Selecting your first turntable setup - Get the biggest bang for your buck - Keep it under $2000

[mironathetin]

 
Many thanks for this insight. But what about using DACs and the all mighty flacs, alacs, DSD, & DXD? Why would you still invest in a SACD player, isn't it all digital without the need for the hardware?

 
Yes, I think this makes sense. A really good DAC and a computer that rips your sources in high quality should replace a SACD player or at least come very close.
 
I investigated SACD against CD before I got my latest CD player. All SACD players were audibly inferior with the CD layer to the best only-CD players. Also switching from SACD to CD layer was no real revelation.
It is also important to make this comparison with recordings where the CD layer and the SACD layer contain the same master. To let the SACDs shine, their CD layers often contain an old master.
 
Another thing to know is that an SACD optics must be adjusted more often. The blue laser needs a more precise tracking than the red CD laser.
Those are the reasons why I went for a CD player with external access to the DAC inside. Using this DAC with digital files, provided a clean signal path with high quality cables, sounds as good as the CD player. I must even say that the latest version of apples airport express, also connected with a high quality cable to the amp, gives me a hard time doing a blind comparison to my (3400 Euro) CD player. I compare to a ripped version of that same CD, ripped with XLD to 320 kbit mp3.

 

[sfo1972]

 

 
Many thanks for this insight. But what about using DACs and the all mighty flacs, alacs, DSD, & DXD? Why would you still invest in a SACD player, isn't it all digital without the need for the hardware?

 
Yes, I think this makes sense. A really good DAC and a computer that rips your sources in high quality should replace a SACD player or at least come very close.
 
I investigated SACD against CD before I got my latest CD player. All SACD players were audibly inferior with the CD layer to the best only-CD players. Also switching from SACD to CD layer was no real revelation.
It is also important to make this comparison with recordings where the CD layer and the SACD layer contain the same master. To let the SACDs shine, their CD layers often contain an old master.
 
Another thing to know is that an SACD optics must be adjusted more often. The blue laser needs a more precise tracking than the red CD laser.
Those are the reasons why I went for a CD player with external access to the DAC inside. Using this DAC with digital files, provided a clean signal path with high quality cables, sounds as good as the CD player. I must even say that the latest version of apples airport express, also connected with a high quality cable to the amp, gives me a hard time doing a blind comparison to my (3400 Euro) CD player. I compare to a ripped version of that same CD, ripped with XLD to 320 kbit mp3.

Wow...that's really cool information. At the moment, I am hard pressed to consider buying a CD or SACD player. I would rather spend the money on DACs and a streaming service like Tidal. At least that's my personal opinion and others may disagree.
 
Since those graphs have generated some interest, I am trying to record a video of the first 20-30 seconds of each track and post it on the thread. I think that seeing is believing, and you guys will get a kick out of seeing the waves build up over time and get a feel for the difference in signal quality. I will try to do that in the coming few days/
 
Cheers

 

[Sattelight]

  @Sattelight it really depends on the album, most common popular releases are the same master. Many records that were originally on vinyl then transferred to digital when that became the popular format do suck 100% - not just with compression but from bad clocks, artifacts, and frequency issues - sometimes the mix is different too.

Hmmm. This is different than what I've encountered. With modern releases the vinyl almost always has a different (uncompressed) master. Daft Punk's RAM is a good example.
 
CDs from the 80s/early 90s for older albums (those made before CD existed) tend to sound much better than modern CD releases of the same album (although they may not sound as good as the original vinyl.) One example of this would be Judas Priest's Stained Class. The first version I got was the 2001 remaster on CD. Then I picked up a used vinyl and it absolutely blew the CD away in terms of sound quality. Then I was able to get the original CD (from 1988) and it basically sounds like the vinyl without all of the clicks. This is the only version I use anymore. This has been my experience with a number of albums. Old CDs almost always sound better than newer CDs.
 
For modern albums, the vinyl almost always has a better sounding master, which is a shame because it would be nice to be able to listen to the uncompressed version without dealing with vinyl. Vinyl is noisy, tedious and expensive but it is often the only way to listen to the best version of an album so I deal with it. In a perfect world we would be able to get the better master on a CD.

 

[jodgey4]

Hmmm. This is different than what I've encountered. With modern releases the vinyl almost always has a different (uncompressed) master. Daft Punk's RAM is a good example.

CDs from the 80s/early 90s for older albums (those made before CD existed) tend to sound much better than modern CD releases of the same album (although they may not sound as good as the original vinyl.) One example of this would be Judas Priest's Stained Class. The first version I got was the 2001 remaster on CD. Then I picked up a used vinyl and it absolutely blew the CD away in terms of sound quality. Then I was able to get the original CD (from 1988) and it basically sounds like the vinyl without all of the clicks. This is the only version I use anymore. This has been my experience with a number of albums. Old CDs almost always sound better than newer CDs.

For modern albums, the vinyl almost always has a better sounding master, which is a shame because it would be nice to be able to listen to the uncompressed version without dealing with vinyl. Vinyl is noisy, tedious and expensive but it is often the only way to listen to the best version of an album so I deal with it. In a perfect world we would be able to get the better master on a CD.

As discussed, some services like iTunes compress, and the early transfers from analog to the new cd format were usually bad, interesting about the Judas album though. That hasn't been my experience either . Old punk music has a lot of music that sounds like poop on CD, along with some soul. Some of those were a whole new master! It really is a crapshoot, the recording industry seems to have more stupidity in recording than we audiophiles in playback. It's just hard to know if the CD will match the vinyl (which is always nice for convenience' sake).

 

[sfo1972]

All righty boys and girls - while we are slightly off the topic of this thread, the debate is quite awesome! I hope others feel the same way, as it is answering a lot of questions around vinyl and its format. For the sake of science and the pursuit of knowledge 

 find attached the two videos of the CD vs. Vinyl through the Musicscope tool.
 
DISCLAIMER: All copyright belongs to the artists and creator of Musicscope and so on, this is used only for illustration and discussion and is not intended for commercial use or gain. No record, artist, or product is being promoted by my post but rather the intent is to discuss the signals and what they mean for those of us pursuing the appeal of vinyl. Please take this with a grain of salt, and as a good buddy of mine always says YMMV.
 
With that out of the way, the two videos are screen caps of the Contact track in CD and Vinyl formats through Musicscope. I let the first two minutes play out then analyzed the rest of the record. So the first two minutes will give you a feel for the resolution of the signal while the analysis will speed up to produce the final image, which I attached in an earlier post.
 
----
 
Ok, it turns out that I can't upload video to Head-fi and I must use youtube or vimeo. Any suggestions around what I should do to post these?

 

[Sattelight]

As discussed, some services like iTunes compress, and the early transfers from analog to the new cd format were usually bad, interesting about the Judas album though. That hasn't been my experience either

. Old punk music has a lot of music that sounds like poop on CD, along with some soul. Some of those were a whole new master!

So are you saying that, the most part, the problem with the old CDs is from the process of transferring from analog to digital or from the fact that different masters were used in certain circumstances? 
 
 

 It's just hard to know if the CD will match the vinyl (which is always nice for convenience' sake).

Yup this is the key. I use that dynamic range database (mentioned earlier in this thread) and if the dynamic range values are the same for the CD as the vinyl (indicating the same master was likely used,) I'll typically go for the CD to avoid the extraneous noise inherent to vinyl. 

 

[jodgey4]

  Ok, it turns out that I can't upload video to Head-fi and I must use youtube or vimeo. Any suggestions around what I should do to post these?

Well, if you're doing it to share the audio so we can hear the differences, I'm afraid that most of the services will compress the tracks . Surprise surprise, after this whole thread

. Can't escape compression! Really cool software though, I really appreciate you sharing it with us!
 

  So are you saying that, the most part, the problem with the old CDs is from the process of transferring from analog to digital or from the fact that different masters were used in certain circumstances? 
 
 
Yup this is the key. I use that dynamic range database (mentioned earlier in this thread) and if the dynamic range values are the same for the CD as the vinyl (indicating the same master was likely used,) I'll typically go for the CD to avoid the extraneous noise inherent to vinyl. 

Yeah... the Analog-to-Digital converters often had issues converting clock rates or just a bad sound in general, the market was changing so people were starting to listen more and more to music in their cars/on the go so compression was the latest fad, and I'm sure the labels were also just in a rush to get something out, no matter how it sounded (sometimes they'd lose the old master tape, and have to throw something together... I think that may have happened with some Zeppelin? Don't quote me on that ). Lots of reasons the CD could sound bad!

 

[sfo1972]

 
Ok, it turns out that I can't upload video to Head-fi and I must use youtube or vimeo. Any suggestions around what I should do to post these?

Well, if you're doing it to share the audio so we can hear the differences, I'm afraid that most of the services will compress the tracks . Surprise surprise, after this whole thread . Can't escape compression! Really cool software though, I really appreciate you sharing it with us!

 
So are you saying that, the most part, the problem with the old CDs is from the process of transferring from analog to digital or from the fact that different masters were used in certain circumstances? 


Yup this is the key. I use that dynamic range database (mentioned earlier in this thread) and if the dynamic range values are the same for the CD as the vinyl (indicating the same master was likely used,) I'll typically go for the CD to avoid the extraneous noise inherent to vinyl. 

Yeah... the Analog-to-Digital converters often had issues converting clock rates or just a bad sound in general, the market was changing so people were starting to listen more and more to music in their cars/on the go so compression was the latest fad, and I'm sure the labels were also just in a rush to get something out, no matter how it sounded (sometimes they'd lose the old master tape, and have to throw something together... I think that may have happened with some Zeppelin? Don't quote me on that ). Lots of reasons the CD could sound bad!

Sure thing and I am glad you found it useful.

Yeah I know about the cap on audio rez on YouTube and other services. My intent is for you to see the dynamic range difference between cd and vinyl. So the video is the objective rather than audio. Let me see what I can do between today and tomorrow to get this on YouTube and embedded in this thread.

Cheers

 

[KG Jag]

 

 

 

 
No problem! I will check that site because I am very interested in deciphering these graphs and further understand, scientifically, why Vinyl sounds so much better than CD and other media. One question to you and others, when it comes to SACD and DSD, would that be sonically better than Vinyl?

There's a lot of debate about DSD in the Sound Science forum I encourage you to read, but it seems that the small market and high entry to cost, along with negligible, if any differences to PCM make it probably a failed/useless format.
 
Also, I've had good luck with a few of the more popular eBay vendors for records, but I prefer one of many local shops - a great perk of living in Austin. I'm sure there will be nothing after this week though .

I bought my first LP more than 50 years ago.  Yeah--SACD and Blu-ray audio are superior to vinyl.  Just to begin, you don't have surface noise, clicks, scratches and noise between tracks.  Records require more time to play for less than 1/2 the playing time--and that does not count the necessary cleaning of the the platters and stylus.  Beyond that the audio is superior on the disks (given a well recorded & mastered, true super Hi-Fi track).  Plus there is available 5.1 sound compared to stereo/mono only (given the limited and failed quadraphonic experiment).
 
Currently you can pick up a TEAC SACD deck from Amazon for $380 shipped.  That's also about the price of a Pro-ject or Music Hall entry level audiophile turntable--sans phono preamp.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I still have the first LP I bought and many more.  I still have turntables, reel to reel and cassette.  Yet with all of its flaws, there are reasons why the arrival of mere redbook CD's all but killed off vinyl.  With a quality track, DVD-A, SACD, HDCD and Blu-ray audio all beat, if not blow away, almost all redbook CD's I have heard over the decades--even when talking stereo (or mono) only.  Don't know how much of that is due just to the format, but in the end it's all about the sound quality.  Those goods are delivered.

Many thanks for this insight. But what about using DACs and the all mighty flacs, alacs, DSD, & DXD? Why would you still invest in a SACD player, isn't it all digital without the need for the hardware?

This question assumes that digital files are the core or at least a very important part of that person's music collection/use.  After more than 50 years of collecting, that's not true for me.  For serious listening I only use digital files while on the go and with a DAP.  Add the ability to rip the stuff already in your collection to quality digital formats.
 
Beyond that many of these digital formats, as well as many records (unlike the old days), are priced at premium and super premium levels.  On the other hand a good number of excellent SACD's, Blu-Ray audio, HDCD's and DVD-A disks can be had (sometimes used) for under $10 and many more under $15.
 
I will ad that some SACD players from makers likeTeac (like the one on sale) and Sony do a great job with CD's.  Oppo decks do a great job with HDCD and many other formats as well.

 

[sfo1972]

Take 2
 
-----
 
All righty boys and girls - while we are slightly off the topic of this thread, the debate is quite awesome! I hope others feel the same way, as it is answering a lot of questions around vinyl and its format. For the sake of science and the pursuit of knowledge 

 find attached the two videos of the CD vs. Vinyl through the Musicscope tool.
 
DISCLAIMER: All copyright belongs to the artists and creator of Musicscope and so on, this is used only for illustration and discussion and is not intended for commercial use or gain. No record, artist, or product is being promoted by my post but rather the intent is to discuss the signals and what they mean for those of us pursuing the appeal of vinyl. Please take this with a grain of salt, and as a good buddy of mine always says YMMV.
 
With that out of the way, the two videos are screen caps of the Contact track in CD and Vinyl formats through Musicscope. I let the first two minutes play out then analyzed the rest of the record. So the first two minutes will give you a feel for the resolution of the signal while the analysis will speed up to produce the final image, which I attached in an earlier post.
 
NOTE: Using Vimeo free allows for only one HD video per week. Unfortunately only the Vinyl one was uploaded in HD so the numbers are better. I will try to re-upload the CD version next week in HD when Vimeo allows it.
 
 
CD Analysis Video:
/img/vimeo_logo.png
 
Vinyl Analysis Video:
/img/vimeo_logo.png 

 

[rb2013]

Very Cool!
 
To my ears a well pressed vinyl LP is still the best source possible - better then Redbook, better the SACD.
 
Cheers!

 

[sfo1972]

  Very Cool!
 
To my ears a well pressed vinyl LP is still the best source possible - better then Redbook, better the SACD.
 
Cheers!

That's excellent! I will use this with one of my hifi buddies....it will drive him insane because he thinks I am nuts to be pursuing Vinyl at this day and age....

 

[rb2013]

 
That's excellent! I will use this with one of my hifi buddies....it will drive him insane because he thinks I am nuts to be pursuing Vinyl at this day and age....

I can do direct comparisons - as I digitalize my LPs as soon as I get them.  At 32 bit, 176K sampling WAV  using Wavelab 6 and 32-bit AKM ADC's.
 
I load those files on to my music server and can run side by side with Redbook and SACD.  Even Redbook upsampled to 176k and 192k  - that gets them closer - not all the way.

 

[mironathetin]

 
I can do direct comparisons - as I digitalize my LPs as soon as I get them.  At 32 bit, 176K sampling WAV  using Wavelab 6 and 32-bit AKM ADC's.
 
I load those files on to my music server and can run side by side with Redbook and SACD.  Even Redbook upsampled to 176k and 192k  - that gets them closer - not all the way.

 
Can you exclude that your vinyl is mastered differently? To my ears, this is often the case.

 

[sfo1972]

 

 
That's excellent! I will use this with one of my hifi buddies....it will drive him insane because he thinks I am nuts to be pursuing Vinyl at this day and age....

I can do direct comparisons - as I digitalize my LPs as soon as I get them.  At 32 bit, 176K sampling WAV  using Wavelab 6 and 32-bit AKM ADC's.
 
I load those files on to my music server and can run side by side with Redbook and SACD.  Even Redbook upsampled to 176k and 192k  - that gets them closer - not all the way.

That's just awesome man. I need to wrap my head around this - I can hear better music on LPs but I still can't put my finger on it and explain it scientifically, not yet at least. So my journey is trying to figure out how to compare signals side by side and find proof of better sonic qualities on Vinyl.