Can digital compete in sound quality with vinyl?

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

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

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 ?

[mtroo]

Originally Posted by ariess

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.

Originally Posted by Masterlu

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

And we have a winner.

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by Mikado463

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 ?

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.

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by mtroo

And we have a winner.

[tima]

Originally Posted by ariess

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.

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.

[62caddy]

Originally Posted by Formerly YB-2

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.

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

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

My top Digital rig rivals my best Vinyl rig, albeit at a much higher price of admission.

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 ?

[GeAllan70]

Ivan, what is your 'top digital' rig ?

and 'top analog' rig?

[Mille162]

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.

[clpetersen]

Mille162 - Nice Post!