Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD


Long story short, i've just brought home a VPI classic 1 mounted with a Zu-Denon DL103 on JMW Memorial 10.5 with the appropriate heavier counterweight. Had everything dialed in..perfect azimuth, VTF, overhang, with only a slightly higher than perfect VTA. Levelling checked. All good. 

I did a comparison between the VPI and my Esoteric X03SE and it's not even close. The Esoteric completely crushes the VPI in all regards. The level of treble refinement, air, decay, soundstage depth and width, seperation, tonality, overall coherence is just a simply a league above from what I'm hearing from the VPI. The only area the VPI seems to be better at is bass weight, but not by much. 

I'm honestly quite dumbfounded here. I've always believed that analogue should be superior to digital. I know the Esoteric is a much pricier item but the VPI classic is supposed to be a very good turntable and shouldn't be a slouch either. At this point I feel like I should give up on analogue playback and invest further in digital. 

Has anyone had a similar experience comparing the best of digital to a very good analogue setup?

Equipment:
Esoteric X03SE 
VPI Classic, JMW Memorial 10.5, Zu-DL103
Accuphase C200L
Accuphase P600
AR 90 speakers

Test Record/CD:
Sarah McLachlan - Surfacing (Redbook vs MOV 180g reissue)



chadsort
those kind of adjectives ( that are " audiophiles " adjectives. ) no one can find out in a live music event seated at near field (1m-2m- ) at true live SPLs.

@rauliruegas


Nonsense.

And something of a red herring as well.

First, when I hear live un-amplified voices and instruments, one of the first words that come to mind is how rich the sound is.  (As I've expressed many times on this forum).  Whether I'm playing an instrument myself, or listening to someone else.

Secondly, when I attend the symphony, I tend to prefer closer seating and I ABSOLUTELY perceive both the richness of the instruments - richer in terms of fullness, presence and timbrel complexity than typical reproduced sound - and spacious as all get out.  No consumer system I've ever heard can even come close to the spacious scale of a live orchestra.


Today my main target is not that spaciousness/richness or other sound lovers adjectives but to stay truer to the recording that for me means leave all my room/system generated/developed distortions/ everykind and everywhere at minimum.
That puts me " truer to the recording " and nearer to the near field live music. Yes I know I'm far away from here but that is my target.


And those are all "audiophile" targets.  You are no more "purer" in your persuit of music than anyone else here.  So please don't throw stones in glass houses.




My dear @prof  all music lovers and sound lovers invested in the SOUND system.I started that way and still I am enjoying the SOUND of my system.



Right...therefore the division you (and some others) make between "sound lovers" and "music lovers" is bogus.  One can enjoy both aspects - in fact they are obviously interlinked, given it's sound that we are responding too.

If music were only about the notes being played and not the specific characteristics of the sound as well, chosen by the musician, then musicians and audiences wouldn't care if a piece were played on a Stradivarius or a plastic violin from Toys R Us.  Bass players, guitarist et all wouldn't put all the care they do in to the particular tone and sound they are going for.

Not everyone appreciates or cares about the sound as much as the notes, but musicians do, and it's makes total sense that music lovers could as well.   So, again, it just doesn't follow that if someone describes some appreciate for the sonic aspects of the music they have listened to (whether it's the tone of the instruments, or the tone as pleasingly reproduced on the sound system), that they are therefore as you are trying to claim "NOT MUSIC lovers."

That's absurd.
Look, you have had your own audiophile journey and have come to a set of criteria that please you.  That's great, fine.  Just don't use your own desires to be judgemental about others, naively putting them in another box as not being a music lover.   That is silly, untrue, egotistic and needlessly divisive.



Dear @prof 1 : """  I tend to prefer closer seating... """

at one two m.? because this is near field I'm talking about.

Yes, for you " that's absurd "" or """ silly "" and I respect your opinion. Btw, I'm not making any " judgmental " of you, I don't care about.

Facts are only that: facts. Got it? and know don't tell me just that is absurd or what ever you think. Tell me with facts why I'm wrong but before this tell me the distance to the live music source you are seated and next time bring with you a Radio Shack SPL meter and post here what you measured at your seated position.

R.
Hey Prof

You took the time to write a nice comprehensive reply to a silly post.  You have the patience of a saint.  Subjective vs Objective are never given any attention.  Absolutes are given in a reality I am not a part of.

The reality is you write from a real life experiences in live music, plus sitting in the right spot(could not resist).  I guess you can sit in the right spot all your life but never hear the music.  It is like the guy singing in the shower with the pitch so far off it changed notes.  He is still happy as hell, he can not hear it.

I guess musicians are just not suppose to bring their ears to party.  Only people who sit in a certain row.  The bassoon playing right next to you does not count.  

Well it is nice to see someone else who really cares about how real music sounds and feels.  

Enjoy the ride
Tom



geoffkait No, no, no. Some high end audiophile systems bring out the finest qualities of sound from all sources, including the worst sources. Sure, I’ve trashed many recordings LP, 78 and CD based on really poor sound quality. Now, my system is so good that it elevates the sound of once were mediocre recordings/masterings.

An example is last weeks review in Positive Feedback Magazine of a phono stage where the reviewer extols the virtues of the TimeLife Angel/EMI classical recordings box sets, available at $1 to $3 per LP. When I purchased 9 sets for $9 30+ years ago, my system stunk compared to now despite the Acoustat 2&2s driven by Dynaco IIIs, a VPI 19-4 and SME IV, Dynavector Karat. Those LPs sounded generally compressed and bright, lacking bsss and dynamics. Well, yes, those LPs were not necessarily from master tapes but the vinyl was quiet. Today, on my superior equipment with all the tweaks for isolation of equipment, electrical/cabling superiority and acoustic room superiority, those same LPs can have very good sound, eminently listenable. The Walton/Shostokovich LP is really good. Sure, I’d rather have the EMI originals but at 25 cents per LP cost, they were a bargain that I didn’t recognize until 30 years later when I played them again on the recommendation of a reviewer.
@rauliruegas

Dear @prof 1 : """ I tend to prefer closer seating... """
at one two m.? because this is near field I’m talking about.

As I said: your claim is nonsense, and a red herring.

First, yes when I’m playing an instrument - acoustic guitar, drums, piano, sax - I’m rather close to it and know what it sounds like (very rich).

Second, your demand that I bring a sound meter and measure distances when I attend a concert and report back to you is, aside from being truly bizarre, beside the point.

YOU tried to tell me from one post of mine containing some sonic description that I was NOT a music lover. Instead of admitting you can’t know such thing about me, and how rash a judgement that is in any case, you have been trying to double down on it. You do this by implying that my use of "rich and spacious" indicate only audiophile (hence "non-music-related/non-music-lover) concerns.

And for some reason you think that referencing mic placements makes your point. That’s a red herring. (And you are also misleading on that as well; for orchestral recordings, for instance, mics have often been put further than 2M away, and often include distance mics to capture the ambience of the hall that the audience would hear at the concert).


The point is whether appreciating the "richness, scale or spaciousness" of the sound is inconsistent with appreciating the music, and being a music lover. It obviously is not. No matter where microphones may be placed to record a performance, it’s true that the sound I experience from my seats is, to my ears, rich, of grand scale, spacious etc. (And generally speaking, those are the qualities engineers are trying to reproduce, even if artificially, when recording orchestras, to greater or lesser success).

Simply acknowledging those sonic qualities of music, be it a live or reproduced performance,  DOES NOT entail, as you would have it, that one is not a music lover.

Again: Don’t mix up your own journey and own criteria as being THE criteria that separates a "music lover" from a "sound lover." People are different, and much more complex and nuanced than that, and we can enjoy all aspects of listening to music, from the performance, to how it sounds, to noting how it sounds through different components and systems. They are not mutually exclusive.


Sorry, but this tendency among some audiophiles to judge others as "not being in to the MUSIC like I am" is tiresome, and deserves to be shoved back up from whence it was pulled.