[drewski]

After reading several other threads, I've been thinking about this more and more lately. If you had $500 and were looking in the used market for a decent source, what would you get?

In the past, I would have definitely said analog all the way. But I really feel now that manufacturers are learning how to get that "analog" sound even with sub $1000 players. For instance, I have an Exposure 2010 CD player that retails new for $1000, and I purchased used for $500. If I were to try and put something together in the $500 range to compete with it, I couldn't even buy the cartridge and phono stage. Also, at the last bay area meet, I had my VPI Scout with another member's Philips 963SA going head to head, I didn't feel that the Scout smoked the Philips.

When I say $500, I'm talking about the average price of a used peice of gear- I'm not talking about the exception where someone finds an old Linn LP12/Ittok combo at a garage sale for $100.

My Exposure cd player may not be a good point of reference because probably not many have heard it... But other players that are not bad that can be found in the used market for around or under $500 are the Arcam CD 72 (maybe not the best comparison because this is the least analog sounding of the bunch, but does many things well), Music Hall CD25, Rega Planet 2000, Marantz 6000OSE, as well as others.

In my opinion, I would say would be the minimum system I would use to compare to the likes of those players:

Rega P3- $450 used
Grado Gold- $100 (new or used)
Lehman Black Cube w/ pwx power supply- $400 used
Power cable for the Black Cube so that bass isn't all over the place- $200 used

So that is over $1000 to get an entry level analog rig. It may even be more because there are often hum issues with the Grado/Rega combo, so you may be looking at a more expensive cartridge.

What analog system would you put together as an entry level analog rig to compete with a similar priced CD player?

 

[tanfenton]

The turntable every time. I like what I have more than two-thirds of your "entry-level" system, the Gold and Planar, never having used a Black Cube.

NGF

 

[darkclouds]

I had a VPI HW19 JR/AQPT6/MC20. Although I liked the way it sound, I had a hard time looking for records. So I sold it. Also, I didn't use it half as much as my digital player.

I think you have to be truly dedicated and meticulous to get into good vinyl. Even with a record washing machine (nitty gritty), it was still a pain for me.

 

[zimmer]

drewski-
Your table choice in your example is probably a good one, leaving some room for future cartridge upgrades ( Corey Greenberg used a Planar 3 with a $1500 Sumiko SHO as his reference during his Stereophile days!) but maybe some money could be saved by going with a Project1.2/Music Hall 2.1 - I think they are remarkable for the money. No arguements re cartridge either although even a Black could be used as a start. That phonostage choice might be a bit over the top though- the $200 new Rotel is quite good.
As to whether or not any of this could compete with your digital example depends far too much on the individual. I can listen to very humble vinyl setups without complaint. I have a friend who has turned-up his nose at 10K table/arm/cartridge combos - the slightest click/pop/surface noise he finds inferior to digital - I think he would prefer a portable CD player to the best vinyl could offer.

 

[bobjew]

drewski:

Digital! Consider that most of the whole world's energy and innovation is going in this direction. Even diehard Harry Pearson (The Absolute Sound) is conceding that multi channnel (digital) is the way to go. The goal is not whether its digital or not; but reproducing/hearing the real thing.

Bob

 

[yidimsum]

Depends on if you are listening with speakers or headphones. The advantages of soundstaging vs. increased noise would be harder to hear through headphones. So if headphones are used I'd go digital, but if going 2-channel speaker system, analog all the way.

 

[TimSchirmer]

Yidisum took the words out of my mouth! I also don't like the sound of vinyl with headphones. It makes you hear the flaws much more than the strengths. Get a pair of nice speakers if you really want to experience great analog. I am now using vinyl an MMF-1 in my main rig, and digital for my bedroom/headphone rig. Ironically, one is for more serious listening while the other is for more casual listening.

I do plan to upgrade my main rig sometime in the near future.

edit: PS: that is one sweet system you've got there!

 

[millerdog]

drew,
I read your post and you sound like me.
I plan on getting a MusicHall MMF7, then trying out a non sampling digital unit at around the 1k price point.
SACDs are just too limited as far as titles, and I got like about 350+ redbooks. Two people have told me that non sampling digital units rock with redbook.
What I mean by "non sampling" is no brickwall filter in the DAC. I have yet to hear one (HINT, HINT! someone who lives on my island!) but I have heard that those units sound less uh..."digital."
good luck!
md

 

[KShaft]

The availability of modern non-audiophille music on vinyl shy's me away from it.

Think about it. Classical(generic sense), jazz, rhythm&blues, are the bulk of whats availiable, But these generaly sound good on cd anyhow as they are properly mastered and engineered. Also these are the titles that are available on the new formats, along with hdcd,xrcd, and audiophile edition gold type cd's right away, which give them an edge over standard cd(aspecially the new formats i.d. sacd).

Perhaps not quite up to vinyl, but damn close id imagine(on properly engineered stuff).

So to me, its more reasonable to get a decent cdp, and get good recordings when it comes to Classical or Jazz(they are easy to find, London, Telrac, Chesky, XRCD,Reference Recordings etc.....) and then when you have your modern music, you at least have it.

Depends on your priorities I suppose.

k.s.

 

[tanfenton]

Yi and Tim:

Noise isn't music. What are you really listening for?

NGF

 

[lini]

yidisum & Tim: Like tanfenton, I'm also surprised, because to me it's vice versa. But maybe the condition of the records also plays an important role here. Statically charged records can really be a nuisance with headphones. But with a good record, I really enjoy the insight a headphone provides me compared to the less precise protrayal conveyed by speakers.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[yidimsum]

Vinyl takes a bit more upkeep compared to CDs. Also keep in mind the ~$500 budget. The main advantage of LPs versus CDs is soundstaging IMHO. Even the world's best headphones aren't capable of as expansive a soundstage as a pair of medium-priced speakers (~$1000 used, in the realm of speakers). It's just a nature of the beast. Headphones do somethings better than speakers (accuracy) and speakers do other things better. Seems like you can tap into the advantages of LPs over CDs more readily through speakers.

 

[darkclouds]

I really did prefer the sound of my vinyl rig with good records over my 555ES. It has nothing to do with extension or detail or transparency etc. There's just a nice organic tone to voices and instruments that I haven't found with digital. But there was also too much hassle like meticulous cleaning and availability of good vinyl locally.

 

[tanfenton]

I disagree that it renders only that single aspect better. I don't care whether it does--I don't listen for that. You all seem so [enthralled by] the reproduction of an "image." I understand why, but, damn, I can't handle the depths of the fascination.

NGF

 

[tanfenton]

.