Digital vs. Analog (again)

[duke43j]

Lately I’ve been seeing a resurgence of claims about how much better vinyl is compared to digital. I have an SB3 feeding a Benchmark DAC and I love it! The sound is wonderful. I also have about 200 LPs in my closet that I listen to occasionally on my somewhat mid-fi B&O turntable with an MMC2 cartridge. While the sound from my turntable is nice, it is not in the same league as my digital input. Naturally, I’m always looking for something better. So, out of curiosity, I went to a dealer who showed me a Rega P3-25 turntable. I wasn’t impressed. The highs seemed somewhat rolled off, and the detail wasn’t nearly as good as my SB3/DAC. Given the fact that vinyl is so much more of a hassle than digital, the only reason I would ever considering upgrading my turntable is this supposed vast improvement in sound.

Now I’m thinking – Either these claims are totally bogus, or I’m just looking in the wrong price range. The retail cost of the Rega table, cartridge and phono preamp was about $1500, which is comparable to the cost of my SB3 and Benchmark DAC 1. How high up the food chain do you have to go to get this “better than digital” sound that people are claiming? Does anybody have a good digital front end (i.e. comparable to a Benchmark, Berkeley, Wavelength Audio Proton, etc.) with an analog front end that they think sounds better?

[SatoriGFX]

How high up the food chain do you have to go to get this “better than digital” sound that people are claiming?

Not very high according to many who prefer vinyl. Usually, it's the other way around. Many claim you need to spend far more on a digital front end to come close to vinyl.

[ghostrider]

I gave up on vinyl long ago. I never understood the infatuation with clicks and pops, which are inevitable, as well as the effort involved in maintenance.

[RonM]

I was reading a post somewhere (not on these forums) from someone who had been ripping his old vinyl to digital. He was very gratified that the "wonderful warm sound of vinyl" was still present in the digital rips. Sigh. He completely failed to understand that this meant the "wonderful warm sound" was an ARTIFACT introduced by the vinyl reproduction, in fact a distortion of the original music. If that sound could be captured digitally in his rips, there would be no barrier to capturing it directly to CD.

A music producer acquaintance once noted to me that the qualities many people believe inherent in vinyl can be reproduced by adding various effects to the digital versions of the music. It may well be that in some abstruse fashion "analog" can have advantages over "digital", but I tend to think that most of the claims simply flow from habituation to the sonic side-effects of analog reproduction.

Ron

[earwaxer9]

If you follow Steve Guttenburg on CNET he could probably give you a good response to the question of digital vs. vinyl. He is big on vinyl.

I personally dont see any point in vinyl. I believe that vinyl had an advantage in the early days of the CD. Now, digital is supreme. The digital "limitations" have been solved. It doesnt require big bucks to enjoy it either.

I'm sure you can find really really good sounding vinyl rigs, as well as digital rigs. At some point its probably a matter of preference, just as there is a preference with tubes vs. solid state. Its not a question of how much money would it cost to get there. Sure, $10K components tend to sound very good. They should! A $50K system better sound very good. Vinyl or digital. To spend $50K on a system and have to flip disks and drop a needle is just plane silly, IMO. Not to mention listen to clicks and pops.

My personal opinion is that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to build a vinyl rig that will best your digital set up. Better to continue tweaking the digital end of things. Ex. - the Benchmark is good, but certainly not SOTA. Much more can be done there. On the speaker end of things - much more can be done there. etc, etc.

[Phil Leigh]

I was reading a post somewhere (not on these forums) from someone who had been ripping his old vinyl to digital. He was very gratified that the "wonderful warm sound of vinyl" was still present in the digital rips. Sigh. He completely failed to understand that this meant the "wonderful warm sound" was an ARTIFACT introduced by the vinyl reproduction, in fact a distortion of the original music. If that sound could be captured digitally in his rips, there would be no barrier to capturing it directly to CD.

A music producer acquaintance once noted to me that the qualities many people believe inherent in vinyl can be reproduced by adding various effects to the digital versions of the music. It may well be that in some abstruse fashion "analog" can have advantages over "digital", but I tend to think that most of the claims simply flow from habituation to the sonic side-effects of analog reproduction.

Ron

+1 million.

[duke43j]

I agree that much of the allure of vinyl is that many people (me included) prefer a warmer and more “musical” sound to an “analytical” (and probably more accurate) sound. I believe this warm sound is achieved by rolling off the high end, and/or by introducing even harmonics (i.e. distortion) to the sound. As in most things, you can go overboard on anything. I don’t like any system that attenuates the high end, but I do have a tube preamp that introduces a modest amount of even harmonics to the sound. I do prefer the sound of my Benchmark DAC => tube preamp => solid state amp to the sound of the all solid state chain consisting of the DAC => solid state amp. So, even though I know full well that introducing a preamp (or any extra gear) into an analog chain will ALWAYS add noise and distortion, there are some circumstances where I actually like the sound better.

I’m also not too distracted by a moderate amount of surface noise (pops, crackles) of vinyl. So, that doesn’t bother me. Maybe this is because I got into hi-fi long before CDs came along.

I think all of the above is a matter of personal preference. What I’m curious about is what price range (if any) do you need to pay for a turntable/cartridge that sounds better than a good digital input.

[guidof]

I think all of the above is a matter of personal preference. What I’m curious about is what price range (if any) do you need to pay for a turntable/cartridge that sounds better than a good digital input.

Sorry, I don't have an answer to your question -- and I doubt that an answer can be stated with any precision. As you point out, what sounds "better than a good digital input" is indeed a matter of personal preference. Hence, any price point will depend on your perceptions of "good sound."

However, I would suggest that in addition to the turntable/cartridge combination, you would need to factor in a phono preamp. The latter will make a significant difference in terms of sound quality.

Happy (digital, for now) listening!

Guido F.

[magiccarpetride]

Lately I’ve been seeing a resurgence of claims about how much better vinyl is compared to digital. I have an SB3 feeding a Benchmark DAC and I love it! The sound is wonderful. I also have about 200 LPs in my closet that I listen to occasionally on my somewhat mid-fi B&O turntable with an MMC2 cartridge. While the sound from my turntable is nice, it is not in the same league as my digital input. Naturally, I’m always looking for something better. So, out of curiosity, I went to a dealer who showed me a Rega P3-25 turntable. I wasn’t impressed. The highs seemed somewhat rolled off, and the detail wasn’t nearly as good as my SB3/DAC. Given the fact that vinyl is so much more of a hassle than digital, the only reason I would ever considering upgrading my turntable is this supposed vast improvement in sound.

Now I’m thinking – Either these claims are totally bogus, or I’m just looking in the wrong price range. The retail cost of the Rega table, cartridge and phono preamp was about $1500, which is comparable to the cost of my SB3 and Benchmark DAC 1. How high up the food chain do you have to go to get this “better than digital” sound that people are claiming? Does anybody have a good digital front end (i.e. comparable to a Benchmark, Berkeley, Wavelength Audio Proton, etc.) with an analog front end that they think sounds better?

To me, this is similar to the debate on analog vs digital photography. Today, it takes a lot of money to approximate analog photography on a digital camera. However, things are improving at a rapid pace, and it is conceivable that in a not too distant future 50 megapixel cameras with large size sensors will hit mainstream prices.

We're seeing the same trend in the digital sound. Today, Logitech Squeezebox Touch can be purchased for less than $300, and after modding it a bit, you can get to the point of having a high-end digital transport that can compete with $5,000 transports.

Same goes for DACs -- Bersford Caiman, with a fitted Gator board, can be had for around $300, and these two (the transport and the DAC) deliver a very high quality digital sound that can compete with many thousand dollars turntable/arm/moving coil cartridge/phono preamp chains.

However, in my opinion, on a true high end analog, the sound is so superior, that I haven't been able to ever hear digital sound that can come even close.

Few of us have to money to play in that league, though. So I think it's pretty much going to be digital all the way.

[garym]

you can start your auditioning with this one. ;-)

http://www.needledoctor.com/Roksan-T...2&category=791