CDs Over Vinyl Any Day

[eleiko]

I'll take CDs over vinyl any day. I've got both, including the same recordings (one on vinyl, the other on CD), and the CDs sound better (crisper, clearer, quieter). Do an A-B comparison of Beatles records, and this becomes very apparent. Yes, I still listen to my LPs on my Thorens TD166 mk2 (coupled with a Sumiko Pearl cartridge - no wonder the CDs sound better; is that what you're thinking?). Ergonomically, CDs make more sense, and, as I've said, they sound better - bringing to life some 1930s opera recordings (like act 2 of Die Valcarie with Lauritz Melchoir) that sound like 1930s opera recordings on LP. And I certainly don't miss the clicks and pops which, since CDs came available, are almost intolerable. Go ahead, flame me.

[Sondek]

I'll take CDs over vinyl any day. I've got both, including the same recordings (one on vinyl, the other on CD), and the CDs sound better (crisper, clearer, quieter). Do an A-B comparison of Beatles records, and this becomes very apparent. Yes, I still listen to my LPs on my Thorens TD166 mk2 (coupled with a Sumiko Pearl cartridge - no wonder the CDs sound better; is that what you're thinking?). Ergonomically, CDs make more sense, and, as I've said, they sound better - bringing to life some 1930s opera recordings (like act 2 of Die Valcarie with Lauritz Melchoir) that sound like 1930s opera recordings on LP. And I certainly don't miss the clicks and pops which, since CDs came available, are almost intolerable. Go ahead, flame me.

Actually, none of the cd recordings I have (AKA Naim CDS3 cdp) can match my LINN lp-12 musically. The 200 gram pressings simply have more fluidity than any cd player can deliver. This makes the vinyl more tonally alive and involving.

But...

No vinyl I have heard has the cd players black background and frictionless silence. Stuff like the 1812 overture and other dynamic/bass powerful recordings work better on a cd IMO.

The Thorens is a decent deck, but not really tonally a "reference" deck in which to compare vs premium digital.

In my case, I am comparing a $14k cd player and an $8k turntable set up. Cd has it's merits, but both platforms are capable of extracting nuances to the point enjoyment becomes synergy, and recording quality dependent.

[eleiko]

Actually, none of the cd recordings I have (AKA Naim CDS3 cdp) can match my LINN lp-12 musically. The 200 gram pressings simply have more fluidity than any cd player can deliver. This makes the vinyl more tonally alive and involving.

But...

No vinyl I have heard has the cd players black background and frictionless silence. Stuff like the 1812 overture and other dynamic/bass powerful recordings work better on a cd IMO.

The Thorens is a decent deck, but not really tonally a "reference" deck in which to compare vs premium digital.

In my case, I am comparing a $14k cd player and an $8k turntable set up. Cd has it's merits, but both platforms are capable of extracting nuances to the point enjoyment becomes synergy, and recording quality dependent.

I wouldn't spend more than a few hundred dollars for either a turntable or CD player. As you know, there's a point of diminishing returns when you reach stratospheric heights in audio (or anything else for that matter). I've never found CDs "cold", "vapid" or any of the other adjectives some audiophiles use to describe their sound. The quiet background alone sold me on CDs as preference to vinyl.

[Sondek]

I wouldn't spend more than a few hundred dollars for either a turntable or CD player. As you know, there's a point of diminishing returns when you reach stratospheric heights in audio (or anything else for that matter). I've never found CDs "cold", "vapid" or any of the other adjectives some audiophiles use to describe their sound. The quiet background alone sold me on CDs as preference to vinyl.

I didn't flame you before, but you stated exactly as I suspected. You do not own high end, and cannot speak from experiance, and do not have a good point of reference. You are making a call from rationalizing cheap gear. I won't say it doesn't sound good, but it is a long way from what vinyl and digital can do.

Sure, I might like cd better if all I knew was sub $1k stuff. But there is no exaggeration when cd players and lp's get far better than what is offered at "a few hundered bucks."

That's almost like saying bose is as good as it gets.

IOW:

You like the sound of your cheap cd over your cheap turntable, but cannot speak to what high end actually sounds like to make a real judgement call. Stick to your guns though, whatever turns you on. But there is far better stuff out there.

"Wow, this Hundai tiberon is as good as sports cars get, there is no reason to spend more because the rest is a waste of money for little improvement"

[rb122]

I wouldn't spend more than a few hundred dollars for either a turntable or CD player. As you know, there's a point of diminishing returns when you reach stratospheric heights in audio (or anything else for that matter). I've never found CDs "cold", "vapid" or any of the other adjectives some audiophiles use to describe their sound. The quiet background alone sold me on CDs as preference to vinyl.

There's no need for you to defend your preference. If you're happy with CD's, I'm happy for you. I hear it differently but that's ok, too. On the other hand, when I compare a "few hundred" dollar turntable with a few hundred dollar CD player, the difference between the two medium is lessened, as Sondek pointed out. But as you said, CD over vinyl any day for you. Enjoy!

[rb122]

I'll take CDs over vinyl any day. I've got both, including the same recordings (one on vinyl, the other on CD), and the CDs sound better (crisper, clearer, quieter). Do an A-B comparison of Beatles records, and this becomes very apparent. Yes, I still listen to my LPs on my Thorens TD166 mk2 (coupled with a Sumiko Pearl cartridge - no wonder the CDs sound better; is that what you're thinking?). Ergonomically, CDs make more sense, and, as I've said, they sound better - bringing to life some 1930s opera recordings (like act 2 of Die Valcarie with Lauritz Melchoir) that sound like 1930s opera recordings on LP. And I certainly don't miss the clicks and pops which, since CDs came available, are almost intolerable. Go ahead, flame me.

Try doing the same Beatles comparison using the original LP's rather than one of the multiple reissues that seem to get steadily worse sounding as they go forward. All vinyl is not the same, either. The original LP's are absolutely the only source to listen to the Beatles and hear the music as it was intended, IMHO.

[Sondek]

I forgot to point out that there is some mediocre, and crappy vinyl out there that really cannot be used to judge what a deck or a recording sounds like.

I have some recordings that got re-mastered and the cd is a bit better than the original pressing. This is again, not a good determining thing.

A properly modded/equipped thorens will make some excellent music. The one thing it may miss vs a heavily modded unit, or more expensive player is a rich timbre, and tonality. Less expensive decks seems to sound reasonably well detailed, but fall just short of a really involving experiance to separate it from a decent cdp. But if I had a thorens, I'd not hesitate to equip it with a decent arm, and $300- $600 cart before I decided.

The lowest priced cdp I have heard that sounds decent is $400. But there is no way you'd mistake one for a $700 or $1200 cd player. Cd players just do not have a decent analog stage for a few hundred bucks. They might sound decent, but they are highly omissive.

FWIW: I cannot listen to the 1812 overture (Telarc) Lp in it's entirety, my cartridge will not track it. But the cd has frighteningly powerful bass. That in itself is a bit of an advantage.

But again, since I can hear differences in ambient recovery (decay) that cheap cd players do not have---that alone is worth a better deck. I am not sure there is a commercial cd player under $4,000 USD that has real ambient detail. However, there are decent $800 turntables that do.

[eleiko]

Try doing the same Beatles comparison using the original LP's rather than one of the multiple reissues that seem to get steadily worse sounding as they go forward. All vinyl is not the same, either. The original LP's are absolutely the only source to listen to the Beatles and hear the music as it was intended, IMHO.

Actually, I do have some "original" vinyal pressings of the Beatles - Abbey Road, The White Album, Sgt. Pepper - all on Parlaphone, the British EMI label that my grandmother brought back from her trip to England over 30 years ago. Still, my CD copy of, for example, "As My Guitar Gently Weeps" (on a compilation CD) sounds better.

[eleiko]

I own a NAD CD player which I purchased in 1987 for about $350. If I had to replace it (it still works great), I'd expect to spend between $400 and $550 for what I want. $1000? No efin way! I've been told by several sources that to equal even mass market CD player sound, you'd have to spend over $1000 (a conservative estimate) on the right table, arm and cartridge combo. Personally, I don't find it feasible (priorities, priorities), though I don't begrudge those that do. By the way, I do notice a significant difference, mid-range especially, between my Sumiko mm Pearl cartridge and the Denon mc I owned prior to the Sumiko. I've considered replacing the Pearl with the high output mc Sumiko Blue ? Special.

[DMK]

Actually, I do have some "original" vinyal pressings of the Beatles - Abbey Road, The White Album, Sgt. Pepper - all on Parlaphone, the British EMI label that my grandmother brought back from her trip to England over 30 years ago. Still, my CD copy of, for example, "As My Guitar Gently Weeps" (on a compilation CD) sounds better.

I can't argue with what you hear. But I can say that if the LP's have been well cared for, you are in the distinct minority with your preference for the CD - for what that's worth. The original Parlophones are highly sought after.

Speaking of worth - and again, if the vinyl is in good shape - they're worth some major bucks on the collector market! If you're interested in selling the LP's, you should check into that. Perhaps a city close to you has a record show or something.

[DMK]

I own a NAD CD player which I purchased in 1987 for about $350. If I had to replace it (it still works great), I'd expect to spend between $400 and $550 for what I want. $1000? No efin way! I've been told by several sources that to equal even mass market CD player sound, you'd have to spend over $1000 (a conservative estimate) on the right table, arm and cartridge combo. Personally, I don't find it feasible (priorities, priorities), though I don't begrudge those that do. By the way, I do notice a significant difference, mid-range especially, between my Sumiko mm Pearl cartridge and the Denon mc I owned prior to the Sumiko. I've considered replacing the Pearl with the high output mc Sumiko Blue ? Special.

"I've been told by several sources that to equal even mass market CD player sound, you'd have to spend over $1000 (a conservative estimate) on the right table, arm and cartridge combo."

Not at all, particularly if you are willing to look into the used market. I bought an old Technics table/arm with a cheap Ortofon cartridge for $50 and it sounds great! Not the best but better than CD and it's for a second system I had until recently and now my kids use it. I mean no disrespect to whoever gave you this advice, but they're WAY off the mark! Do these people perchance sell analog gear? :) Your Thorens with the Sumiko BPS should DESTROY a mass market CD player - and you already own the Thorens! By the way, the BPS from the Pearl is quite a jump in quality. Do you recall which Denon you owned? They make wonderful mc cartridges that are fairly inexpensive.

Also, curious about something - your old NAD CD player. NAD was known until fairly recently to have good Dac's and lousy transports. If my one NAD is any indication, the rumors are true as mine won't track worth a durn. But you apparently have had no issues with that, true? The nice thing is that the current NAD that is comparable to yours is probably still $350!

[eleiko]

I can't argue with what you hear. But I can say that if the LP's have been well cared for, you are in the distinct minority with your preference for the CD - for what that's worth. The original Parlophones are highly sought after.

Speaking of worth - and again, if the vinyl is in good shape - they're worth some major bucks on the collector market! If you're interested in selling the LP's, you should check into that. Perhaps a city close to you has a record show or something.

I have 5 Beatles albums on Parlaphone: The three I already listed in addition to Rubber Soul and Revolver, all in near mint condition. I wouldn't have thought they'd be worth that much. My regret is not keeping the Rubber Soul album on the Capital label because it contained a great, though under-rated McCartney number you don't hear played that much - "I've Just Seen A Face" ("I've just seen a face I can't forget the time or place where we just met she's just the girl for me/ and I want all the world to see we've met...")

[Sondek]

I own a NAD CD player which I purchased in 1987 for about $350. If I had to replace it (it still works great), I'd expect to spend between $400 and $550 for what I want. $1000? No efin way! I've been told by several sources that to equal even mass market CD player sound, you'd have to spend over $1000 (a conservative estimate) on the right table, arm and cartridge combo. Personally, I don't find it feasible (priorities, priorities), though I don't begrudge those that do. By the way, I do notice a significant difference, mid-range especially, between my Sumiko mm Pearl cartridge and the Denon mc I owned prior to the Sumiko. I've considered replacing the Pearl with the high output mc Sumiko Blue ? Special.

Used Rega or as was pointed out in another thread, project. Those new are $600- $800, used for radically less. Goldring, Grado, Ortofon, Sumiko all make good $300 carts. You can have a new/nearly new deck, cart and arm (like a rega p2) hotrodded for under $1 grand.

No mass market cd player under $1200 comes close to a properly invested $1200 in vinyl. The detail just isn't there, nor the fluidity.

What "several sources?" I don't need others to tell me what I have actually experianced firsthand. Mass market cd players really don't do a whole lot under $1k for detail. You obviously have no idea what a good cd or Lp actually does sound like.

You are making judgements based upon total hearsay, and using mediocre gear to conclude "findings"

Most of my LP's are dead silent. That comes from proper care and periodic cleaning.

NAD started making a "decent" cdp in the C540. Before that, they were mediocre at best. Now they are a "good value" but fall obviously short when compared to a $1200 player.

[eleiko]

Used Rega or as was pointed out in another thread, project. Those new are $600- $800, used for radically less. Goldring, Grado, Ortofon, Sumiko all make good $300 carts. You can have a new/nearly new deck, cart and arm (like a rega p2) hotrodded for under $1 grand.

No mass market cd player under $1200 comes close to a properly invested $1200 in vinyl. The detail just isn't there, nor the fluidity.

What "several sources?" I don't need others to tell me what I have actually experianced firsthand. Mass market cd players really don't do a whole lot under $1k for detail. You obviously have no idea what a good cd or Lp actually does sound like.

You are making judgements based upon total hearsay, and using mediocre gear to conclude "findings"

Most of my LP's are dead silent. That comes from proper care and periodic cleaning.

NAD started making a "decent" cdp in the C540. Before that, they were mediocre at best. Now they are a "good value" but fall obviously short when compared to a $1200 player.

I'll admit that I've never listened to "reference" sources. Then again, I don't seem to have the "golden ears" claimed by some audiophiles who perceive detail and nuance better than I ever could or imagine. Obviously, I do hear sound differences in speakers, for it's the speakers, as we all know, that produce the greatest disparity in sound. And I did, as noted, hear the difference between my Denon MC cartridge and the subsequently purchased Simiko Pearl. But the subtleties in tone and such described by some here don't, in my view, justify the costs for the associated equipment. Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

[rb122]

Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

You're right - they won't.

I have the opposite "problem" - my hearing has not seriously diminished since I was 19, 12 years ago. I have abnormally "good" hearing, if being able to hear high frequencies is a "good" thing. I will always wonder if it's my hearing that makes CD's sound so horribly unnatural to me. Very often, they sound grating. Live music never does that to me and neither does the LP.

I've got less than $10K invested in my system because I went with used equipment. I would recommend checking into that when it's time for your next replacement. And I wouldn't invest a nickel more than I felt I had to. If you're enjoying recorded music as much as it appears you are, you're in fine shape.

[Sondek]

I'll admit that I've never listened to "reference" sources. Then again, I don't seem to have the "golden ears" claimed by some audiophiles who perceive detail and nuance better than I ever could or imagine. Obviously, I do hear sound differences in speakers, for it's the speakers, as we all know, that produce the greatest disparity in sound. And I did, as noted, hear the difference between my Denon MC cartridge and the subsequently purchased Simiko Pearl. But the subtleties in tone and such described by some here don't, in my view, justify the costs for the associated equipment. Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

I don't believe in golden ears...just experienced ones. Folks that have spent time listening to live, unamplified music and really detailed gear.

Here is a good example of a nuance that takes no special ability (or rolled off in hearing) to actually hear:

On a $2800 Arcam cd-33T Allison Krauss + union station live sounds decent. It sounds a bit smoother, and more spacious than on an NAD C-540. That is easy to hear, because things like cymbals sound more life sized. the sound of the Arcam spreads the sound wider from the speakers than the NAD can. There is a gloss in the mids that the NAD does not quite deliver.

The same recording on a NAIM CDS3: suddenly the stringed instruments have a reverberation through the hollow body of the instrument. The sustain on the strings goes on and on much longer. Instead of just plucked banjo strings, you can hear the resonance of the drumhead. This information is sometimes between 2khz and 8khz.

Some of the writers for TAS and Stereophile are in thier 50's. The only difference is they have constant exposure to topline gear, and trained hearing. They don't have better hearing, because some do admit the same decline in upper treble hearing.

[eleiko]

I don't believe in golden ears...just experienced ones. Folks that have spent time listening to live, unamplified music and really detailed gear.

Here is a good example of a nuance that takes no special ability (or rolled off in hearing) to actually hear:

On a $2800 Arcam cd-33T Allison Krauss + union station live sounds decent. It sounds a bit smoother, and more spacious than on an NAD C-540. That is easy to hear, because things like cymbals sound more life sized. the sound of the Arcam spreads the sound wider from the speakers than the NAD can. There is a gloss in the mids that the NAD does not quite deliver.

The same recording on a NAIM CDS3: suddenly the stringed instruments have a reverberation through the hollow body of the instrument. The sustain on the strings goes on and on much longer. Instead of just plucked banjo strings, you can hear the resonance of the drumhead. This information is sometimes between 2khz and 8khz.

Some of the writers for TAS and Stereophile are in thier 50's. The only difference is they have constant exposure to topline gear, and trained hearing. They don't have better hearing, because some do admit the same decline in upper treble hearing.


Sounds like truth in what you say. Again, it comes down to priorities and what one is willing to spend for the sort of nuance that only the High End can seem to deliver. I'm very much involved in the shooting sports, which can also become a bottomless pit of guns (yes, we have our high end stuff, too. Ex: Rock River AR National Match rifle - $1200. .223 cal. ammo not included) and ammo. In fact, it's potentially more expensive because of the constant ammo replentishment. Vinyl and CD can be enjoyed over and over.

[Sondek]

Sounds like truth in what you say. Again, it comes down to priorities and what one is willing to spend for the sort of nuance that only the High End can seem to deliver. I'm very much involved in the shooting sports, which can also become a bottomless pit of guns (yes, we have our high end stuff, too. Ex: Rock River AR National Match rifle - $1200. .223 cal. ammo not included) and ammo. In fact, it's potentially more expensive because of the constant ammo replentishment. Vinyl and CD can be enjoyed over and over.

I have determined that about $350 in parts into a $400 cd player of decent origin (Rotel,NAD) will deliver what a $4k cd player will. Modifiers get little press, but it was obvious that a Daniels audio (modified sony) was a big improvement. If I were to reinvest in a cd player, I'd buy a used NAD or Rotel and modify it. A lot of times it is as simple as proper sheilding, good capacitors, and damping.

My relatives are all into guns. They get the stuff at wholesale, but they have priorities there. They cannot fathom spending more than $100 on a cd player, but they will brag they have a rare 10 guage or a highly modded thompson contender or Glock for many kilobucks.

Of course, shooting skeet, deer, and drop targets for 30 years without hearing protection---they have very little need for high fidelity... :rolleyes:

[eleiko]

I have determined that about $350 in parts into a $400 cd player of decent origin (Rotel,NAD) will deliver what a $4k cd player will. Modifiers get little press, but it was obvious that a Daniels audio (modified sony) was a big improvement. If I were to reinvest in a cd player, I'd buy a used NAD or Rotel and modify it. A lot of times it is as simple as proper sheilding, good capacitors, and damping.

My relatives are all into guns. They get the stuff at wholesale, but they have priorities there. They cannot fathom spending more than $100 on a cd player, but they will brag they have a rare 10 guage or a highly modded thompson contender or Glock for many kilobucks.

Of course, shooting skeet, deer, and drop targets for 30 years without hearing protection---they have very little need for high fidelity... :rolleyes:


Chuck Hawks has a gun website. He's a shooting pundit/enthusiast AND audiophile, though I've no idea what hifi gear he owns. But if his hifi budget is proportionate to his guns budget...Well, let's just say I couldn't afford to indulge in both passions on a high-end level. It's either the $2000 Swiss-made Hammerlie .22 target pistol or $1000 Thorens table with high-end Sumiko or Koetsu cartridge. Decisions, decisions...

[maxg]

There are so many factors that go into the chain that leads to your listening to music that it is quite possible CD will sound better than vinyl on your system in your room.

To me the main advantage of CD (and digital in general) is that it requires so little effort on your part to play the music at, say 90% of what it is capable of. this is not the case for vinyl. Setup is everything. Tracking weight, VTA, anti-skate, vinyl cleaning, speed checking, suitable phono stage adjusted properly, totally level surface the list goes on and on.

Of course if you are insane like me and you are amplifying all of that with tube amps there are another dozen factors to add in to that list.

Then there are envonmental issues. What are the sonic characteristics of your listening room. It is quiet possible, if your room is particularly adsorbant of high frequencies, that the added harshness (cant think of a better word - sorry) of CD works whilst vinyl will sound flat and lifeless - however good the setup!

Thereafter add in the supporting gear. What are the response characteristics of your speakers? Your amp, pre-amp etc?

To summarise all of the above into something more easily digestible one word - synergy. It is how all of your equipment, music preferences, listening room and most importantly your ears tie in together that will determine what sounds good to you and what doesnt. It might take a system that costs $100,000 and it might take a system that costs $1,000 or less. Neither is wrong.

[eleiko]

There are so many factors that go into the chain that leads to your listening to music that it is quite possible CD will sound better than vinyl on your system in your room.

To me the main advantage of CD (and digital in general) is that it requires so little effort on your part to play the music at, say 90% of what it is capable of. this is not the case for vinyl. Setup is everything. Tracking weight, VTA, anti-skate, vinyl cleaning, speed checking, suitable phono stage adjusted properly, totally level surface the list goes on and on.

Of course if you are insane like me and you are amplifying all of that with tube amps there are another dozen factors to add in to that list.

Then there are envonmental issues. What are the sonic characteristics of your listening room. It is quiet possible, if your room is particularly adsorbant of high frequencies, that the added harshness (cant think of a better word - sorry) of CD works whilst vinyl will sound flat and lifeless - however good the setup!

Thereafter add in the supporting gear. What are the response characteristics of your speakers? Your amp, pre-amp etc?

To summarise all of the above into something more easily digestible one word - synergy. It is how all of your equipment, music preferences, listening room and most importantly your ears tie in together that will determine what sounds good to you and what doesnt. It might take a system that costs $100,000 and it might take a system that costs $1,000 or less. Neither is wrong.

You've articulated one of my points much better than I. As you said, set-up is everything with vinyl, achieving the right meld of table, tone arm and cartridge. To some, who don't mind spending the money, this is a plearsurable challenge. Others prefer the no-brainer appeal of CD. Ergonomically, CD makes a lot more sense. They take up less space and are easier to handle. I don't think there's a profound difference in the sound quality between CD and vinyl, but CD has spoiled me with its quiet background. Clicks and pops invariably work their way into vinyl no matter how clean I keep my records. It's the "sound" of silence that I miss most when listening to vinyl.

[joeychitwood]

....I don't think there's a profound difference in the sound quality between CD and vinyl, but CD has spoiled me with its quiet background. Clicks and pops invariably work their way into vinyl no matter how clean I keep my records. It's the "sound" of silence that I miss most when listening to vinyl.I've only recently started again listening to new or old vinyl, and I have only "mid-fi" equipment, but I've found vinyl to sound equal to or better than CD's, given a well-engineered recording.

Amazingly, some of my most mistreated LP's from 30 years ago stop clicking and popping with proper, vigorous hand cleaning.

[Sondek]

I've only recently started again listening to new or old vinyl, and I have only "mid-fi" equipment, but I've found vinyl to sound equal to or better than CD's, given a well-engineered recording.

Amazingly, some of my most mistreated LP's from 30 years ago stop clicking and popping with proper, vigorous hand cleaning.

Believe it or not: When I was a youth, there was a "Joey Chitwood" thrill show. It was all about cars and stunts...

Anyway, I just picked up some 200 gram vinyl that is spotless. It plays with No clicks or pops at all. There is a depth to the soundstage and a fluid tonality even the mighty LINN CD-12 does not communicate. The CD-12 represents to me the finest Cd player on the market. Unlike Wadia, it makes music without artificial pyrotechnics. Unlike Naim CDS3, it has a soul. (Not to say the naim is a slouch, but LINN makes magic to my ears)
IF I had to live with a playback medium, and I had to choose a commercial product for $3000 total or less, vinyl wins without question.
http://www.audio-images.co.uk/productimages/Linn%20CD12.jpg

[hifitommy]

yeah, i am thinking the pearl is better dropped in the garbage disposal. figuratively speaking, that cart is no pearl. of course dont destroy it, give it to a needy friend. SERIOUSLY. in its price range, get a grado black and be much happier with music. for a hundred, an AT440ML is the choice or a shure m97xe.

a shure v15Vxmr can be had for $200! up the ladder to the clearaudio aurum beta. moving coil definition for mm prices and output.

the pearl is limiting you to entry level vinyl and cd sound. youve got a good tt, put a decent cart on it.

clicks and pops only detract from the music if you focus on them. focus on the music instead. it works. the 1812 on telarc should only be tried with top cartridges and tonearms. lets face it, its one of the most challenging recordings on vinyl. yeah, cd is more conducive to playing this cut without fault but more musical value comes through with analog.

there are SOME people for whom analog isnt right. for those people, ticks and pops ruin the music. they should not buy vinyl. to maintain the level of musicality of vinyl and still remain digital, go for sacd. dvda MIGHT do but i cant say.

the lowest priced rbcd player ive heard in my system is my sony ns500v ($169 shipped). it is wonderful, better than any i have had in the house, and thats quite a few. good analog or digital doesnt need to be expensive. for $2-500 a good tt can be had, same for cdps. still, at that level, vinyl will sound better overall.

let me say that at the $100 level, a cdp WILL sound better than a tt. at the $200 level, it reverses. from there up, vinyl will sound better for the same money. and the gap widens in favor of vinyl as you go up. at $1k, the difference is laughable. vinyl is hands down the winner there.

at new prices, the mmf5, at about $5-700 is unbeatable. at used pricing, its even nicer.

eleiko, what ever possessed you to unload the denon cart? and how could you base your arguement on the pearl???

dan, my friend had two nad cdps and never a prob with the transport. the dac compared on equal footing to the AA dac in the box, not bad. it worked very well with the cal sigma tubed dac, a NICE unit.

eleiko, being 6 years your senior, i DO hear the diffs and it doesnt take golden ears. it takes educated ones. that can be acquired.

[joeychitwood]

....a shure v15Vxmr can be had for $200! up the ladder to the clearaudio aurum beta. moving coil definition for mm prices and output....I'd love to find that cartridge for less than $325. Do you have a link where it can be had for $200? Thanks.

[eleiko]

yeah, i am thinking the pearl is better dropped in the garbage disposal. figuratively speaking, that cart is no pearl. of course dont destroy it, give it to a needy friend. SERIOUSLY. in its price range, get a grado black and be much happier with music. for a hundred, an AT440ML is the choice or a shure m97xe.

a shure v15Vxmr can be had for $200! up the ladder to the clearaudio aurum beta. moving coil definition for mm prices and output.

the pearl is limiting you to entry level vinyl and cd sound. youve got a good tt, put a decent cart on it.

clicks and pops only detract from the music if you focus on them. focus on the music instead. it works. the 1812 on telarc should only be tried with top cartridges and tonearms. lets face it, its one of the most challenging recordings on vinyl. yeah, cd is more conducive to playing this cut without fault but more musical value comes through with analog.

there are SOME people for whom analog isnt right. for those people, ticks and pops ruin the music. they should not buy vinyl. to maintain the level of musicality of vinyl and still remain digital, go for sacd. dvda MIGHT do but i cant say.

the lowest priced rbcd player ive heard in my system is my sony ns500v ($169 shipped). it is wonderful, better than any i have had in the house, and thats quite a few. good analog or digital doesnt need to be expensive. for $2-500 a good tt can be had, same for cdps. still, at that level, vinyl will sound better overall.

let me say that at the $100 level, a cdp WILL sound better than a tt. at the $200 level, it reverses. from there up, vinyl will sound better for the same money. and the gap widens in favor of vinyl as you go up. at $1k, the difference is laughable. vinyl is hands down the winner there.

at new prices, the mmf5, at about $5-700 is unbeatable. at used pricing, its even nicer.

eleiko, what ever possessed you to unload the denon cart? and how could you base your arguement on the pearl???

dan, my friend had two nad cdps and never a prob with the transport. the dac compared on equal footing to the AA dac in the box, not bad. it worked very well with the cal sigma tubed dac, a NICE unit.

eleiko, being 6 years your senior, i DO hear the diffs and it doesnt take golden ears. it takes educated ones. that can be acquired.

Hi Tommy: I got rid of the Denon because it had over 500 hours of play time. If it was designed to play for much longer, I wasn't aware of it. I don't think the Sumiko Pearl is bad, but it can't compete with the Denon I had in extracting detail. If there's some way I could A/B the Pearl and Blue Point - there isn't - I'd do it and then buy the latter if the sound differences warranted it.

[hifitommy]

I'd love to find that cartridge for less than $325. Do you have a link where it can be had for $200? Thanks.
trty here but you have to request it.

http://www.jacksmusicfactory.com/default.asp

[Mash]

'Search' on "shure v15Vxmr"

Lots of offers pop up.

for $217.50 +$5 shpg
http://store.beachaudio.com/v15vxmr.html

Sometimes Audio Advisor offers the shure v15Vxmr at $225 and if you have a "10% off with free shipping" coupon...... I bot 2.

[hifitommy]

http://www.jacksmusicfactory.com/default.asp

you may have to ask for it.

[kajguy]

This is a great discussion and, frankly, I appreciate the merit to both arguments. I have very mid-range Turntables and CD Players and there is clearly a difference in sound between the two formats using the same material. On the turntable, there are the irritations of little nicks and pops. However, the sound on the CDs just, to my ears, does not sound as "life like" as the best of my vinyl stuff. Then, there is that "compression" issue.

For day in and day out listening the cleaness, the convenience and programmability of the CDs can't be beat. But, I must confess, when I really want to treat myself to some aural pleasure, I go to one of those few MINT LPs I have lying around. That makes me pretty happy until the neighbor starts pounding on the wall.

[kajguy]

I just picked up a Sony Turntable with a Bio-Tracer Tonearm on E-bay and was wondering if anyone here knows anything about this. It is supposedly "origianal owner" and I like the looks......but, soundwise, I know not to get too excited about it.

[Feanor]

I didn't flame you before, but you stated exactly as I suspected. You do not own high end, and cannot speak from experiance, and do not have a good point of reference. You are making a call from rationalizing cheap gear. I won't say it doesn't sound good, but it is a long way from what vinyl and digital can do.

Sure, I might like cd better if all I knew was sub $1k stuff. But there is no exaggeration when cd players and lp's get far better than what is offered at "a few hundered bucks."

That's almost like saying bose is as good as it gets.
..
I'll never know how great vinyl sounds either. Yes, on my cheap "mid-fi" crap, the superiority of that medium, such as it might be, isn't evident.

I'm not making the "diminishing returns" defence. Nor the, "I have more brains than money" defence. The fact is I'd probably spend the dough if I had it. Maybe then I'd find out.

Meanwhile I'll just have to take your word for the greatness of vinyl.:p

[hifitommy]

is in de back yard. its a good defense against trespassers. ;^)

[Feanor]

is in de back yard. its a good defense against trespassers. ;^)
Seriously: I'm contemplating a new, $500 CDP, so maybe I should buy a TT combo in that range instead.

The only one that comes to mind is the Music Hall MMF-5 with the Goldring G012. I might stretch to Rega P3 but that doesn't come with cartridge (or a dust cover?). Did somebody mention a NAD based on the Rega?

My own LP collection is small but in very good condition. Of course, I'd be looking for good used LP -- then I guess I'd need cleaning equipment.

[hifitommy]

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtabl&1091837187

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtabl&1091824724

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtabl&1091374144

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgtabl&1090612527

just a sampling of whats available . i have no connection with any of them, i just thought you might have overlooked this resource.

;^)

[Feanor]

... i have no connection with any of them, i just thought you might have overlooked this resource.
...
I have always been leery about buying second hand sight-unseen, but it might be time to take the plunge.

Any tips for shopping Audiogon? Note that I'm constrained to sellers willing to ship to Canada.

[hifitommy]

on general asylum and ask that Q. my daughter has made some transactions there at AG for my friend without snag.

[BRANDONH]

I vave have a reissue of the
Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture (4 disc set) 45 rpm, 12-inch, Single-sided Collectors Ser. 200g vinyl and it is extremely quiet and my Shure V15VXMR cartridge tracks it beautifully..
http://www.classicrecords.com/catalog/store/detail.cfm?sku=LSC-2241-45.
As far as Vinyl vs. Digital I have a Pioneer Elite PD-65 CD Player and a Pro-ject 1.2 turntable which I upgraded the Sumiko Oyster it came with to the Shure V15VXMR and (in my opinion) the natural sound of vinyl wins over the artificial sound of digital hands down.

[jbangelfish]

The Telarc digital master is extremely difficult to track, some consider it impossible. It's one of those rare recordings that was made with no compression or compromise. Not my favorite music by any means but the actual cannon blasts on the recording are quite a test for any system and there are warnings on the jacket that damage could occur to your equipment. My system will not track it flawlessly but nearly so and I track at 2g with a fairly pricey MC cartridge. I can get through all but about two of the cannon blasts without a problem and the violence and air movement of the actual cannons is very impressive. But that's about it, impressive but not particularly enjoyable.
I choose to listen to vinyl for nearly every listening session because I get a lot more from it, in my system. Maybe a 4k or 10k cd player would make me enjoy them more but I may never find that out. My Denon cd player was around 2k new and I bought it used for less than $200. It does sound better than the 200 disc Sony that it replaced even though it is older. Maybe someday I'll find a true high end cd player for a reasonable price used but I have so much vinyl that I'll never run out of LP's to enjoy.
For me, I have a fair amount of money in my turntable and analog setup and this does make a difference. Even so, I've heard much more from vinyl with old, inexpensive turntables, (Pioneer, Marantz, Yamaha) and reasonably good cartridges (Shure V15's, GradoF1, AT440ML) than I've ever heard from any cd player that I or any of my friends have ever owned. I cannot say I've ever heard a 5k or 10k cd player but I suppose I'd at least like to hear one.
I am also in my 50's (52) as it appears that many of us here are. My hearing is not what it used to be either but I am able to hear far more music from vinyl than from cd. It just sounds more complete and natural. There is a very noticeable blackness or dead silence to cd's which is pleasant. If they would only figure out how to get the music part of it right, a lot of us would be happier with them. Much of the highs (especially cymbals and high pitched percussion) seems distorted, sometimes beyond recognition. Some of it is completely eliminated on cd. Call it poor engineering, call it whatever you like. Maybe it's my 2k cd player, who knows?
I also have many LP's that are very silent. They have to be extremely clean and in excellent condition. The tiniest speck of dust will make noise and the tiniest scratch or imperfection will also. CD's have the advantage here but in my experience, convenience and ease of care have not been enough to convert me. I have around 200 cd's and 4,000 LP's and the vinyl collection is growing much faster than the cd collection.
OK, enough rambling from this old vinyl nut.
Bill

[jbangelfish]

I've purchased a couple of items on Audiogon with no problems. There is more equipment available on ebay but you need to be careful. I bought a perfectly mint appearing AR turntable that had a bad motor and missing stylus. There is more of an audiophile crowd at Audiogon, higher end equipment and maybe a better chance at getting what you pay for.
I thought you had a nice European tt to work on. Did you give up? There are plenty of well made, old tt's out there, ebay or Audiogon, that would probably make a bigger improvement in your system than a $500 cd player. Thorens, Micro Seiki, AR, to name a few. Some can be had for as little as $50 or so but usually the better tt's will bring $150 to $350. Maybe not world beaters but many would outperform the newer tt's that are going to cost $500 to 1k. Maybe the best deal for new is the RM4 by Project?, I think. Get's pretty high praise for a reasonable price.
I can't say about the MMF5 or the Goldring cartridge but I don't see a lot of people bragging about them. There are many out there and they may be a good intro to vinyl, I don't really know. The Shure V15 might be the best MM cartridge out there. Even the high end vinyl nuts have nothing but good things to say about it. I know that I always enjoyed my V15III back in the 70's.
Anyway, good luck and I would strongly urge you to pursue the turntable. With the right setup, you'll never regret it.
Bill

[jbangelfish]

Nobody seems to like the Blue Point Special, anywhere. The AT440ML is a bargain at under $100 but you'd be most likely to appreciate the finer points of vinyl with the Shure V15. I don't think I've ever read anything negative about it and as I said in an earlier post, even the high end big money boys have respect for it.
Bill

[jbangelfish]

There is an MMF5 with Goldring 1012?, I think on Audiogon for $350. The seller says it has about 20 hours on it, if I remember correctly. Just check under analog classifieds. There were several decent tt's from $250 to $500.
Bill

[Pat D]

No doubt at all that CD is the superior medium, far more capable. Flat, consistent frequency response, great dynamic range, no audible flutter. This is a different question from whether a given issue is superior in its LP or CD format--I've had it both ways. However, most of my CDs sound very good to excellent and include some of the best recordings I have ever heard. So I have no problem with CDs and consider it a far better storage medium than LPs--because that's what both are, although many people don't think of them that way.

Ahh, but I do have quite a few LPs and even buy some used ones from time to time, mostly from the library sales. Many of them are not available on CD and I don't play a lot of them often enough to justify replacing them with a CD, just a relatively small number of favorites. Quite a lot of them sound great, I must say. I do have to wonder where the idea comes from that LPs are more dynamic than CDs. The loud peaks are compressed on LPs--they have to be and it's often audible enough, though it's often pleasant. Maybe many people like that. As well, LPs often seem to have less energy in the upper midrange and lower treble, which can sound pleasant.

Indeed, I also have a number of old mono recordings originally issued on 78s: especially some of the old singers like Caruso, Gigli, Richard Crooks, Lawrence Tibbet, John Charles Thomas, Pinza, Ezio Pinza, Elizabeth Rethberg, early Schwarzkopf, Frieda Leider, Bidu Sayao. I find they usually sound best on really good speakers with a flat midrange.

[hifitommy]

pat,

i just looked at your equip list and it seems that from all indications you have the right stuff to hear what i am going to relate. perhaps some of us should be saying "dynamic CONTRAST" instead of dynamic RANGE in regard to superior dynamics with vinyl.

the JUMP factor is many times more evident using vinyl playback than with rbcd. if you may have noticed, there has been a lot of banter about compression being too routinely used on cd but also with the reasoning behind it (SALE-ABILITY to radio types, louder is better).

needless to say, i dont believe that RBcd is superior, especially in sound. it has the potential in many areas to be so but usually doesnt live up to that paradigm. where it falters is in hi-frequency reproduction. PLEASE dont recite the nyquist theorem baloney. not true, not relevant to any real discussion about ACCURATE hi freq playback.

i too have a grace F9E, a good reason to keep your address secret. mine was bought new by me and used often enough to stay usable. i just wish i had gotten a ruby stylus (cantilever) for it before they became unobtanium.

[RGA]

Hifitommy - the definition was changed by the cd makers with the advent of cd - there is no dynamic range advantage and that is a FACT - Cd players post 100+DR figures and when you back calculate it comes to about 79-80.

The word diminishing returns is being used often as if to say there are no returns. I saw a speaker radio set for $1.00 in my dollar store. going from no sound to that $1.00 system is a HUGE fantastical improvement. going from that to an Atom yields X improvement. Blah.

Go to Soundhounds in Victoria BC. You can listen to the Audio Note Turntable TT3(Voyde Reference) Against the Top of the line Linn rig and Linn's $30k Cd player or any other cd player they carry since they all sound the same when in working order and not deliberately altered??)apparently and The AN DAC/Transport combo's

Bring a bunch of LP's and the REFERENCE CD's stereophile globs all over. And they have nice 30k speakers.

It will be abundandly clear that the Linn etc cd players do somehting other than make real life music.

In fact that table/system has renewed my interest in turntables. The Project which was not too pricey at around $500.00Cdn was quite good. The cd variants had less of 3d soundstage and more of a compressed rather uninteresting sound.

You certainly DON'T need to be a golden ear to tell which one makes a guitar and piano sound more like a guitar and piano. It doesn't matter - because most people won't listen - they will rely on what magazine reviews and those who measure the wrong things tell them. But of course you can't rely on what you hear - I mean buying music and listening to music requires none of that listening.

Cd's are handier ergonomically friendly, portable, easier to copy, used copies are generally as "perfect" haha, as they were when new - some used LP's are horrible, poorly pressed poorly maintained by prior owners etc.

And most people geenrally had lousy tables which are lousier than cd players. Hell even my NAD - just getting a slight alignment adjustment and a proper stand.

Buying the relatively new Sarah McLachlan Remixed album - more deep bass and not some euphoinic bass the SS crowd likes to incorrectly infer, but actual deep bass. Where my cd player wins is high frequency extension(not smoothness) but my rig is pretty low end. There is still no question between the LP and CD which is superior. And the CD version is about as well-recorded as CD gets. No pop click or anything else either.

[Norm Strong]

I wouldn't spend more than a few hundred dollars for either a turntable or CD player. As you know, there's a point of diminishing returns when you reach stratospheric heights in audio (or anything else for that matter). I've never found CDs "cold", "vapid" or any of the other adjectives some audiophiles use to describe their sound. The quiet background alone sold me on CDs as preference to vinyl.

What is the smallest amount that qualifies as "a few hundred dollars"? I would guess $300, which would be excessive for any CD player (IMHO)

There's something wrong when an audiophile pays more for a turntable, arm & cartridge than the price of the master recording lathe that made the original.

[RGA]

There's something wrong when an audiophile pays more for a turntable, arm & cartridge than the price of the master recording lathe that made the original.

Do you have a technical reason with proof as to why?

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Norm Strong
There's something wrong when an audiophile pays more for a turntable, arm & cartridge than the price of the master recording lathe that made the original.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... there must then also be something wrong when a music lover pays more for a pair of speakers than the price of a pair of studio microphones used to record. Or spending more for a complete system than the price of the acoustic guitar that made the recording. Er... not that I'm dogging your opinion, Norm! That's a good way to get thrown out of here! But...ah... is fidelity a dirty word where you come from????

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Pat D]No doubt at all that CD is the superior medium, far more capable. Flat, QUOTE]

Cool. My opinion is the opposite of yours. I do agree that the CD sounds flat, though. Don't you just love this copy feature? It really helps me take things out of context so much better! :D

For those who find the CD superior, I offer the 45 RPM LP as strong evidence to the contrary. Amazing! I've never heard a redbook CD or even an SACD capture the quality of live music the way these LP's do. I wish I could afford more.

[BRANDONH]

For those who find the CD superior, I offer the 45 RPM LP as strong evidence to the contrary. Amazing! I've never heard a redbook CD or even an SACD capture the quality of live music the way these LP's do. I wish I could afford more.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on the 45 RPM vs Digital.
I recently purchased a new MOFI 180g 1/2 speed mastered Gain 2 ultra analog Primus - Animals Should Not Try To Act Like People and it simply sounds amazing.
http://www.mofi.com/newreleases.htm (scroll down to Primus)

[Pat D]

pat,

i just looked at your equip list and it seems that from all indications you have the right stuff to hear what i am going to relate. perhaps some of us should be saying "dynamic CONTRAST" instead of dynamic RANGE in regard to superior dynamics with vinyl.

the JUMP factor is many times more evident using vinyl playback than with rbcd. if you may have noticed, there has been a lot of banter about compression being too routinely used on cd but also with the reasoning behind it (SALE-ABILITY to radio types, louder is better).

needless to say, i dont believe that RBcd is superior, especially in sound. it has the potential in many areas to be so but usually doesnt live up to that paradigm. where it falters is in hi-frequency reproduction. PLEASE dont recite the nyquist theorem baloney. not true, not relevant to any real discussion about ACCURATE hi freq playback.

i too have a grace F9E, a good reason to keep your address secret. mine was bought new by me and used often enough to stay usable. i just wish i had gotten a ruby stylus (cantilever) for it before they became unobtanium.
Are you a mathematician who has disproved the Nyquist theorem, hifi? If not, how do you know it's not true?

Do you use Stylast?

[RGA]

it's not worth it.

[Lensman]

I'll take CDs over vinyl any day. I've got both, including the same recordings (one on vinyl, the other on CD), and the CDs sound better (crisper, clearer, quieter). Do an A-B comparison of Beatles records, and this becomes very apparent. Yes, I still listen to my LPs on my Thorens TD166 mk2 (coupled with a Sumiko Pearl cartridge - no wonder the CDs sound better; is that what you're thinking?). Ergonomically, CDs make more sense, and, as I've said, they sound better - bringing to life some 1930s opera recordings (like act 2 of Die Valcarie with Lauritz Melchoir) that sound like 1930s opera recordings on LP. And I certainly don't miss the clicks and pops which, since CDs came available, are almost intolerable. Go ahead, flame me.

I'll have to admit, I thought vinyl dead for some time after I got my CD player. CDs have no annoying static crackle, no pops from bad pressings, and require no meticulous cleanings to play them. When I got my first CD player, I went out and started buying CD versions of albums I liked and just didn't really play my records anymore. Then I started hearing about how "audiophiles" were returning the vinyl in droves because they "sounded better." I was really dubious of that and figured that trend would die after a while. But it didn't, it grew instead. So I got curious a few years ago and decided to compare some recordings I had on both CD and vinyl.

Now bear in mind I've never had the funds to sink into really expensive audio gear, so I was basing my evaluation on what I heard off a Radio Shack LAB-2100 turntable (linear tracking, direct drive) and a Kenwood DP-R894 CD changer. Not utter crap, but absolutely not even remotely high-end. So cheap equipment combined with my pre-existing doubts on the issue left me completely surprised to find I actually could hear a difference. None of it was major, and I really couldn't tell definitively that the sounds of instruments, voices, etc. sounded any different. But I did notice two very subtle things. First, when I listened to something like an orchestra on CD, I heard the orchestra. When I listened to the orchestra on vinyl, I heard the orchestra, and I could tell the size of the room the orchestra was recorded in. Second, vinyl somehow sounded more "comfortable" than CD. This is less tangible, but might be related to being able to better define the recording space.

I'm no sound engineer, so I have no idea why I heard differences or even what the differences actually could be attributed to. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe since a sound wave on vinyl is analog, it's a continuous curve. But on a digital CD, the sound wave is a closely approximated sound wave and this difference is just enough to lose some of the secondary sounds reverberating in the recording space. But really I don't know. I do, however, now believe vinyl can sound better than CD. Though on my budget I may never really know how much.

I was so surprised by the results that I had a friend over who has decent hearing and he heard the same things. Though he was surprised as well, he prefers to spend his money on the latest computer technology - not audio gear. It's just not that important to him. So now that the convenience of CDs are available, he'll NEVER buy a record again - despite what he heard. Perhaps if you have recordings of the same thing on both mediums, you might try listening to them again focusing exclusively on things in the background.

Regardless, there's no denying the convenience of CDs. Like you, I prefer to buy virtually all my recordings on CD. But I now look at vinyl vs. CD like film vs. digital pictures. Film grain still has more resolution than digital. Loaded into a professional camera wielded by an experienced photographer, it'll beat digital every time. But average users with average equipment will probably get BETTER photos off a digital camera. And there's no denying how much more convenient they are to use.