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
I’ve found its very easy to convince yourself that digital is better. It can be made to sound good enough by any reasonable (& some unreasonable standards) with on occasion some really excellent qualities, that can easily make it make it irresistible - if you let yourself get drawn into the convenience. This last is the great rationalizer & stimulant to ignore the inconvenient truth analog can be made to represent. Yes, as others have pointed out here it can certainly be a PITA but it still is what it is. Get it all right and there is unquestionably a delicacy, humanity and a rainbow of harmonics easily discernible that the very best digital can simulate quite well in the same way a fabulous reproduction of a painting can suggest a great deal of the original’s beauty. The human imagination is a glorious thing and can convince us that the reproduction has more than enough beauty for our needs. That’s not wrong necessarily - just not the deeper truth we need to understand. Let me put it another way. I wear glasses. When I take them off & look at my hand or anything else nearby (I’m myopic) I can see that textures have more detail and are truer and more beautiful as so much more detail is noticeably clearer. With the glasses on I can see greater distances, read better & navigate through spaces far better, but it’s more like looking through a video camera. The images are sharper but less organic and/or natural as well as less detailed. I choose to ignore the greater visual fidelity for the advantages & convenience my glasses offer. I’m not listening to music however which is supposed to be transporting. If you choose not to surrender to the most innermost virtues of music, analog can provide - then don’t. But persuading yourself it’s every bit as good, simply isn’t true. I still very much like looking at paintings with my glasses on but if I want a really good look, I take them off & get close.

If I had to defer to experts I would refer to the late Harry Pearson and his unofficial successor, Jonathon Valin of the Absolute Sound. HP said at one point, comparing the two formats just led to heartache because digital could never come up to the same standard - one just had to accept digital on its own terms. Exactly. Valin is listening to the latest, best digital now (as a secondary option) & finds it very good & enjoyable indeed, but admits, even so, his analog rig is usefully & obviously better in ways he’s not prepared to forego & does not see any horizon where that will change.
@glupson

One more thing. If it is fun you are in this for, and I believe you are and you should be, exploring digital may be a good idea. Give it a chance. You can keep your analog everything and start playing with digital.

I don’t think it’s a good idea, mainly because i already switched from digital (CDs) to VINYL in the ’90s and never looked back. However, i still use digital on computer (in headphones with extrernal DAC) and on iphone, also to post on this forum and to share pictures on instagram etc. But that’s enough, i want to play records, and no files can replace real vinyl records in my life. All i want is more vintage records, the analog system is already superb. I just don’t understand how all these funny digital boxes can replace good looking mechanical machines like turntables and tonearms? It’s completely different aesthetics.



The "Famous Blue Raincoat, Songs of Leonard Cohen" is a very good Jennifer Warnes album, sonically.
Is there any recording that exists as digital and analog at the same time? That would be the only way to compare without having objections that it is digital pressed on vinyl or vice versa.
Reminds me of the old Linn Analog/Digital issue of tracks from Ossian -- one side recorded analog and the other digital (albeit to the standards of the day) and no indication as to which was which ...
https://www.discogs.com/Ossian-AnalogDigital/release/7155877

It's been years since I listened to it but as I am a big fan of "Jamie Raeburn" maybe today I'll dig it out :-)

A more up to date example of the same practice (parallel analog and digital recording of the same sessions) is Yarlung
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue58/yarlung.htm

I really don’t want to feed the analog v digital which one is better debate. I suspect that in many cases, the difference is a reflection of the level of gear being used- I disagree with Glupson that any old (or new) turntable is the same as another- but there are so many other factors, apart from the equipment, and the set-up, including the sonics of the recording and mastering.
I didn’t aim to do a ’gotcha’ on the Warnes’ record Glup--in fact, you raise a good question, because I couldn’t think of an album that was recorded in analog and digital media simultaneously, for comparison purposes. (There was an album recorded using different mic’ing techniques to showcase the differences). (just saw Folkfreak’s post- that’s a help- I actually listened to one of the Yarlung tapes at Myles’ apartment several years ago- it was pretty impressive)
There are a number of digitally recorded albums released on vinyl that sound spectacular. Just as there are some really bad analog recordings.
At this point, for me, much comes down to the quality of the source material. And despite my life-long love affair with the vinyl LP, I enjoy digital playback immensely.