 plus LPs rather than elevating it onto a performance pedestal. Have to admit though that clicks and pops aside, I have precious few CD's that come close to a good Gold/Cream or 2nd generation red label valve cut ASD. There's something about those and the second generation Decca SXLs that just sound fabulous. Its more than just technical merit, it's the historical context, the performances themselves (often not eclipsed by modern arrangements, conductors and orchestras with classical anyway). In other words, the format and historical context embraces more than just the specification for the mastering or the quality in dynamic response terms. Not true of some music though where the remasters can be better.

Audio Chews: the hi-fi and music community

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion