Vinyl vs. top-notch digital

Jeff - Glad you started this thread...very thoughtful responses. In a sense, I'm mainly saying "me too." I worked hard for several years to get the best out of CD's, including picking up a demo Linn CD12 and having Great Northern Sound modify my Wadia 860, and I've had some extended experience with an EMM CDSA. All three are among the best you can do in digital, as far as I can tell. But something was lacking. I had an Linn LP12 that I hadn't used for 15+ years. I had it refurbished last fall, and put a new Koetsu Black in it, and bought an EAR 834P phono stage. I was amazed. Good vinyl is just wonderful. Digital can be fatiguing. Vinyl rarely is (although, as with CD's, there are vinyl dogs out there). And, yes, you end up in searches for 2nd hand vinyl, then you find yourself buying a record cleaning machine, etc.

But I'm fascinated by Violin's comments, and think he's onto something, also. I find that I like classical music more on vinyl...and my "reference" is my typical listening post, mid-hall in a good concert hall. Yet, I tend to prefer pop music on CD, perhaps because, like Violin, I spent a lot of time on the bandstand over the years, playing rock, later fusion, and country. Jazz (except fusion), works pretty well (for me) either on vinyl or CD, although I think vinyl tends to catch the sonic nuances better than CD.

You ought to be able to get a fine rig for around $5-6K. If you go this route, and want some thoughts on places to find good 2nd hand classical vinyl, send me an email.

Violin's response reflects my experience too. Good digital and good vinyl reproduce different things well. How important each aspect is helps determine which is more important to you.

With my digital surround rig, I can play bombastic orchestral pieces such as Holst's "The Planets" or Moussorgsky's (arranged for orchestra) "Night on Bald Mountain" at live concert levels sitting in the first three rows. With 1200 watts on tap and a 200w sub ready to go to 20Hz, I can play Telarc's 1812 Overture no sweat.

My analog rig can creat a great illusion for pieces such as this from the 15th row or the front of the balcony, especially if the orch. used a starter pistol into an oil drum for the cannon.

But for small acoustic ensembles, whether classical chamber music, James Taylor/Joni Mitchell/Gordon Lightfoot folk, or small jazz ensembles such as LA Four, Miles, Brubeck, Coltrane ... vinyl RULES!

And it can be anything. I don't care if it's 40-yr-old vinyl from the $1 bargain bin or a new $50 45rpm pressing from Acoustic Sounds, I just *love* the sound of vinyl on a wide variety of material.

In absolute terms, I'd say my 45rpm Acoustic Sounds reissue of Water Lily Music's "A Meeting by the River" and some direct-to-disc LPs are the best-sounding recordings I have from *any* source.

As for the others, I likes me LPs, but if you're hung up on a little noise and the occasional tic/pop, stick with digital.

By the standards of these wacky A-goners, I have a very modest analog rig: Technics SL1210 M5G, Audio Technica AT150MLX cart, LPGear Zupreme headshell, Cambridge Audio 640p phono stage, Outlaw linestage, 1980s Amber Series 70 power amp, and Mirage Omnisat spkrs w/matching LF150 sub.

Yet this silly little rig beckons me to the sweet spot whenever I spin vinyl on it. And long after the record is over and I put it away--sometimes for days afterwards--the best of this music continues to haunt me in a way that digitally sourced music NEVER did.

Some very interesting views and as normal, Albert Porter summed it up. The main reason you may need vinyl is for recordings not on CD. This would mainly be for classical, some Jazz. There are a wealth of great classical recordings, particularly HMV, ASD series and Decca SXL series, which never got on CD. I also happen to agree that Classical in particular sounds better on LP. To me that is due to the soundstage depth you get, which even top flight CD can't match.
It is ironic, that at a time when CD is dying and I think there is no doubt it is, some of the best CD players ever, are available. I use a GNSC modded Resolution Audio Opus 21 and it is very close to my TW accustic Raven one, Zyx Airy 3 K&K phono stage set up, at a cheaper price.
I would only go for vinyl, as Albert says, if there is music you want, that is only available on CD.

The quality of your phono amp fits into the mix as well. Just another variable to consider...

Jeff, i have been asked these questions many times. i agree with many here, there are many perspectives. i am one who has always attempted to try to have state-of-the-art players for both digital and vinyl. recently; i have also pursued state-of-the-art reel to reel. to me one of the fun parts of this hobby is comparing formats.

when i have visitors over we first listen to digital then at some point i put on an Lp of the same music we just heard in digital; i love to watch the look on their faces and the jaws dropping.....then a big smile and a shaking of the heads.

what does it take to get this difference?

the big difference between vinyl and digital is that with vinyl everything matters alot. there is so much more information in those grooves that at almost any level of vinyl changing the right thing will take you further.....and you will likey clearly hear the change. this makes moving up more fun.

in the past i have said that the right tt, arm, cartridge, and phono stage purchased for $10k-$12k new or around $7k used would potentially take you to a performance level where most listeners would easily prefer Lps to digital. as you step that up there would be more 'wow' factor at higher levels of investment. as you travel up the foodchain you have much lower levels of noise; better speed accuracy, and higher levels of refinement.

recently 2 things have changed my perspective on this equation. first; i have a new digtial player, the Playback Designs MPS-5, that likely raises the stakes for vinyl to better digital by another level. for a vinyl rig to exceed this might take another level, maybe $3k to $5k more. second; there has been a bit of discovery what the performance of some vintage direct-drive and rim-drive tt's when combined with top level arms and custom plinths can do. this lowers the investment level of very high level vinyl performance.

so digital is better, but very good vinyl performance has become less expensive to aquire if one goes after these vintage tts.

regarding how much Lps vary; i have 7,000 or 8,000 lps; 90% sound good to great. the others are varible. most of those 'others' were purchased for less than $1 each.

i would add in fairness that many Lps have tics and pops, and the sensitivity to those issues varies from person to person. some people enjoy cleaning records and the little tweaky things one does to get the best results. if one likes the sterile and clean aspect of digital then maybe vinyl is not for you.

a month ago a friend, who owns a record label, used my tt to record some direct-to-disc Lps to make an K2HD recording. he had purchased the rights to these Lps and no master tape exists. he brought 3 pro audio guys and 2 hi-rez recorders; a Pacific Microsonics II (recording at 176/24) and a DXD (recording at 386/32). during this session; we did many test recordings back and forth between the tt and the two state-of-the-art digital recorders.

you would think that these ultimate digital recorders could make a digital recording indistinguishable from the original Lp. if you thought that you would be very wrong.

as good as the digital sounded; the Lp still smoked the hard drive based recordings. digital (at whatever resolution) simply cannot get the whole picture.

the real question is.....is it worth the trouble?

you bet.