Are records really better than CD's?

John -

Do you think that the new motor affects the tone arm or the platter more? I just wonder because they are all connected to the plinth and it seems to me that since the tone arm has less mass that it would be the one most affected.

One of the audio mags used to publish a great graph where you could look up your tonearm's effective mass and the weight of your cartridge. Next you would look for the compliance rating of your cartridge and you could see the frequency of the combination. I would use that scale whenever I was shopping for a new cartridge.

The arms geometry is also important. As I have posted before my Grado tracks really well in the Rega RB 250 after I switched to a lowered counterweight. This was when I had a Grado Red and when I heard the improvements I realized I finally heard the Grado magic. Of course the Sonata Statement is tracking well but even more magic to the sound.

John -

Something like this?

Rega | Tonearm Mounting Distance and Alignment Information | Vinyl Engine

And this?

Vinyl Engine - Tonearm Alignment Calculator Pro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

John -

Do you think that the new motor affects the tone arm or the platter more? I just wonder because they are all connected to the plinth and it seems to me that since the tone arm has less mass that it would be the one most affected.

---

The Rega uses a light composite plinth that disperses energy quickly so I do not know if vibrations influence the tonearm. The platter is glass on top of a machined metal subplatter which sits on top of a ceramic bearing. The combined mass of the glass platter and the machined metal subplatter should be resilient to any remaining vibrations from the motor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

John -

Something like this?

Rega | Tonearm Mounting Distance and Alignment Information | Vinyl Engine

And this?

Vinyl Engine - Tonearm Alignment Calculator Pro

---

No. It was a simple graph that had, if I remember correctly, vertical axis for tonearm mass, horizontal axis for cartridge mass and the diagonal would show suggested compliance for the ideal range. You first had to know the tonearms mass and the guide you posted would help with that but the graph I am thinking of is so simple. I think it might have appeared in Hi Fidelity. I will try to find it when I am home with my computer.

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

I bought the Shure V15xMR with its original stylus when they were still readily available at or below list price and used it until I had my one and only stylus accident one night. I should say if anyone is looking to replicate that original sound, I don't think the Jico does that. It has a sound of it's own. It is bolder and brighter than the original. The bass of the original is what I liked about that sound and the Jico retains a solid foundation, but it is not of the same character exactly as what I recall with the original. I think the Jico has a more detailed midrange that is more spacious and the high end is not rolled off like on the original. Now, it has been many years since I directly listened to the original and memory is a funny thing. But I do still have CDs burned when I was using the original and I believe this assessment holds up, at least in my setup.

So the Jico stylus to me is a bit of a mixed bag, but I enjoy it in the end. It does not sound like the orioginal so if you want that sound you're out of luck. However, it does really pull out a lot of midrange detail while having a flatter response up top. Bass is still strong and good, just seems to loose a bit of the character the original had for me, but I don't see it as necessarily a weakness of the cart, it is just a difference. And this could really be as much a factor of the bass being more prominent with the original due to a rolled off top end. Hard to say. But I think the cart with the Jico stylus provides a great balance of being detailed up top while still having a good relatively smooth overall balance and strong bass.

Tracking wise, I am remembering back a way, and I was using it on another table (which really colors all these comments). But I'd say they were in the same ballpark. I'm having good luck tracking without a lot of stylus force. I would say the brushes are very different with the old sure brush affecting tracking force much more than the Jico brush.

I think that's about all I can think of on it.

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

---

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency

---

What I liked about the graph I am looking for is the visual range of the frequncies involved. You have a band of acceptable range which gives you some wiggle room in choosing a cartridge. Similar to the one I posted you can have good tracking if the tonearm/cartridge and compliance fall within the dotted space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I already have, it should be here Thursday.

I understood about the electronics, but did it anyway. I kind of wanted another Accutrac like I had, but couldn't find one in the condition that I wanted. It spec'd out well too. I was considering the Denon DP-300F like you mentioned. It seems that it is a decent table for the money and close to the same performance as entry level offerings of several better brands. Spec wise it wasn't nearly as good as the DP-61F. In any case, I wanted at least a semi automatic and this fit the bill.

I also figure, hopefully correctly, that I can improve the sound with perhaps a MC cartridge and a decent preamp.

Any suggestions on a record cleaner?

---

The VPI 16.5 is one of the best values in record cleaning machines, if that's what you're after. I clean my records with a mini shop vac.

Bob cleans a record - YouTube

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

---

A few people at Audioholics looked into this and quite liked the results;

Vinyl Record Cleaner and Washing System | Spin Clean Record Washing System

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.
http://www.garyanderson.co.nz/img/p/...6-thickbox.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

---

Thanks, I really appreciate the depth you went into describing the stylus.

There is also a clever record cleaning machine at KAB ELECTRO ACOUSTICS . It works like a Nitty Gritty, but with your household vacuum cleaner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.

---

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

---

Thanks. The acrylic platter eliminates almost all static.

nice table 3db....what cart and phono amp are you using?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frenchmon

nice table 3db....what cart and phono amp are you using?

---

Thanks. I'm using the built in phono amp of my home theater receiver, a Yamaha RX-V1800. I'm using an Ortofon 2M Red which is what is supplied here in Canada. I understand that the US models use a different cartridge.

I've had a couple of days to listen to my new (used) turntable and I have to say that I'm a convert. I didn't realize what I had been missing. It's wonderful. Granted, I've only had DAC's in the thousand dollar range, but digital never sounded this good to me. I would never have believed anyone if they told me it was this good.

I did a little searching on the subject matter and it seems that for the most part people are polarized on this issue. I didn't realize this. Some take the line that digital is better in all aspects while others believe that vinyl is, but there is also a general consensus for many that say it depends on the quality of the recording whether it be digital or vinyl.

I'm not sure whether the all digital only people make this claim of superiority for all CD players or whether they are making reference to state of the art digital playback equipment. I do find it interesting that many reviews of higher end digital systems are said to sound more analog.

As for vinyl affectionados, there seems to be no end to ways of improving the vinyl experience through equipment upgrades as if there is something wrong with analog.

For the remaining group that believe it depends on the quality of the recording, I believe they are standing on the strongest foundation just from the fact of the garbage in garbage out principal. Part of this line of reasoning is due to the fact (as I understand it) that recording engineers use a great deal of compression on CD's, but not so much on vinyl. Back in the 70's I only had one record that was compressed and that was done so they could fit more songs onto the record (K-TEL). To me, and in comparison to all the other records in my collection, it sounded lifeless (bland), so I think they may be correct.

As you know I bought a turntable because the CD copies of my old favorite records were a shadow of what I remember vinyl to sound like and I wanted to reclaim what I had lost. Most of the CD copies were unlistenable. The life was sucked out of them and they hurt my ears.

Up to the point prior to getting the turntable, I had/have CD's that I thought were fantastic sounding and many that were not. For the ones that were not, my biggest complaint was that they hurt my ears to listen to them. Then sounded strident. In the past, I had purchased outboard DAC's (up to $1,000) to improve this condition, but while there were some improvements, the stridency remained. I assume that even though I failed, there are DAC's that could have made the difference, but I was tired at throwing money at this problem.

Fast forward to today...

Keeping in mind that my equipment is different than in the past, I bought a number of records for my turntable. Some of them were the same ones I had back in the day. Surprisingly, many don't sound the way I remember them, not as clear. The jury is still out on this, but I have to say that the cartridge I am using is probably 25 years old and that may be the cause, a new one is in the mail.

With that said...

There is one record that really stands out, but it is much newer than than the 70's records and that album is Willie Nelson “Always On My Mind”. I also have the CD. In a nutshell, the record is much better than the CD in every way imaginable. I will attempt to describe the differences in terms of why the vinyl is better.

First of all, there is more space around the instruments and voices so it is much easier to hear everything in the soundstage. Everything at the back of the (virtual) stage is more defined. All the instruments sound more real in a way that digital has only hinted at. Strings are more vibrant. Comparing strings on this record to the way they sound on the CD is like comparing a really good piano to the synthesized sounds of a decent keyboard. Voices, in comparison, sound more natural. I could go on, but even though I've listened to the CD hundreds of times, I could never have imagined what I hear from the record. It's night and day. Ultimately, there is still room for improvement, mostly concerning clarity in terms of live sound.

I used to think that my best CD recordings were better than any record I had heard, especially the soundstage. Now, it's the other way around. This record under review is the best sound that I've heard in my home. In no way am I saying that this is better than CD's on state of the art digital equipment (I don't know), but from a budget standpoint, this vinyl has taken the top spot.

Musing on this issue...

Technically, CD's are vastly superior to vinyl. I've listened to some very good systems with state of the art digital front ends and there is no comparison to what passes as digital front ends in most homes. So what I've come to believe is that a decent turntable with a very good recording is ultimately superior to a very good recording on a CD played back through an average CD player and even lower priced DAC's.

Until actually tested in a direct comparison, I will assume for now, that the very best analog system is equal to the very best digital system. From the standpoint of an average consumer with affordable gear, and assuming equal quality in recordings, I have to think that vinyl is superior.

Well, that's it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

Thanks. I'm using the built in phono amp of my home theater receiver, a Yamaha RX-V1800. I'm using an Ortofon 2M Red which is what is supplied here in Canada. I understand that the US models use a different cartridge.

---

I have a Red as well.....I also have the 2M Black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I've had a couple of days to listen to my new (used) turntable and I have to say that I'm a convert. I didn't realize what I had been missing. It's wonderful. Granted, I've only had DAC's in the thousand dollar range, but digital never sounded this good to me. I would never have believed anyone if they told me it was this good.

---

Hahahaha! Told ya. With digital you get lots of digital noise but you don't realize it. Vinyl may give you some pops and clicks and you may get some noise from your phono amp, but generally vinyl has a lower noise floor so you can hear lots of low end resolution and detail that's not as clear with digital due to the higher noisie floor unless you spend googobs of loot on a very good player with good DAC's. Vinyl is more natural in its sound and presentation. I find vinyl to be more romantic as well.

There are many CDP that sound like analog.....look at some of the high dollar Marantz Reference players...they have a cult like following for that reaons....one day I may join them. You have discovered the argument of Digi versus vinyl.....to my ears vinyl wins.....its more natural sounding.

I have and enjoy both CDs/SACDs and vinyl. There are good and bad examples of both mediums. To my ears, many of the CD reissues sound inferior to their vinyl counterpart. I also have some cherished LPs that have never been reissued on CD, so vinyl is not going away. BTW, I own a Marantz SA-11S2 SACD player, and yes it is very analog-like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frenchmon

There are many CDP that sound like analog.....look at some of the high dollar Marantz Reference players...they have a cult like following for that reaons....one day I may join them. You have discovered the argument of Digi versus vinyl.....to my ears vinyl wins.....its more natural sounding.

---

Even the Marantz SA8001 has an analog like quality. Switching from the ttable to the SA8001 is not a shock to the ears. I wonder if the SA8004 is even better in this regard.

I have a Marantz SA8004 and it has more tube warmth than the tubed player it replaced. Not a spec of dreaded "digitalis" to my ears.

I wonder what this digital noise sounds like..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

I wonder what this digital noise sounds like..

---

What I mean by digital noise is the hard edges, and lack of emotion that many of the mediocre players have. They seem to be sterile and cold, and lack any feeling in the play back. And what I mean by high noise floor or high sound floor is the point where the smallest sounds weakest sounds in the music can not be heard. The low level detail is lost and you find yourself turning up the volume to hear it. That system may have a high sound floor. Most times its due to mediocre parts and wire inside the players, and very complicated designs that degrade a signal. It could be a result of the weakest link in your system, but I find some of the cheaper CDP's have a high sound floor more so that a mediocre turntable and cartridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frenchmon

What I mean by digital noise is the hard edges, and lack of emotion that many of the mediocre players have. They seem to be sterile and cold, and lack any feeling in the play back. And what I mean by high noise floor or high sound floor is the point where the smallest sounds weakest sounds in the music can not be heard. The low level detail is lost and you find yourself turning up the volume to hear it. That system may have a high sound floor. Most times its due to mediocre parts and wire inside the players, and very complicated designs that degrade a signal. It could be a result of the weakest link in your system, but I find some of the cheaper CDP's have a high sound floor more so that a mediocre turntable and cartridge.

---

What you are talking about falls more into the production realm of things. I have CDs that will completely blow away its vinyl counterpart in terms of dynamics where the smallest of sound can be heard clear as day and the music doesn't sound cold and sterile. I also have vinyl that does the same to CDs . IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

One of the early vinyl vs. digital debates was how much quicker a phono cartridge responds to the signal than the digital converters. I think the dynamics between notes is better presented by vinyl than digital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

---

That's really a shame that it's that way. What I don't understand is if CD's and vinyl come from the same master source, why don't they sound the same?

Where the record excelled, the very best CD I have didn't come close. For instance, for the first time since owning a CD player, cymbals sounded real, but this was from the vinyl. Up to this point I had thought that my speakers and/or equipment was not up to the task, but apparently vinyl proved that wrong. It seems that CD players smear the signal. I assume that a better CD player would overcome this.

The record players that most people owned prior to CD's paled in comparison to a good turntable and cartridge. Perhaps the average CD player is comparable to the average record player of the past, which explains why, in comparison, vinyl can sound much better today. I know CD's, on a highend player, can sound much better than what I experience at home, but the cost of these highend players is exorbitantly greater than what it cost for a decent TT/cartridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

I think the dynamics between notes is better presented by vinyl than digital.

---

Perhaps this is what I hear as smearing? Maybe vinyl is better at reproducing the leading and trailing edges of the signal too?

I also noticed, on the record, that drums sounded more real and were better defined in the sound stage. The other thing that was extremely apparent was that piano strings would decay slowly like a real piano.

I have to admit that many years ago I heard a couple of good systems that produced a soundstage so real that I felt I could walk onto the stage and in between the players. This was from CD's. I never experienced this at home. One system had taken this too far, IMO, and the separation was too great. It was kind of odd because while everyone in the recording were playing the same song, it didn't congeal together. It was as if you had five people doing their own thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3db

What you are talking about falls more into the production realm of things. I have CDs that will completely blow away its vinyl counterpart in terms of dynamics where the smallest of sound can be heard clear as day and the music doesn't sound cold and sterile. I also have vinyl that does the same to CDs . IHO, I think the format war boils down to the recording engineer and not the format its recorded on. :)

---

There is no argument from me concerning digital. CD's can give you a better and higher dynamic and it can give you lower amounts of distortion due to the fact that vinyl play back seems to start to ware on the vinyl. CD also has that digital sound thats hard and edgy. I have never heard a CD, and I have been in this game for a long time, sound as natural than vinyl. Analog and Digital sounds are two different sounds. The dynamic that CD has does not mean a more pleasant presentation. Even in bad recordings of both formats, CD retains that digital sound and vinyl retains that smooth natural sound. Instruments come across as more natural and real where as not so as much with digital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

That's really a shame that it's that way. What I don't understand is if CD's and vinyl come from the same master source, why don't they sound the same?

Where the record excelled, the very best CD I have didn't come close. For instance, for the first time since owning a CD player, cymbals sounded real, but this was from the vinyl. Up to this point I had thought that my speakers and/or equipment was not up to the task, but apparently vinyl proved that wrong. It seems that CD players smear the signal. I assume that a better CD player would overcome this.

The record players that most people owned prior to CD's paled in comparison to a good turntable and cartridge. Perhaps the average CD player is comparable to the average record player of the past, which explains why, in comparison, vinyl can sound much better today. I know CD's, on a highend player, can sound much better than what I experience at home, but the cost of these highend players is exorbitantly greater than what it cost for a decent TT/cartridge.



Perhaps this is what I hear as smearing? Maybe vinyl is better at reproducing the leading and trailing edges of the signal too?

I also noticed, on the record, that drums sounded more real and were better defined in the sound stage. The other thing that was extremely apparent was that piano strings would decay slowly like a real piano.

I have to admit that many years ago I heard a couple of good systems that produced a soundstage so real that I felt I could walk onto the stage and in between the players. This was from CD's. I never experienced this at home. One system had taken this too far, IMO, and the separation was too great. It was kind of odd because while everyone in the recording were playing the same song, it didn't congeal together. It was as if you had five people doing their own thing.

---

The reason vinyl and digital is different and sounds different is due to they way they are recorded.

analog is considered to be physical or the real thing due to the physical touch of the wave signal with nothing of the signal is lost. digital on the other hand the signal being a digital signal is stored as numbers and is a abstract of the original sound...this has drop outs of bits during recording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frenchmon

The reason vinyl and digital is different and sounds different is due to they way they are recorded.

Vinyl is considered to be physical or the real thing due to the physical touch of the wave signal with nothing of the signal is lost. digital on the other hand the signal being a digital signal is stored as numbers and is a abstract of the original sound...this has drop outs of bits during recording.

---

That makes sense because digital interpolates the values between digital words (16 bits) and fills in the gaps. I don't know enough about this to understand it fully except to say that it's possible for the DAC to get it wrong to some degree. Due to the sampling rate, as the frequency increases, I have to assume there is a greater chance for errors to occur, whereas, as you said, vinyl is continuous.

It also occurs to me that since digital playback can be improved with better DAC's and better algorithms used in the conversion process that an average CD player is a compromise due to the cost factor.

All I know for sure is that with the equipment I have, the vinyl sounds more real by a good margin and it is not subtle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

That makes sense because digital interpolates the values between digital words (16 bits) and fills in the gaps.

---

Don't get locked into the notion that there is inherently any limitation to word size or sample rate with digital recordings. The arbitrary Redbook CD standard, yes. I agree that 16 bits is not sufficient to fully render the musical experience, but higher resolutions do exist - if not widely available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

It also occurs to me that since digital playback can be improved with better DAC's and better algorithms used in the conversion process that an average CD player is a compromise due to the cost factor.

---

There I'll agree. Don't forget that the analog output stage of a CDP or DAC is as important as the quality of a phono preamp. Most inexpensive CD players use inexpensive op amps that are not as linear as discrete devices.

You're absolutely correct. Of course I was referring to 16 bit.

Another thing that crosses my mind is that the eye has a persistence factor of about 30 frames a second. It wouldn't surprise me if the ear has something similar. Once the sample rate exceeds that then we've reached the needed limit. Of course, as the word size increases, the distance between words that the DAC has to interpolate becomes more accurate. Maybe 24/96 in the magic number?

As for op amps versus discrete circuitry, I trust that you are correct about that too.

Has anyone picked up both the CD version and the vinyl version of Tom Petty's "MOJO" album released two years ago. Both are stunning achievements of what can be done on either format. Problem is, people often blame the CD format and not the player for sounding poor.

FYI, I just installed my new Audio Technica AT-120E cartridge in my turntable and I have to tell you that you folks saying that vinyl sounds more natural are understating the facts big time.

I have never heard my system sound like this, everything I lost from the 70's is back and much more. I can't believe how much information is missing from CD's. I couldn't stop laughing from the joy of it. Granted, my digital is not very good, but compared to vinyl, it's midfi, at best.

Anyway, I'm happy now and want to thank everyone for the discussion.

Maybe someday, I'll look into upgrading my digital, but I have to get over my excitement about rediscovering vinyl.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Granted, my digital is not very good, but compared to vinyl, it's midfi, at best.

---

Honestly, I don't entirely share your overall assessment of digital vs. vinyl and discovered that you use an Oppo DV-980H. Coincidentally. I have a similar vintage DV-971H used as a DVD player in a spare bedroom. Since I play it through an old 27" CRT based TV, I never really thought about its audio quality.

Just for grins, I connected it to the garage system in lieu of the Touch network player. I see what you mean. While not offensive, it is not nearly as good sounding as the $300 Touch. Even more so as compared to the Audio Research DAC7. Muffled at the top with less resolution across the range. You're likely getting much better high frequency response from your vinyl rig.

I've had a Marantz 63SE CD Player amongst numerous other CD and DVD players, but nothing to write home about. I've had a CAL Audio Labs tube DAC and an Aragon DAC with HDCD, plus I've had a Genesis Digital Lens. I've also used a heavily modified Behringer digital crossover as a DAC and the latest addition was my Emotiva digital pre amp as a DAC. I should also mention that my Yamaha receiver also has a DAC which I've tried.

So you see, it's not like I didn't try.

I do have to say that the Oppo (digital out) going through the Emotiva was very clear.

I've owned B&W (lower model), Quad ESL's, and System Audio speakers, and others, not so nice. I've used Mark Levinson for power and tried several others, also owned other amps.

It's odd that I began with a decent pair of speakers and decent turntable going through a JVC receiver (back in the 70's), progressed through electrostatics and amps that weighed more than my girlfriend and now I'm back to a little amp that fits in my pocket and another decent turntable feeding home made speakers. Go figure?

I realize that it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, but there it is. If it was a marginal change I would say so, but it's much more, even profound, if I'm allowed to say that.

I'm not saying that it's the best I've ever heard, that would be a lie, but for a system that cost me about $1,500 it's amazing. The speakers cost me about $1,000 in parts (including box and crossovers) and I got most of those parts for a big discount. Retail on the parts would have been about $2,000 (just the drivers) not counting the crossovers and material for the boxes. I didn't skimp of the crossover parts either, it's good stuff. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that my speakers are fairly decent. They are about 91db efficient so my little Trends amp drives them very well in the room they are in. By the way, the Trends amp reviewed very well. The only other thing in the signal path is the ART Phono Plus preamp which seems to be very transparent. I got lucky on this since I don't know one from another.

It's a simple system with a short signal path. I haven't messed with fancy speaker wire yet, but I am using a solid silver interconnect between the ART and the Trends.

Prior to this I was running the Oppo through the Emotiva to the Trends, so the system hasn't been radically altered. BTW, the analog out on my Oppo is poor quality, it needs to be connected digitally, and I agree with your assessment of it if you had used analog out.

Just a thought, but it always seemed to me that my DIY speakers were actually clearer sounding than my quads, but I thought my Quads had better tonal qualities for voices. Perhaps it's the equipment which was different for both systems.

Anyway, as it now stands (for me), vinyl rules, but when I get the time and drive I'm going to look into better digital systems.

I had another opportunity to play back another vinyl of which I have the CD and I still prefer the vinyl. I loved the music on both but the CD hurt my ears so much that I had to play it at a low volume. The record still has a certain amount of shrillness to it, but nowhere near what the CD has. Besides, I could hear a great deal more detail on the vinyl.