Vinyl vs. top-notch digital

The best vinyl played on a decent system properly set up beats the best CD digital in regards to sound quality, without doubt. Also, the artwork and liner notes on album covers contribute to a more enjoyable overall package than the CD equivalent in most all cases.

There are only so many bits to work with on CD (though theoretically enough) which limits the possibilities, even if perfectly captured from analog digitally and then transformed again back to analog for listening as of course is required in the end by human ears.

However good sound can be obtained more cost effectively on CD. CD players are also more user friendly, which is important. They play longer, are easier and more convenient to use and require little from the owner to set up properly.

I purchase both CD and vinyl regularly. These are the factors that always come into play whenever I have to make the CD versus vinyl purchase decision.

Albert Porter made a good point inthat it is true that I will out of necessity tend to go for vinyl on older, otherwise unavailable recordings whereas for newer recordings, CD may be the only option. Also, used vinyl these days is relatively inexpensive and often provides good sound more cost effectively than CD.

Buying vinyl and then burning to recordable CD for the stated benefits of the medium is not a bad option. Strangely enough, the resulting CD preserves the sound of the vinyl recording pretty well, often resulting in a CD copy with sound quality preferable to those mastered commercially to CD.

The "digital vs. analog" controversy seems unresolvable, from a talking standpoint. As an semi-active musician, I've recorded in both formats and had good, and bad results in each. I've been disappointed with transfers of analog material to digital. I've read a fair bit about digital vs. analog, and talked to my engineer friends. Seems like there are a lot of theories floating around out there about why digital "must be" as good or better than analog, or why analog might "seem to be" more listener-friendly.

What I hear when I listen, using top notch digital playback vs. at least very good analog playback (all as reported above) is quite consistent with what many others (but not all) report: good Lps present a sound that is somewhat warmer, somewhat more detailed, and typically less fatiguing, than what I hear on CD's. I've heard theories that suggest that what I'm hearing is actually a result of deficiencies in the whole analog process. I suppose those theories could be right.

But at the end of the day, who cares? Enough of us hear differences in the formats that I think it's hard to argue that there are no differences (depending on the characteristics and quality of the playback systems, of course). Beyond that, it seems like what matters is what you like. (As noted, I tend to like classical vinyl, and pop CDs. Possibly that plays to the strengths of each, at least on my system.) And, if you're a really serious music and audio junkie, like most of us here, the two formats are at least worth experimenting with. Sure can be fun, and satisfying.

Rushton,

thanks for posting that link to Steve Hoffman's findings. I've read his site, but never came across that one.

Fascinating that he thought a lacquer played back at both 45 and 33 sounded almost identical to the master, and that a pressing sounded so close to the lacquer. I would have assumed much more loss in fidelity at both steps. Nice to know that with a well mastered and pressed LP that we can in fact get so close to the master tape sound. I would have assumed that the open reel copy would have been the best.

For me it is a matter of economics. I've collected music since the day this buck toothed little kid forked over his allowance for Meet the Beatles on Vjay Records. I now have over 18,000 black diamonds and to replace them with CD's would be an expense that I could not incur. I would rather use that money to upgrade my analog front end which is what I'm in the process of doing. My digital Cd player is tits up,sounds awesome and I don't sit and compare it with my turntable when I'm listening to music,I mean if my foot is tapping or I'm being swept away by something breezy of airy as the tension from the day is being exorcized then it's all good. Just enjoy the music.

I'm presently in the midst of optimizing a vinyl setup in my system. I have spent 8k and tons of time optimizing my digital setup, at this point I'm very satisfied with digital sound.

Now I put the vinyl rig in, I started with a $3.5k setup, ended up giving up on that particular rig, simply not enough resolution compared to my digital. Two months ago went with another tt, started with about $6.5k investment, finally had sound that could better my digital. Since then, more upgrades, and more importantly, optimizing the entire setup (allignment, isolation, etc.), still, its not that much better that I'm ruined for digital sound. I'm now in the midst of further upgrades, $2.3k tonearm next week, a $2k cartridge next month, at least $4k phono pre next. I only point out the costs as an example of what you may have to spend to get your vinyl sounding better than your digital.

At this point in my vinyl evolution, I don't think there is any doubt the best vinyl sounds better than the best digital. However, I've found the better digital recordings still sound better than mediocre vinyl. I'm just a bit skeptical this will change with a larger investment in vinyl, I may only hear the deficiencies to a greater extent. Still, I'm open-minded about this, the upgrades I've made to this point have resulted in greater satisfaction with a larger variety of vinyl. I always expect sonic improvements to bring me closer to what I call, 'the breath of life', I already know that vinyl gives me more of this.

Now for some of the downside (as if cost is not enough) of vinyl for me. First of all, I hear very few speak to the issue of optimizing multiple sources within a single system. This is turning out to be a problem for me, I suspect I'll be working on this for a long time, perhaps I'll never be able to resolve it to my complete satisfaction.

Second, for some of us getting up and changing records every 20 minutes or so is distracting to say the least. I find myself going back to digital during every listening session (listening sessions can go up to 8 hours for me), as turning and cleaning records gets tiresome. With digital I get to hear up to 80 minutes or so of uninterupted music, which really allows immersion into the music. With vinyl, there are times I get a bad case of music interuptus.

While I love vinyl, there are downsides which are valid and real. Its not enough to say you have to put up more tinkering and fussiness. Actually experiencing this fussiness is a reality that imposes on the musical experience, ie. the enjoyment of the uninterrupted album or classical piece. Flow of music is vitally important to me, vinyl necessarily impinges on this flow. It seems rather ironic to me, on one hand, the sound of vinyl more fully allows one to listen in the mindset of a music lover, on the other, it takes away from that mode of listening by it's insistent fussiness.