Can digital compete in sound quality with vinyl?
 

Can an audiophile digital system compete in sound quality with an audiophile vinyl system?

Excuse the dust pop sounds, and the pain of recleaning them, or the inconvenience of listening to an entire album to hear that song. While more convenient, digital has its own problems.

On the same flagship Mc system with a Mt5 and streaming tidal from a MB100, the analog is more clean/clear/more realistic sounding. When A/B side by side, digital sounded fake and compressed.

I thought I loved ARC because the salesman always plays vinyl, and it's exciting and realistic. I thought it was the ARC sound. He'd use a streamer on that system and it was always sounds flat. I had to hear vinyl on another system to know. I don't know if I love arc the same anymore, but now I blame vinyl for my recent OCD.

Well, have you heard digital win on a side by side test using the same album/songs? Tidal is great quality for streaming, but is analog better than digital because of the format? Or is Tidal handicapping the digital SQ will HD music like FLAC bridge the gap?

Absolutely, just be prepared to spend an awful lot of money to surpass vinyl. Specifically, 5~10 x more, YMMV.

I have the opposite issue. I have tried a few turntables in my system, up to $10k cost, and never heard anything that matched my digital set up. Plus there is too much cleaning and fussing and I still can’t get the noise floor down in vinyl.

Good digital is coming down in price annually, while vinyl price/performance has plateaued.

My Stereophile Component of the Year Benchmark DAC3 HGC sound almost as good as my vinyl rig.

But my vinyl rig weighs in at 8x the cost of the Benchmark and is tweaked to perfection with great setup tools.

Also I'd add that in digital the cables, streaming source, and power conditioning make a huge difference in sound quality. The people who state that digital is just 1's and 0's and so cables and power don't matter - well they are uninformed*

Tom

*This is a family forum so I didn't say what I really meant.

Same ol', same ol', same ol'. . :boring:

The answer is YES!
 

Yep - there have been thousands of threads on this topic.
The answer is always ‘it depends’.

I think the value in these threads lies in understanding everyone’s experiences in their own homes with their own gear, be it analog or digital, with their own media, whatever it’s providence.

I still think these are “the good old days” with great sounding analog AND digital sources available with unprecedented quality. I do not have to choose a favorite because the answer to “which is best” is always BOTH!

"Yep - there have been thousands of threads on this topic.
The answer is always ‘it depends’."

it depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

:scratch2:

I am also in the 'IT DEPENDS" camp.
Prior to my latest digital bit of gear I would have said vinyl held a small edge. Then I acquired a Marantz SA-10 and the digital held the edge.
The most recent gizmo, a used Threshold FET10 phono box (which was refreshed and some capacitor updates by Jon Soderberg in 2014 and given a larger, better power supply for both the FET 10 phono (and matching FET10 linestage which I also have) The vinyl is again up there equal.
I am certain the vinyl could top the digital if I only would splurge on a Ortofon Cadenza Bronze or Black. (Soon enough, when the current cartridge is ready to retire)
So it goes.
To me, they are just different, with neither one really inherently better. They both sound pretty good.

?

Ok, how about if I stayed loyal to Mc? Within the Mc family can digital sound better? ARC doesn't have a turntable, and their DAC is ancient (2012 is their latest?), so I kinda get why that demo skews toward analog.

Or what DACs and source will I need for digital to surpass analog?
Will I need a better streamer, HD tracks FLAC files (or DSD 512?), a Dave DAC, an upscaler, and a dedicated clock?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just haven't heard a digital system sound better than analog yet, and I'd like to know why and what it takes.

https://media.giphy.com/media/hPPx8yk3Bmqys/giphy.gif

This forum's last thread on the topic was from 09-21-2015, 02:34 PM
Furthermore that thread wasn't discussing maximum SQ from either format, it focused on SQ from a Master's recording standpoint.

The next most recent thread on the topic is from 11-24-2013, 04:28 PM, over 5 years ago. Good stuff in that thread really. But it's still 5 years old.

The next most recent thread in this forum is from 12-27-2012, 05:47 AM. Back in 2012 there was a clear consensus that vinyl is preferred. Sure there are exceptions, but overwhelmingly the forum preferred vinyl.

Next most recent is from 01-23-2011, 10:52 PM. It wasn't very relevant.

Anyway what I'm not seeing is thousands of threads. I see 4 on this forum section, all outdated and irrelevant. I stopped looking past 2010. With DAC tech evolving today, anything older than 12 months is probably useless.

I suspect if you spent on vinyl (Turntable, Tonearm, Phonostage, and Cartridge) what you spent on Esoteric Grandioso K1 SACD/CD/DAC + G1 Master Rubidium Clock + 1/2 ARC Ref 10, vinyl would sound pretty darn good.

Mouse - I think the discussion pops up a lot - not just in dedicated analog vs digital threads but everytime someone mentions a hot new DAC :)

Anyway.. here's my journey

When I was moving to my new place, I ended up upgrading my digital gear to what I thought was going to be my end of the road system.

EMM Labs XDS (v1) SACD player US$25k
Playback Designs MPS-5 with USB-X box US$17k

I also upgraded the amplifiers (Bel Canto Pre3/REF1000Ms to Audio Research Ref5SE/Electrocompaniet Nemos)

What I heard was stunningly good compared to my old system (also in a much better room) so I was happy.

My analog rig was still in boxes because I didn't have the gear to set them up but I just never missed it.

Then when a friend came visiting, he helped me set up the turntable. Mind you, this was a really modest system in comparison:

Project RPM10.1 evolution with 10cc evolution tonearm
Sumiko Blackbird HOMC cart
Bel Canto Phono3 phono preamp

At the first drop, I was a little gobsmacked.. the life and energy from the vinyl system was so good, it put the much pricier digital system to shame.

Since then I have upgraded my analog gear again and it has been a satisfying journey.
Acoustic Signature Thunder 2017 with linear PS-1 and dual motors
Acoustic Signature TA5000 12" tonearm
Kiseki Purple Heart NS
(also a second arm The Wand Master 12" with Sumiko Pearwood Celebration II)
Audio Research Reference 3 phono

My only gripe is that I can't always find the album I want on vinyl whereas my CD collection and now TIDAL gives me access to so much at the touch of a button.

And then PS Audio released Snowmass the other day.

I'm listening to some of what I know are incredibly bright (and very bad digital glare) digital recordings which would have had me wincing in pain.

But the PS Audio just played it effortlessly. It was detailed and full of life and (I hate to say this) analog sounding.

Suddenly, I am looking at my analog rig and wondering if I made a wrong turn :P

After posting in this thread last night, I thought about other events that have a major impact of the sound quality,and which promoted the ability to see more in recordings than previously experienced, both via LP and CD.
One year ago my system was average good. I had it for years, and the only real 'up' upgrades were some high quality interconnects a few years ago.
Then I moved up from Magnepan 3.6 to 20.7 (and the first item in place to be able to hear anything 'more'.)
The second item was a Marantz SA-10 which, for the first time, allowed me to really hear differences in CD mastering the way I could hear them in LPs (The Marantz is not just a SACD player, it has a wonderful DAC which really does do more for CDs) A few newer slightly better powercords..
Then finally the thing that transformed the sound, Though to do it, all the other parts had to be ready, or it would have been a waste of time! and that was changing all the Duplex to Furutech. Suddenly with Lp I could easily hear the differences in how worn an LP was. With CD I could hear superdiscs, rather like the super LP list of Harry Pearson, Some CDs just had far more to offer, and some had the same sound I heard before with no extras..
So BOTH CD and LP had new layers of information opened up.
But I have to say without the foundation, without a steady upgrading of products, the blossoming would never had happened.
I also know there are areas awaiting upgrades, and perhaps new Worlds of insight into the performances in my system.
But both the LP playback and CD playback have attained new heights (and it is clear some recordings fail to measure up!) though if they have great performances, they are still worth listening to. And the joy is seen right through the mediocre sound. (Like listening recently to an opera recorded 1956, clearly a radio broadcast, sounding like it was played from a AM tube radio of the day. Yet the joy of the performance and the feel of the Milan, La Scala opera house was palpable. With Calas, and Gobbi...) On the other hand listening to a recording by Tori Amos where it became clear the producer had added something akin to a fuzzbox to her voice, so not amount of equipment could undo the harm, destroying any enjoyment for me. (where prior, before recent upgrades, it never was noticed by me, and did not seem like anything wrong)
So the comment I would add is the equipment one owns, upgrades, or lets stagnate, changes the amount one can hear from a recording.. of any type.

We all hear differently but to my ears my digital competes and fares quite well when compared to my vinyl.

Digital vs Vinyl
 

I am sure that that is true.

Which raises another question, if you have spent a lot of $$$ optimizing your system (that means making choices) to make one source sound sublime, is it worthwhile to bring in another source to compete? If you have unlimited funds, sure, why not? But otherwise, for most of us, you reach nirvana once and its hard to step way back with another source (that means sounding worse) and make that journey.

For me, there are a few issues with vinyl that are pretty much show-stoppers:
--I find surface noise irritating and distracting
--my collection of music is optical disks, I have no vinyl to speak of
--my digital sounds phenomenal (it should for what I have spent!)
--I have somewhat of a tremor that makes it hard to work with the needle, cartridge, and needle drop

But I am happy that so many here have found one or the other to scratch the itch.

+1

Personally I've found the mastering and engineering techniques that had been used in creating the original recording far more critical to performance than format type.

In the few cases in which I possess the identical recordings on both vinyl and CD, the material had been remastered in the CD version making true apples-to-apples comparisons difficult and to my ears, the better of the two could be either format. I guess what I'm trying to say is that after many years of listening and experimenting, I still haven't been able to affirmatively resolve the question one way or the other...

That said, digital formats do hold the technological edge in respect to noise, speed variance and wear which may, or may not always be objectionable.

I found that I preferred the sound of perfect vinyl pressings with no pops or scratches. I just couldn't handle the aggravation of playing vinyl.

Eric - Agree with your mastering & engineering thoughts. Wondering if you have given any thought to an MC cartridge (LOMC if your preamp can handle, HOMC if not)? Have found that they are generally less susceptible to surface noise. Also found that the AT150 is a big step up from the 440.

I had considered that route Glenn but since vinyl accounts for ~ 10% of my listening, it's difficult to justify the added costs - at least that LO MC would entail. I've been happy with the 440 MLa - especially its tracking, which was immediately apparent on inner grooves when I first installed it. Records I had considered unlistenable (IGD was horrible on some) the difference it made was dramatic.

Good to know about the AT150. That might be worth considering.

I agree the mastering/engineering that actually ends up on either format is a key factor; probably even the MOST key factor. But for me, time and time again I keep finding vinyl placing significantly ahead of digital overall. That said, over several years now I've pushed my vinyl gear further towards the "ultra" category while my digital remains stagnant in the hifi "budget" tier (e.g. Yggdrasil, M51, etc) - so no, it's not a fair comparison. But when I got my first vinyl rig, similarly priced to my Meridian G08 CD player at the time, and the vinyl absolutely *spanked* the G08 (which was ironically sold to me as the CD player for vinyl lovers) - my affection for digital never recovered from that.

I also have problems dropping 5-figures plus on digital gear that depreciates nearly as fast as spent wine. My ClearAudio Innovation and SOTA tables are still beasts after several years. How many iterations of players have the Esoterics of the digital world gone through in that time? The cartridge is certainly the loss-of-value pain point in vinyl, but when well taken care of they can last a LONG time.

For me the definitive tipping point was listening to both digital and analog sources at equal price points (25 000 USD) in a top of the line set up with a pair of The Sonus Faber speakers at a friend of mine. No matter what CD we played on the MSB rig, the vinyl on the Brinkmann Balance sounded way better. Yes, the digital was more perfect. The same way a mannequin is perfect. And in that context the analog was more human. Which to me is more interesting.
But in the end it is a personal choice. "Go with the format that suits your taste".

gotta disagree with you here Ivan, whereas the best analog front ends are well into the five figures and in some cases six, no way does a top flight digital front require you to spend that much let alone 5 to 10 times more.

Digital. Vinyl. Depends on what I want to listen to. As an opera fan, to my ears no digital recording I can think of compares favorably to the same recording in vinyl. That said, digital is better than it has ever been and continues to get better. Especially SACD and Japanese pressings. For casual listening it is hard to beat the convenience of digital.

Speaking of opera, I have a number of vinyl sets dating back to the mid 1960s on the old London ffrr label, the majority of which have a rich "robust" sound that I really enjoy.

Just recently I bought a CD re-release of "L'Elisir d'Amore" to replace the tired and worn vinyl of the exact same recording and to my disappointment, there was ever-so-slight a tinge of "shrillness" in Luciano's voice that didn't seem to be present in the vinyl version. Still had all the fortitude though.

Is that the Richard Bonynge recording with Joan Sutherland? Is excellent.
I'm fortunate in having many RCA Reds from days of yore. My most prized recordings.

Dave... I have all the gear here, and you’re welcome to visit. :ok:

LOL Ivan, that's one 'candy store' I'm afraid to go in !!

perhaps I misinterpreted your post....... are you saying one needs to spend up to 10x more on digital over an analog front end ?

And we have a winner.

Depending on how expensive your Vinyl rig is, yes. My top Digital rig rivals my best Vinyl rig, albeit at a much higher price of admission.

:lmao:

I agree with you: optimizing for one media type is more satisfactory than sharing mediocrity with two, given the same funds. I did essentially that when I gave up on digital a couple years ago and my system is better for it.

I too find surface noise distracting. That's why I keep my records clean with an ultrasonic record cleaner. It's just part of the cost of admission: to enjoy vinyl, clean your records.

The only downside is a few discs I'd like to hear that are not on vinyl. Otherwise I much prefer its sound.

Yes, that's the one. :thumbsup: Those Decca engineers really knew what they were doing. Angel & RCA Red Seal were right up there too.

interesting, for me it's the opposite. My digital (Cary 306 pro) cost less than half of what I have in my analog (VPI AriesIII, super platter, perf ring, SDS, Benz-Micro, Fosgate phono-pre) and I feel both formats truly complement each other.

Ivan, what is your 'top digital' rig ?

and 'top analog' rig?

:scratch2:

Can digital compete in sound quality with vinyl?
 

My opinion is that taking gear out of the equation, it really depends heavily on the source material.

A friend and I often do A/B comparisons. All top of line Mcintosh gear, all matching from same “era” (2301/c1000/mcd1100). We’ll do it between different pressings (original/reissue, promo/retail, colored/black, US/import, different remastered) as well as fav pressing vs SACD. In identical master recordings, it’s easier to determine “better”. I can only think of one occasion where the SACD stood up to the vinyl pressing; Genesis, Invisible Touch (original pressing). The SACD offered more detail in mid range with better separation in instruments, but bottom end was a little hollow and cold. Vinyl was cohesive and full sounding but it was a bit harder to pick out and follow a single instrument.

What digital offers me is a consistently well performing version of a song, for a very reasonable price. Pristine examples of particular vinyl pressings often start at $30 and go north of $100...and it’s still something of a gamble as to what condition it’s in (original pressing quality as well as wear/abuse). I have several copies of fav albums as I’m always hunting for a “better” pressing. Im shopping for Danzig II right now to hear “Blood & Tears”...but a good vinyl pressing is $150-$250 and they’re used and no guarantees...the digital version on the other hand is good and holds me over until I can find a still sealed copy or a used copy in a record store bin at a much lower price.

I’ve found that most digital options are 90-95%. There’s also the convenience and portable factor to consider too. On the other hand, that last 5% (or even 1%) improvement is where we spend significantly more money (law of diminishing returns) in search of that perfection; which is where vinyl shines. Despite all of its issues, when you have a pristine pressing, on a quality rig, it shines over it’s digital counterpart. For the rest of the time, digital keeps the tunes playing.

For comparing the same album or song, I’ve found huge differences in quality between remaster versions (era as well as the flavor of the individual mixing the tracks). If it’s a rock album produced or remastered between 1990-2010 don’t even bother with a vinyl version as it was most likely done for digital playback with no regard to vinyl.

Thanks!
 

Mille162 -:tresbon: Nice Post!