Stereo Image ?

[Haselsh1]

I recently upgraded my Thorens TD160 with a maple hardwood plinth which has had quite an effect on the detail resolution of the vinyl side of things however, when I compare Underworld ‘Beaucoup Fish’ on vinyl and on CD there is a marked difference of which CD is far better. The CD playback is sharper, clearer, better defined and with a massive stereo image that swirls all over the room. 180 degrees left and right, in front, up and down, it is all over the bloody place. Not so with the vinyl…!

My point then is, why should I spend around twelve hundred pounds on an arm and cartridge to bring the turntable up to the spec of a 300 quid CD player…? This just seems a little bit pointless to me. At the moment I am thinking that I would rather spend that 1200 pounds on a better CD player to improve things even more. I like the look of Naim’s CD players which to be honest, just have to be better than a 300 quid Marantz.

[walpurgis]

It's probably differences between the actual CD and record you are hearing. Not uncommon. The Kate Bush album Aerial is one example I can think of. The CD sounds sublime, really open and huge soundstage. In comparison the vinyl is duller sounding and less impressive by a margin.

[Ali Tait]

Yes agree, most likely a poor pressing. Lots of those around.

[struth]

+1

Depends a lot on the mastering of the vinyl and cd tbh. they are unlikely to be exactly the same. depending on your preferances a cd my sound more than an lp. think think the latin vis a vis is apt

[Macca]

Speed stability? I can't see a TD160 ever sound like a CD player no mater how much cash you chuck at the arm and cart.

In any case it is a modern digital recording (1999) no surprise it sounds better on CD

[Haselsh1]

Thanks so much you guys. I was thinking about fitting an Origin Live arm and a Dynavector DV20 high output but I may now put that money into a better CD player.

[Haselsh1]

I shall definitely be buying Croft Series 7 monoblocks around September time so that will upgrade both the CD and vinyl replay.

[walpurgis]

The TD160 is a fine sounding TT, but I've never heard an Ortofon OM series cartridge I was truly impressed with. I can't recall if I've heard the OM40, but have you considered trying something else? I reckon a Denon DL-110 or 10 series Dynavector high output MC might give you some of that 'vibrancy' you seem to be missing, without having to use a dedicated MC stage.

Nice 10X2 available from Germany at a sensible price: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dynavector-10X2-High-Output-MC-Tonabnehmersystem-/271899848374?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item3f4e7e6eb6

Fairly old, but looks good and should suit the arm. Rather nice cartridge these.

[zanash]

just a couple of throw away points ...if you like your sound stage and imaging ...don't look to naim. In my experience the naim "wall of sound" as its been termed is like looking at a fish eye lens photo ..rather than say a 50mm. The effect being that center stage images are hugely magnified and the far left and right images are greatly squashed.

Ok assume you have removed any foam inserts from the suspension of the 160 ? The 160 has a very live subchassis ..and needs to be heavily damped ...don't use mdf arm boards they kill the sound, perspex sounds good [well on mine anyway] I also seem to recall that milled aluminium sounded good to. [edit] the linn arms ok but there are some exceptional arms around ....find a logic datum s or top range helius both will show a clean pair of heels to the linn .... sme series 3 was a stinker on my 160 .... and audio tecnica carts seemed to work well too..better than several ortofons I tried.

[Haselsh1]

OK guys, to comment on those previous points:

Back in 2009 I used a Denon DL160 and sold it because I felt it was nowhere near as good as the OM40. OK so it was on an SL1210 but as a cartridge, I was very disappointed.

I am using a milled aluminium armboard and really wouldn't want to use anything else and IF I buy an Origin Live, it too will go on an aluminium armboard. I love the sound of the 10X5 as way back when, I used to use an Ultimo 10X, so, who remembers them...?

Thank you so much for the comments re: Naim.

[walpurgis]

I used to use an Ultimo 10X, so, who remembers them...?

Yup. Had one new, way back! :)

[lurcher]

a massive stereo image that swirls all over the room. 180 degrees left and right, in front, up and down, it is all over the bloody place. Not so with the vinyl…

Vinyl mastering has a problem with a lot of out of phase information (just think what the grove walls have to do to reproduce it), so its entirely possible that a lot of it was removed for the vinyl master. Initial pressings of Electric Ladyland was "improved" in the same way.

[Haselsh1]

Vinyl mastering has a problem with a lot of out of phase information (just think what the grove walls have to do to reproduce it), so its entirely possible that a lot of it was removed for the vinyl master. Initial pressings of Electric Ladyland was "improved" in the same way.

OK, so I admit, I don't understand the mechanics of vinyl versus CD but I do know that what I want is the stereo image I am currently getting from CD. I also prefer the bass power and grip of CD but also admit that the Rotel power amps are slightly 'soft' when compared to some amplifiers. I reckon my way forward is to buy the Croft Series 7 monoblocks maybe around September and then reassess the situation regarding vinyl and CD. I love the romantic notion that surrounds vinyl but I just get a lot more of what I want from CD and at a massively lower cost.

[Haselsh1]

Yup. Had one new, way back! :)

Yeah, bought my first one in 1979 at a cost brand new of 65 quid.

[Haselsh1]

Yeah, bought my first one in 1979 at a cost brand new of 65 quid.

And, it was on a brand new Thorens TD160 BC fitted with a totally inapropriate Mayware Formula 4 tonearm.

[cloth-ears]

Welcome to the “Dark Side” Shaun. There is a lot of snobbery regarding vinyl. It’s been around since the dawn of man and is deeply etched into many a warm heart.

Unfortunately the best record on the best turntable/arm/cart on the best day will struggle to achieve 8 bit’s of resolution. Coupled with this the embarrassingly poor SNR of the mid to high 70db range leaves a lot to be desired

When CD’s first came out they were mixed by people used to mixing analogue. This lead to a rather crappy over bright sound on many CD’s.

Digital has come a long way since those early days.

Stereo imaging is heavily dependant not only bandwidth but phase integrity. At this, digital is king.

At this point I have to say IMHO, otherwise I’ll get me head kicked in

[Audio Advent]

Welcome to the “Dark Side” Shaun. There is a lot of snobbery regarding vinyl. It’s been around since the dawn of man and is deeply etched into many a warm heart.

Unfortunately the best record on the best turntable/arm/cart on the best day will struggle to achieve 8 bit’s of resolution. Coupled with this the embarrassingly poor SNR of the mid to high 70db range leaves a lot to be desired

When CD’s first came out they were mixed by people used to mixing analogue. This lead to a rather crappy over bright sound on many CD’s.

Digital has come a long way since those early days.

Stereo imaging is heavily dependant not only bandwidth but phase integrity. At this, digital is king.

At this point I have to say IMHO, otherwise I’ll get me head kicked in

I guess it's harder to kick two people's heads in at the same time without us both just lying down and waiting for them to jump..

I agree.

I remember a film score producer saying similar things on a radio program when the presenter was asking about his time through the transition from tape to digital. He was saying that compared to digital there is just too much cross-talk and in his experience with comparing masters with the very best first vinyl press, it was closed in in stereo terms compared to the tape but when digital came along, the stereo width was preserved.

Then of course it is necessary to make mono the bass frequencies when mastering for vinyl.

The sad thing is that when you are talking about a physical moving thing making the music, you are limited by the physics of how that thing is moved about. If vinyl had two needles, one for each channel, the story would be SO different! Then also think about how accurately the movement translates to the stereo signal - in theory a 45 degree movement from upper right to lower left will give a signal purely on one channel. But how accurate are the magnets or coils placed in the cartridge to only give a signal in one channel for an accurate 45 degree movement? How much do the magnetic fields of one channel bleed into the other channel's coils? How accurate is the cut in the vinyl groove's wall? How flat is the record so that those grooves give 45 degrees anyway? Is it poorly pressed anyway (and who want's to spend an age finding the perfect one? I just want to listen to music...)?

So many variables that you have to decide to accept vinyl's limitations and concentrate on it's strengths. Digital is for hearing things like stereo effects as they were intended.

Don't have to spend £1200 though on good digital. I've been bowled over by Stan's Caiman 2 DAC as have many people - that's about £250.

[Audio Advent]

As a complete aside, I wonder if anyone has thought about a cartridge which used another method of signal generation than old school magnets. There most be something else tiny one could use whilst still using a stylus.. something optical? I'd expect a much better channel separation if something other than magnets were used, not to mention the possible lightening of the mechanism and therefore faster response to the groove.

[walpurgis]

As a complete aside, I wonder if anyone has thought about a cartridge which used another method of signal generation than old school magnets. There most be something else tiny one could use whilst still using a stylus.. something optical? I'd expect a much better channel separation if something other than magnets were used, not to mention the possible lightening of the mechanism and therefore faster response to the groove.

It's all been done before. Optical, strain gauge, etc., You name it, somebody has made it!

[Barry]

It's all been done before. Optical, strain gauge, etc., You name it, somebody has made it!

Yep - even variable capacitance, or if you like, an electrostatic cartridge.

[NRG]

Vinyl mastering has a problem with a lot of out of phase information (just think what the grove walls have to do to reproduce it), so its entirely possible that a lot of it was removed for the vinyl master. Initial pressings of Electric Ladyland was "improved" in the same way.

Yes, could be…also it's worth remembering the cartridge will have relatively poor separation between L+R channels vs CD. This creates a stronger central image between the 'speakers and goes some way to explaining why we hear differences like this between the two formats.

[Audio Advent]

It's all been done before. Optical, strain gauge, etc., You name it, somebody has made it!

interesting..

Just did a quick google search and it seems the optical cartridge is only a recent thing - or at least only recently viable - and is only making it's way to Europe officially this year (otherwise was a Japanese market only product). I'll see what people say about it.

Sadly though it's bound to be priced per sound if it sounds good such is the market, even it cost 10p to make. "Cost 10p to make but sounds as good as a £6k cart, lets charge £6k then!" type of thing.

[cloth-ears]

An optical cartridge may sound like a “Silver Bullet” but is far from it. As far as I’m aware there are only two advantages, the elimination of mechanical wear and dynamic wow

Remember that an LP has a maximum resolution of just less than 8 bit. Like broadband speeds this figure is rarely if ever achieved. To maintain this figure over the entire playing surface is nigh on impossible.

Secondly, any imperfections in the groove such as warping, scratches or dust will still be detected by an optical stylus, it can’t see through them. Also any rumble from the drive motor or turntable bearing will still transfer to the playing surface as a detectable modulation.

And now comes the slap on your forehead moment. :doh: Without any physical contact with the record how will your tonearm know when or how to move? If it uses a real stylus to correctly locate the sensor in the grove then the two previously stated advantages are now lost

So the only solution would be a purpose built turntable, and that ain't gonna be cheap. It will also mean that your turntable will have to be sold on e-Bay at a loss to help fund the white elephant. And after all of this you are still going to end up with a machine that has a lower resolution than an average ten bob mp3 player.

[NRG]

Err the 'optical' cart I think that is being referred to still has a conventional stylus and cantiliver, it's the armature (coils and magnets) that are replaced with an optical system. The proof will be in the listening but I'm struggling to believe it would be any better than the traditional configuration. Plus there's a need to provide power to the cartridge.

[cloth-ears]

The cartridge could be “phantom loaded” I suppose. The fact that it still uses a standard tracking method suggests to me that no practical advantage is to be had here and it can still only resolve 8 bit or less. The audio parameters of the vinyl have been set at the factory and are not open to improvement

[Clive]

I've seen claims for vinyl of 9, 10 and 12 bits but not 8. A good but usually very expensive record deck sounds as detailed as 16 bit digital to me. Maybe the low level detail due to those extra bits don't make much difference.

[cloth-ears]

Hi Clive, 8 bit is the theoretical limit though 6 bit is the norm. The dynamic range is also limited on vinyl because of its mechanical nature. If however you prefer the sound of an LP then that’s all that really matters. I was merely responding to the original thread with a few facts to explain the limited stereo imaging

[NRG]

Not sure where you are getting your figures from but the dynamic range of LP is capable of greater than 70db, thats approx 12 bits... I've seen some discussions that show it to be close to 14bits (86db) with the right setup. This is all irrelevant anyway as bit depth has nothing to do with 'quality' or level of detail retrieval and trying to compare the two formats using equivalent 'bit depths' is quite futile.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Not sure where you are getting your figures from but the dynamic range of LP is capable of greater than 70db, thats approx 12 bits... I've seen some discussions that show it to be close to 14bits (86db) with the right setup. This is all irrelevant anyway as bit depth has nothing to do with 'quality' or level of detail retrieval and trying to compare the two formats using equivalent 'bit depths' is quite futile.

LP dynamic range is covered in many unspoken compromises, namely the noise floor is always higher thus the appreciation and measurement of dynamic range has to be reduced.
The only way you will get the 86db figure is if you are fortunate to be playing a DBX encoded LP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Yk701xzc8 and playing back via a DBX



Cheers / Chris

[Barry]

Agree it's difficult to compare the two. The human ear can make out detail that can be up to 20dB below the noise provided the noise is 'constant', as the brain can filter out this constant signal after a short time. This was demonstrated by wirless operators during the War.

However this is in the analogue domain. The situation is quite different in the digital domain: once the signal level falls below a certain level it cannot be reconstructed.

[NRG]

once the signal level falls below a certain level it cannot be reconstructed.

That's not be strictly true Barry, dither, shaped or otherwise can be applied to resolve information below the LSB...

http://www.earlevel.com/main/1996/10/20/what-is-dither/

[Barry]

once the signal level falls below a certain level it cannot be reconstructed.

That's not be strictly true Barry, dither, shaped or otherwise can be applied to resolve information below the LSB...

http://www.earlevel.com/main/1996/10/20/what-is-dither/

How far below the LSB can you resolve information Neal?

[NRG]

How many bits do you want to throw at it? At some point it becomes academic 24bit will get you down to -144db...in theory well bellow the measurement capabilities of the majority (if not all) test kit let alone the replay gear...

[Haselsh1]

I think that, given I have now listened to the limitations of vinyl when compared to CD, it would be totally pointless for me to spend around £1,500 on vinyl replay. I shall be spending around £1,400 on Croft Series 7 monoblocks to maintain a nice stereo integrity as indicated by compact disc but may then spend some cash on a separate DAC.

[cloth-ears]

Excellent choice Shaun :cool: You will never look back

[Clive]

Is it really that simple...not to me it's not. If you only listen to new recordings from major labels then digital is a better choice. If you buy older records or from modern specialist vinyl labels then record decks can be a good alternative. For 50s / 60s / 70s music then it's vinyl as far as I'm concerned.

[Macca]

Is it really that simple...not to me it's not. If you only listen to new recordings from major labels then digital is a better choice. If you buy older records or from modern specialist vinyl labels then record decks can be a good alternative. For 50s / 60s / 70s music then it's vinyl as far as I'm concerned.

Is it really that simple? Not to me it's not ;) I don't listen to anything from the last 20 years yet still prefer digital - on the whole. Now if I had a better vinyl set-up that would maybe change but the cost of my current vinyl set up is £1300 (and the deck and cartridge were both bought second hand) plus £450 for the (essential) cleaning machine and in objective terms it is still bettered by my CD player (£45 second hand).

[Clive]

Is it really that simple? Not to me it's not ;) I don't listen to anything from the last 20 years yet still prefer digital - on the whole. Now if I had a better vinyl set-up that would maybe change but the cost of my current vinyl set up is £1300 (and the deck and cartridge were both bought second hand) plus £450 for the (essential) cleaning machine and in objective terms it is still bettered by my CD player (£45 second hand).
There's a lot of variables involved. Spending say £1,300 on a deck (new price) doesn't guarantee you a sound you will like, the same is true with CD though of course record decks are far more variable in sound. You may also have a system which is better suited to your CD player. It takes a lot of work or luck to have digital and analogue sources working side by side in harmony.

[Audio Advent]

Hi Clive, 8 bit is the theoretical limit though 6 bit is the norm. The dynamic range is also limited on vinyl because of its mechanical nature. If however you prefer the sound of an LP then that’s all that really matters. I was merely responding to the original thread with a few facts to explain the limited stereo imaging

You're getting your figures wrong somewhere. Saying that 8 bit is the theoretical limit is saying that the very very best possible dynamic range of vinyl is 48db. That's not correct at all. Then you say 6 bit is the norm, 36dB?

[Audio Advent]

Err the 'optical' cart I think that is being referred to still has a conventional stylus and cantiliver, it's the armature (coils and magnets) that are replaced with an optical system. The proof will be in the listening but I'm struggling to believe it would be any better than the traditional configuration. Plus there's a need to provide power to the cartridge.

The crosstalk of a cartridge itself is relatively low compared to say digital. I think an optical cart has the possibility to both reduce crosstalk within the cart itself - due to the electromagnetic field of one coil/magnet system (one channel) directly effecting the other (the other channel) - and also give the possibility of a lighter/faster response to the groove as there's less mass waggling around on the end with less momentum. Then also think about the equal and opposite effect of the magnet's field on the coil as the current is set in motion (without an equal and opposite force damping the movement, you could make popetual motion machines - it's conservation of energy priciple in action) - optical wouldn't have that either so response to the groove will be more accurate.

All those things I would have thought would improve stereo performance to some degree in theory. As always, the real-life results will be down to implementation.

But anyway, for stereo and holographic 3D imaging across the whole frequency range it's digital for me (I'm sure it could be tape too but high-end tape is not really for the home IMHO unless you're an experienced tape engineer).

[Haselsh1]

I'm with Martin (Macca) on this one. I have a three hundred quid Marantz CD player that currently outperforms my vinyl setup by quite a margin. Why would I want to spend fifteen hundred quid upgrading my vinyl only to find out that due to its limitations, it is still no better than a three hundred quid CD player...? My current plan is for the Croft Series 7 monoblocks as these will upgrade both the CD and vinyl replay but also maybe an Audiolab MDAC to increase what I am getting from CD. Don't forget I am using KEF Q500 loudspeakers which use their Uni-Q driver and that is partly responsible for the amazing stereo image I am experiencing. At the moment, I am loving my music.

[walpurgis]

Hmm. My CD setup certainly sounds different to the vinyl side of things, but is in no way superior. Both sound truly superb.

[Clive]

I certainly wouldn't recommend someone get a new deck and build a record collection of just new records. However it does seem that some new albums on vinyl have a far greater dynamic range than the equivalent CD...due to the loudness wars. It is rather arse about tit.

I have to say again that it's tough to setup a system to sound good with both digital and vinyl, the amp and speakers will almost invariably suit one source better than the other...unless a lot of care is taken. Making valid comparisons is not as easy as some are making out.

[struth]

My cd and flac system is very good to my ears and others, but my vinyl sounds better....might not on a graph but who cares about them. Some folk prefer digital sound over vinyl and thats fair enough too. I like the convenience of the Pi as it ill go at the touch of a button and will play anything I have in about 5 seconds, and thats its overlying strength. still prefer my black Frisbee spinner though

[Haselsh1]

This is how I see it but in ten minutes time it may be different ;)

I adore the whole romantic notion that surrounds vinyl and using LP's. There is nothing about CD that even comes close. Most of the time though I listen to Leftfield and Underworld and Shpongle and that kind of thing which is obviously very modern. I almost always find that the whole trippy experience of having audio images swirling around the room at the extremes of detection are so much better with CD than with vinyl but...

I also listen to Dire Straits first two albums and that kind of thing and for this I prefer vinyl.

At the moment I just cannot comprehend upgrading the Thorens with around 1500 quid of hard earned cash but I do see the advantage of an Audiolab M-DAC. I guess things are never truly black and white but I am open to all of those lovely shades of grey.

[NRG]

This CD vs LP debate as to which is better is utterly pathetic. Enjoy the music, look beyond the format.... :rolleyes:

[struth]

This CD vs LP debate as to which is better is utterly pathetic. Enjoy the music, look beyond the format.... :rolleyes:

no need to take that attitude Neal. Others may want to discuss it

[walpurgis]

This CD vs LP debate as to which is better is utterly pathetic. Enjoy the music, look beyond the format.... :rolleyes:

:scratch:

[NRG]

no need to take that attitude Neal. Others may want to discuss it

What the fuck for? It's totally circular, it been discussed since CD was released and since the first reflector lists sprang up... God knows I was there when they started and the debates haven't changed since! :rolleyes:

[Clive197]

Now, now children, play nicely.

The vast majority of vinyl lovers are of an older generation (like me), who grew up with it. To us vinyl hits a sweet spot.
That of course does not make it better than digital, just different.

Being a HiFi enthusiast I enjoy both analogue and digital. I think that it is wonderful that younger generations are latching on to vinyl for its sound and hands on approach which simply does not exist with any digital format. A faff, YES.

[Macca]

This isn't so much vinyl verses CD it is more about the relative costs for the quality obtained. As Shaun and I have already said we have 4 figures already into our vinyl set up and that does not exceed or reach the quality of our much cheaper digital set ups.

I have heard, and I am sure Shaun has too, some superb vinyl set ups that reach the quality of digital in an objective sense (what someone prefers is subjective - and I agree is a pointless debate) but generally speaking just the cartridge alone on these set-ups is more expensive than our entire systems.

I love my record collection, I love playing vinyl, I think it is great that the younger generations appear to be embracing it and keeping the torch lit. it is just that to do it properly, to do it really well, costs a lot of money by comparison to the same quality level from digital.

[Haselsh1]

This isn't so much vinyl verses CD it is more about the relative costs for the quality obtained. As Shaun and I have already said we have 4 figures already into our vinyl set up and that does not exceed or reach the quality of our much cheaper digital set ups.

I have heard, and I am sure Shaun has too, some superb vinyl set ups that reach the quality of digital in an objective sense (what someone prefers is subjective - and I agree is a pointless debate) but generally speaking just the cartridge alone on these set-ups is more expensive than our entire systems.

I love my record collection, I love playing vinyl, I think it is great that the younger generations appear to be embracing it and keeping the torch lit. it is just that to do it properly, to do it really well, costs a lot of money by comparison to the same quality level from digital.

That is the whole situation as I see it in a nutshell. Analogue requires a massive amount of money to be thrown at it whereas CD does not. It's a no brainer really.

[Haselsh1]

I remember back in the mid eighties when money was no problem I owned an Alphason Sonata with an Alphason HR100 SMCS tonearm and a Kiseki Blue cartridge.The sound was truly supreme into Naim amplification and then into QLN loudspeakers. I wonder how much such a setup would cost today..? Now compare that to a 300 quid CD player...?

[Haselsh1]

I was going to upgrade the Thorens with an Origin Live Silver tonearm and then a Dynavector DV20 H cartridge but the way things are at the moment I am having serious thoughts about not bothering. I still have my mind set on those Croft Monoblocks though. At least they will upgrade the CD and vinyl side of things and for a rather modest 1400 quid.

[Macca]

Not sure anyone will agree with this but does seem to me that those who are reluctant to discuss the relative cost of these things tend to be those who have loads of money to spend.

Those of us who have fairly tight budget on what we can spend on our systems tend to focus more on the cost.

Quite a few threads around the internet where someone says 'thinking of getting back into vinyl after 20 years, still have my old records what should I get?' A few months later they have spent £5K on deck - arm - cart - phono stage and then they post saying 'wow this blows my old Cd player into the weeds'. Yes, but it was five grand!

[Clive197]

An inexpensive vinyl set-up can give huge enjoyment. We tend to put money into it because we are enthusiasts but that does not mean you have to.
The same with CD players. It is quite possible to spend 5 figure numbers on them and a rich enthusiast can and will. It also possible to spend a 2 figure number which will give more than satisfactory results.
Lest we forget, like many other hobbies we can only cut our cloth to what we can afford. I'm only now able to spend more on my hobby for products I aspired to in days gone by.

[walpurgis]

An inexpensive vinyl set-up can give huge enjoyment.

Quite right. For a digital user who is a newcomer to vinyl and on a tight budget. I'd imagine something like an old but sound PL-12D or RP3 with a cheaper MM from say Nagoaka or Ortofon would be a bit of a revelation. And all for a couple of hundred quid or less (plus a phono stage if needed). I know most here might turn their noses up, but it's a cheap way into playing records that actually makes music.

[Clive]

There are bargains to be had, starting with this one at £80 asking price, possibly this could be haggled downwards: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?39054-Systemdek-11x

Yes it needs an arm but it's not too difficult to build a very decent deck for relatively peanuts. There is more skill and time involved than with digital and not everyone is well versed in good setup or knowing when setup is't quite right. Of course you can also spend thousands.

[Macca]

Hey I'm not disputing that you can get an enjoyable vinyl set -up quite cheaply. My neighbour has a Rega Planar 3, RB300 arm, AT95E and a project phono stage. Les than £300 and sounds pretty good. I told him to get a Nagaoka but he is too tight to spend the extra...

But he is not an enthusiast and we are and if you are pursuing true high fidelity then it is cheaper and easier to do it digitally. Is the point I am making ;)

[Clive197]

.............. if you are pursuing true high fidelity then it is cheaper and easier to do it digitally. Is the point I am making ;)

I'm curious, what do you think is the cheapest digital player that a enthusiast would buy?

When you stop to think about it, an enthusiast will spend more than he perhaps should or can afford. Whether he/she spends it on vinyl or digital is a personal priority. I genuinely don't think that for a given amount of money you can generalise that one is better than the other, it is as I said dependant on your priority.

However I do take the point that some analogue hardware can reach silly money, but that can be about engineering and aesthetics along with pride of ownership which rarely comes into digital (except Chord perhaps, and we all know how much that costs).

[Clive]

As I've said previously I too belive digital to be lower cost. Even with digital though whilst it can be super cheap, once you delve into the details costs add up. I prefer file based to CD. My current player is the Japanese Bug Head. The player is free but to work optimally it needs a machine with 16gb of ddr3 ram. Then you have the likes of the Swenson / Uptone Audio REGEN to dramatically improve USB. You could say a simple CDP would avoid all this and you'd be right but files / downloads / streaming are the not only the future they are the present for many.

[Macca]

I'm curious, what do you think is the cheapest digital player that a enthusiast would buy?

When you stop to think about it, an enthusiast will spend more than he perhaps should or can afford. Whether he/she spends it on vinyl or digital is a personal priority. I genuinely don't think that for a given amount of money you can generalise that one is better than the other, it is as I said dependant on your priority.

).

I know one who for many years used a Technics portable player for CD. Sounded excellent. It was a top of the range but still only about £80. Or £160 in today's money as this was 20 years ago. I used a Toshiba personal for a few years that belonged to a lodger. That wasn't better than my Systemdek IIX/ Linn Basik+/Nagaoka MP30 but it was not far of - again at a fifteenth of the price. I guess we just won't agree on this, Clive ;)

[Clive197]

....... I guess we just won't agree on this, Clive ;)

No worries Martin, it's only a discussion among enthusiasts. If we all had the same thoughts and opinions there would be no need for forums.

[walpurgis]

My digital front end (CD) would have been about £2750 new. Not all was bought new, so it stands me in at around £1930.

As compared to my vinyl, which should have been around £2950 new and actually cost me approx £1550.

The above does not include cable costs.

Not really huge discrepancies in outlay I'd say.

[Audio Advent]

I think I'm getting the best results I've had with a £250 dac and a laptop I'd be using anyway. Stick in a RPi instead and it's still very cheap.

The value advantage with digitial in theory is that electronics and digitial electronics should be making advances sonically whilst getting cheaper. Vinyl set-ups on the other hand are all about specialised labour costs and bespoke designs and traditional manufacturing etc etc which all get more expensive over time coupled with increasing specialised labour costs and also the limits of size of the market pushing costs up compared to mass consumer products. That in turn pushes the price of secondhand items up as people's idea of a bargain compared to increasing new prices shift over time.

[Audio Advent]

For me though, choosing to play vinyl or CD/digital is about the music. I'd agree that for most electronica I'll stick to digital but for example, 60s/70s rock or folk or even 80s electric funk I'll prefer vinyl and also enjoy the record for it's own sake.

[Haselsh1]

I really do appreciate that an Origin Live Silver tonearm is all about micro engineering and there is therefore an appropriate cost involved but I am also aware of how much of that £675 is actually dealer margin. I fully appreciate that the DV20 H is also about micro engineering as well and therefore exactly the same thing applies. My point is this, can I justify spending around 1500 pounds upgrading my Thorens beyond what I have already done in some hope that it ends up much better than my CD playback...? At this moment in time I simply cannot answer that. Being perfectly honest though, I would rather buy an intricate arm and cartridge than a bloody CD player costing the same amount of money. I have some thinking to do.

[Haselsh1]

I really do enjoy the vinyl experience more than the digital one, that is also true of my photography, unfortunately, I much prefer the digital stereo experience that I get from CD.

[Clive]

I really do appreciate that an Origin Live Silver tonearm is all about micro engineering and there is therefore an appropriate cost involved but I am also aware of how much of that £675 is actually dealer margin. I fully appreciate that the DV20 H is also about micro engineering as well and therefore exactly the same thing applies. My point is this, can I justify spending around 1500 pounds upgrading my Thorens beyond what I have already done in some hope that it ends up much better than my CD playback...? At this moment in time I simply cannot answer that. Being perfectly honest though, I would rather buy an intricate arm and cartridge than a bloody CD player costing the same amount of money. I have some thinking to do.
You might want to try to get in the frame of mind where it's not which source is better but which at any particular time your want to enjoy using and listening to. For this to work you need both to be sounding respectable and not one totally trashing the other albeit there will be pros and cons. I tend to have an evening listening via just one source otherwise I start making comparisons rather than listening to music.

[Macca]

I also try to stick with one format for an evening's listening.

That's probably more down to the fact that I don't like to change lanes once I get going.
If I'm evaluating a change I'll use cd. Unless it is a vinyl-related change. It''s more consistent and shows up problems more readily, I find.

[Haselsh1]

Yeah, one of my problems is that I am nearly always 'black and white' in that I don't do grey areas. So one week it may be vinyl and the next it may be CD but it is never both.

[dowser]

Wow - 4 pages of shuffling between digital and vinyl & no one has mentioned the "vinyl" is actually synergy between a deck, arm, cartridge & phono stage. Any one of these can screw up reproduction (I saw a post earlier about a dl160 sounding bad...I am willing to bet it was into an MM stage).

My view - on a good master to both cd and vinyl I prefer (just) vinyl. But both are good - normally variance is much bigger between mastering of the 2 and that sets the preference.