Vinyl vs. top-notch digital


I have never had an analogy rig. My CD player is a Meridian 800, supposedly one of the very best digital players out there. From what I've read, it appears there is a consensus in our community that a high-quality analog rig playing a good pressing will beat a top notch digital system playing a well-recorded and mastered CD. So here are my questions:

1) How much would one have to invest in analog to easily top the sound quality of the Meridian 800 (or similar quality digital player)? (Include in this the cost of a phono-capable preamp; my "preamp" right now is a Meridian 861 digital surround processor.)

2) How variable is the quality of LPs? Are even "bad" LPs still better than CD counterparts?

Thank you for any comments and guidance you can provide.
jeff_arrington
the fact is that even at 386khz with a 32 bit word length it is easy to hear the shortcommings of digital's attempt to reproduce music compared to vinyl.

just listen.

Yeah but that is all because of the tourmaline hair dryer tweak, which gives Vinyl a massive but unfair advantage!

More seriously, perhaps the K2HD guys either made a mistake or their equipment was faulty or you were getting microphonics from the cartridge or preamp when playing vinyl rather than on the digital devices (no microphonics). Distortion, S/N and other specifications on the type of high end digital gear used should have made your observations impossible provided the equipment was working properly and operated correctly.
yeah right. 2 different hi-rez professional recording chains were simultaniously mysteriously faulty and the three pro audio guys plus the producer were oblivious to that. and remember; their recorders were getting the same signal source as my amps and speakers......but could not fully reproduce it at playback. any distortion in my tt would (according to your position) also be in the recording.

Distortion, S/N and other specifications on the type of high end digital gear used should have made your observations impossible provided the equipment was working properly and operated correctly.

i have one question. if you had been there and heard it; checked and rechecked your gear; and then heard it again.....would you then believe it?

here is what the pro audio guys said. "i guess i've never been exposed to a really high performance vinyl set-up before.....it really openned my eyes".
i have one question. if you had been there and heard it; checked and rechecked your gear; and then heard it again.....would you then believe it?

Well I would naturally be alarmed and would want to investigate further. High end pro digital recording equipment should be good enough (based on specifications and test measurements) that one should not normally be able to hear a difference even with headphones.

I don't doubt you have an eye opening system and that is much better sounding on vinyl than digital and much better sounding than anything I could ever aspire to. Please don't take this as any reflection on your system it is just that digital recording equipment really should work much better than you observed.
Jeff,

If you do decided to try an analog front end (and spend comparitive dollars to do so), do not forget (IMHO) two of the most important components of an analog front end - proper set-up and a good record cleaning machine (or process).

A poorly set-up $10k analog front end will be nothing more than a pretty showpiece (until you tire of dusting it). Pay for someone to come to your home and set up your rig.

Also, clean source material is a must. Don't overlook this critical component.
Shadorne,
You could very well be right about digital recordings and digital in general.

Disregard what Harry Pearson and Roy Gregory have written about digital and analog sound these past few years.
Their just acouple of audio industry whores pushing way over priced analog junk before the trend withers away.

Also,
What possibly would Mike lavigne know about home stereos and music?
Did you get a chance to read anything on his page?

Shurley he has to be nuts...