[ab_ba]

For the past couple of years, I’ve been curious whether vinyl really does sound better than digital. Finally, I’ve put together a system that does the trick for me. I’ll get into it in post #2 below, but I’d really like to hear from others: what did it take to convince you that vinyl sounds better than digital? Or, have you come to the conclusion that digital is better? What got you there?

 

[ab_ba]

For high-end audio, it’s all about subtlety. Think of buying a Van Gogh print from Ikea, versus going to a museum to see the original. If your love of music begins and ends with the melody, then some earbuds and mp3’s are going to do the trick for you. That’s like hanging the print on your wall - it’s a beautiful thing to have in your life. But, if you enjoy the brushstrokes, there’s no substitute for standing in front of the original. High-end audio can portray the brushstrokes. There’s so much IN music, and if you want to hear it all, that’s why you need good gear. 
 
In my experience, the only night-and-day difference in audio is whether music is playing or not. From there on out, it’s all about subtlety, resolution, and depth. And, you can pay 10x more in price to get to the next level of nuance, detail, and brushstroke. 
 
For the past few years, I’ve owned and enjoyed a Technics SL-1200mk2 that I picked up on Craigslist. I bought that because I loved its 80s aesthetic, and because I thought it would be good enough to play some records. Vinyl sounded clearly different from digital, but I would not say it was better. 
 
I first discovered what vinyl can really do last summer when I visited Todd the Vinyl Junkie in Montana. I heard reproduced music like I had never heard it before. The depth to the soundstage on his system is the thing that astonished me the most. It was not a 2D plane of music, but instead, some sounds were whisper-close, and others were rumbling up from the basement. I had no idea that was possible in music reproduction, and this was in songs that I thought I knew inside and out. A good two-channel system became a goal of mine, and Todd insisted that vinyl is crucial to getting that. He pointed out the top-quality CD player sitting in his rack, not even plugged in.
 
I purchased a clearaudio concept turntable a month ago. I had narrowed down my turntable search to a few particular brands: VPI, Gem Dandy, Clearaudio, Rega, Pro-Ject. For each of them, I liked the reviews I read, I liked the companies’ philosophies, and I liked their particular take on technology and the upgrade path. When I had a chance to see one in person, it was a clearaudio, and I could see its quality and workmanship right away, so I went for it. Setup was a delight, and the build quality is fantastic - it feels like a tremendous value. A turntable is such a tactile instrument, good build quality is continually rewarding. 
 
Vinyl, done well, is a revelation. The music is fuller. It’s more dynamic. There is more depth - sounds are near and far, small and large, and that’s all present at once. In every dimension, vinyl offers a spectrum. Digital doesn’t do this. With digital, music sounds equally present. Not compressed, necessarily, but more like lacking the full range that vinyl provides. Another visual analogy: imagine watching a stage performance under good theater lights. That’s digital. Now imagine being outdoors, under natural lighting. That’s vinyl. 
 
The virtues of digital are immediately apparent: there’s no pop or hiss, the sound is just more clean. Digital is a whole lot more convenient. Anybody can see the advantages of digital, especially on inexpensive systems. The flaws in vinyl are also immediately apparent - the surface noise, and some ringing on complex or shrill parts of the music. Put it together, and I don’t blame us for eschewing vinyl for so long, but I am really glad it’s back, because on a great system, vinyl offers something lovely that you just can’t get from digital. 
 
Some comments on the equipment I’m using:
1) I bought a Violectric PPA V600 phono stage to accompany the Clearaudio. With the Technics, I used an Emotiva XPS-1. As with all things audio, a 10x price increase brings you to the next stage in transparency, detail, and emotion. The Emotiva is certainly just fine - it imparts no particular character of its own to the sound - but with the V600, the background is black, the dynamics (loud/soft) are extended, and nuances can emerge. The Emotiva is very two-dimensional in comparison. Before putting my Technics back up on Craigslist, I mixed and matched. It turns out the combination of V600 + Technics sounded better than the combination of Emotiva + Clearaudio. In my experience, getting a good phono stage matters more than getting a good turntable/cartridge/tonearm. 
 
2) I’m listening through Focal Utopias and my 2-channel system: B&W 805D speakers powered by a McIntosh MC152 amp. I’m using my Violectric V281 as a headphone amp (balanced) and as a speaker pre-amp. It enables me to switch between digital and analog easily, and with gain knobs, I can volume-match pretty well. 
 
3) Maybe the “problem” is my DAC. Maybe with the best DAC in the world, digital would sound better again. I’ve got a Violectric V800 DAC (yup, I’m a Violectric fanboy). So, it’s true that my vinyl frontend cost more than my digital frontend. Maybe that will be my next upgrade target, but I’ve heard pricier dacs in direct comparison to the V800, and not been able to reliably perceive a difference. I might have to wait for the next generation of dac (R2R?), or the next format of digital encoding (MQA?) before digital comes out back on top. 
 
4) My digital/vinyl comparisons were done using albums I know and love - Leonard Cohen’s You Want it Darker, Harry Belafonte Live at Carnegie Hall, Radiohead’s Kid A. I matched the digital to the analog as well as I could - the included download card, or the FLAC from the same label. I wanted to make sure it wasn’t the mastering or encoding that was making the difference to what I heard. In all cases, I preferred the vinyl, while at the same time the more-immediate advantages of the digital were apparent. Nowadays, I purchase new vinyl now for albums I know I love, or to support the artists, and I just stream everything else. I admit it is strange to buy new vinyl that’s been cut from digital masters, but the proof is in the pudding. 
 
My system still pales in comparison to what I heard at Todd’s (VPI turntable, Vivid speakers, Luxman monoblocks). But, I am very pleased to own a gorgeous vinyl frontend, so I can see firsthand what vinyl is capable of. And, of course, I wonder what else is in my favorite music, that I have yet to fully appreciate. 

 

[MohawkUS]

I only post rarely, but I like your writing style, and I'm still in a state best described as 'holiday cheer.'

I agree with your assessment on the differences of vinyl/digital and tell you that I have no regrets selling my turntable. Huh?

I prefer the strict legibility of digital, the ability to follow the lyrics in complex music, perfect phase which is absolutely necessary for the full effect of some modern computer aided compositions. I am a more analytic listener.. maybe. I want to connect with the artist directly and the creative process. I view music as a communicative method maybe more so than strict entertainment and probably take it way too seriously.

I do miss some things from my few year expirament with analog. The sound sample of a wolf that scared me upright as I dozed one night, digital lacks the presence that put the beast in room and the noise floor betrays the starting point of the sample. And the shakers dancing to my ears and back on one album I cannot remember, digital has perfect speed which can remove the subtle error that brings such sounds to life with vinyl's variability.

I believe the preference comes down to ones' musical agenda. Bear witness to all elements of the recording laid bare or be immersed in the show? Analog can pull that immersion trick by adding a dose of magic to counteract the machine. As for SQ exchange rate I found a $1500 analog setup just better than a $500 digital until a software update that turned the tide to the computer's favor. When the dust settled I packed the analog rig for sale and didn't look back. I'll have my transients and complete blackround please & thank you.

Components I used were:
UltraFi DAV41
Vintage SOTA Satellite with a unipivot arm
Graham Slee 2SE Phono
STAX & Ultrasone Edition 12 Headphones

 

[ab_ba]

digital has perfect speed which can remove the subtle error that brings such sounds to life with vinyl's variability.
 

 
Yes, I wonder if vinyl's effect on me is BECAUSE of its flaws, or DESPITE its flaws. Is it that there's more information in vinyl (though I can't imagine what that would be), or if the barely-audible noise somehow sets your ear's expectations and makes the sound more lifelike.
 
Here's an experiment we should be able to do: take a hi-res FLAC file. Do some signal-processing on it to re-create the quirks and noise present in vinyl. Does it then sound more lifelike, the way vinyl can? If digital really isn't losing any information (and, theoretically, it is not) then we should be able to capture vinyl's effects by corrupting the digital file. If we can do that, then yep, my enjoyment of vinyl just comes from its particular noise characteristics.
 
It reminds me of the tubes vs. solid-state debate. The solid-state fiends say tubes distort. The tube aficianados say, "who cares? They are more musical." Is that because of those distortions, or despite them? Who knows. And, like you say, how wonderful we have different gear for different preferences.

 

[MohawkUS]

We could also open a can of worms by noting that microphones and the recording process are failable. Or by discussing how digital and it's filtering are always a set of compromises.

Who is to say that flaws in reproduction don't mimic what was lost in recording? A happy accident. Or that the miniscule imperfections of digital are actually more annoying than the more overt more perceptive flaws of analog? Perhaps a subtle flaw triggers the uncanny valley or just bothers us in a different manor.

 

[fumblingforward]

Sorry to butt in but this topic peaked my interest, I'm a vinyl fan on a compact disc budget and love both formats for different reasons. My turntable is best described as budget +. It's an onkyo that I've fiddled with to get some garbage out of the signal path, fiddled with the platter to get rid of the ringing and ditched the entire headshell and cartridge for something a lot more musical and detailed but still considered budget. My compact disc player is budget - in cost but ++ in sound quality. An aging JVC XL-V211, dual 16 bit converters with "noise shaping". All through a vintage pioneer sa-510 integrated and to my asgard2 via tape outs. It's a real hodgepodge but it sounds good to me. More to the point I guess. The compact discs sound like compact discs and the vinyl sounds like vinyl. The noise floor on the onkyo is so low in high gain on the Asgard it's perceived but barely, the new cart cuts through the surface noise on some of my oldest records with barely pop or crackle revealing pure analog goodness. The phono section on the pioneer is old but still vibrant without screeching. I hear so much through the Asgard/philips shp's I rarely use speakers. The CD player is a CD player and its plenty detailed but certain things are lost in the compression. Some transients are noticeably short. Cymbals still crash but this like the subtle use of brushes on cymbal or snare sound a wee bit flat. While the vinyl has that richness and depth that draw us all in the first place. I prefer the sound of the vinyl, even when the amp and headphones resolves so well mistakes in the production and issues with both a record or a deck become plainly obvious, it still sounds better to me. However the compact discs are so convenient, much more inexpensive and the sound is "nearly" there it's hard not to love those too. Especially when much of what I find myself listening to lately isn't on vinyl, yet. If I had to downsize I could probably be content with just my CD player, my amp and cans with the occasional envie for my vinyl.

 

[HesNot]

I'm fairly new to Head-Fi certainly from a posting perspective - lurked for awhile.  Anyway - I'm old enough that when I started to care about music at a young age, both playing it and listening to it - the only good choice was vinyl.  And I had a lot of it back in the day - and travelled a fairly long path with equipment until when I got married and had kids and other stuff took up more time.  I started with a cheap hand me down but quickly upgraded to a basic Technics belt drive circa 1980 or so - then ramped things up a good bit with a Harman Kardon ST-8 which I kept until 1990 when it died and I got a Thorens TD280 which I've used off an on for years (and which is also now malfunctioning so I just bought a very clean Harman Kardon T35C).  Plus a handful of receivers, a few cassette decks and oddly only two sets of speakers from roughly 1978 to today... But I was also an early adopter of the CD format - and over time replaced certain key portions of my vinyl with CD versions over the years.  I don't claim to have golden ears but I have always very much appreciated clarity and precision while listening to music and a well mastered CD through a good DAC really hit a nerve for me.  Unlike cassettes which I only used to record albums for use in a walkman or car - there seemed to me to be no trade off with a CD for the convenience and size.  When my first Philips player developed problems I bought a JVC 1 bit PEM player that I just love and still love.  
 
Anyway - I certainly appreciate the strong tactile feel of physical media and particulary the strong memory of buying a new vinyl record, opening it up, cleaning it, reading the liner notes, etc.. much of which I think is behind the "vinyl resurggence" in a slightly more mainstream way (I'm not sure at the high ends vinyl ever really died).  As to the initial question - does vinyl sound better - I have to admit I'm not so sure - since my Thorens developed problems I have admittedly been playing no real vinyl.  I'll drop back on this thread after getting my new turntable setup this weekend (fitting a Shure V15 V MR to it which should be a great match) and will try to do some vinyl/CD comparisons.  I think it will be somewhat informative since I have a good but not high end audiophile setup that by Head-Fi standards is probably low end but reflects probably the meat of the home audio enthusiast market (as opposed to the true audiophile or consumer market).  For the record, Nakamichi SR-2A receiver, Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble (original) speakers, and the JVC CD player and HK/Shure turntable.  
 
I have often thought, however, that at least for a lot of the vinyl resurgence crowd their issue with CDs is that they either never really listened to them (the pure download/ipod crowd) or never had a decent CD player (since there were so many really bottom end players available through the 90s).  This doesn't really apply to the crowd here but my brother in law ripped all his CDs into iTunes and sold them (sadly I suspect knowing him and when he did it and the file size it consumed he did so at the default lossy AAC standard) - using his ipod and/or mac as his only music source for a number of years.  He's since gone all retro and been buying vintage gear like a drunken sailor and is all in on vinyl.  I can't knock his purchases as they are all nice pieces but I know a good bit of his choices revolve around a design aesthetic (which I do get on some level - the warm glow of my first HK 330c receiver still makes me smile remembering my fascination with it and the flywheel tuner, etc...) rather than necessarily producing the best sound for the price.  I have other friends who've gone all in who have assembled setups that may not be as aesthetically cool but within their budgets reflect probably a better overall system adjusted for price.  I admit I am budget conscious and seek out under the radar but great gear that represents the best bang for my buck that I can afford.  But for my brother in law, by comparison to lossy ipod source, a good vintage setup with vinyl I'm sure sounds remarkably better.  
 
I think that's one of the challenges - getting a real apples to apples comparison.  As noted often here, so many factors go into an accurate representation of the original music as it was performed, it can be hard to level the playing field (even with the same album, was the CD mastered well originally?  or the vinyl for that matter? etc...).
 
Anyway - I do think that at the high end of the audio market well maintained vinyl probably does sound a bit better than the best CD source.  But for many audio enthusiasts who for a variety of reasons not the least of which are budget, float below that level - like myself - given system limitations, etc... and assuming roughly equivalent setups on the vinyl and CD side I am not convinced.  But I could be completely wrong and it may be vinyl has gained in popularity because even through a mid to low level system it really does sound better.  I'm interested to do as good an A/B comparison as I can this weekend - and may tee up a high res comparison with the Pioneer XDP100r I just bought for fun and games.  

 

[Delirious Lab]

Vinyl sounds better than digitial if you can find a well-preserved record at a used record shop for less than the price of a CD - as is often the case with classical music.
 
Digital sounds better than vinyl when your favorite band's newest CD sells for $10 and you don't want to be ripped off $25.

 

[sterling1]

 
What an amusing thread. I got my first stereo after getting my first real job, back in 1974. I actually preferred FM over LP then since LP's were inconvenient and made popping noises. After about 5 years upgrading turntables and cartridges, I settled on a Sony PS-4750, which cost about $300 as I recall. I still use this manual turntable today with a Shure V15V-MR which I purchased, I think about 18 years ago. At any rate, the sound from LP's with this outfit can not be distinguished by me from CD or SACD of same material, with one exception, that being, the snap, crackle, and pops that seem to be unavoidable with LP. I do have a few LP's that appear to be noise free; but, that is rare. I do today occasionally buy LP's instead of SACD's and CD's thinking maybe I will be rewarded sonically; but, this has not been the case. I will not buy a new turntable or cartridge. My money is going to a pair of JBL 4367's which I am certain will enhance my listening pleasure.

 

[Mr Rick]

The horse and buggy is fine for a ride around Central Park. But for a cross country trip I'll use my car. Both are useful. Choose the one that is best for you.

 

[goodvibes]

I generally prefer vinyl to CD and always at the same level of well chosen kit but there are crappy TTs and Cartridges and some VG (expensive) CD players so it's relative. There are also different levels of digital files and playback, the best of which is at a level beyond Vinyl. I can't dub a live 24/192 recording to a cutter and not lose something. I can record a record at 24/192 and not lose anything meaningful, and can sound better on playback. Just having the table in the room responding to vibration limits it's mechanical performance and I can record it with no sound in the room...to a Nagra VI, not a PC. It's relative but digital can be very good. I can get a better dub from an analog master to a digital recorder than going analog master to analog recorder but it has to be the right gear with all your ducks in a row.

 

[Lemieux66]

Romanticism and subjectivity aside, vinyl is woefully bad compared with even the undeservedly much-maligned CD format.

The high frequencies are easily measurable on an oscilloscope as grossly distorted from the original source and vinyl is highly compromised in the bass too. The inability of the stylus to accelerate at infinite velocity introduces distortion too.

The main source of all these technically shortcomings is that vinyl is a mechanical contact system. CD eliminates these issues because it removes the contact.

Having said all this, I thoroughly enjoy playing vinyl. There is more to home audio enjoyment than simply sound quality and accuracy (hi-fidelity).

I theorise that some of the distortions inherent to the vinyl format actually can enhance the listening experience in the home. When playing an LP of a full concert orchestra in your tiny living room, you are trying to recreate the impossible but with vinyl the distortions can trick you into feeling like you're in a bigger space with the music somehow. All very enjoyable!

I see vinyl as a bit of fun and nothing more. I know digital is superior in every way but they both can be enjoyed for what they are

 

[Digitalis]

To me the medium of recording is largely a matter of taste, convenience and familiarity both: digital and analogue recordings have the same issues: mic quality, mic response curves, mic positioning, acoustics of performance halls, mixing and mastering - and their own proclivities regarding noise & frequency response. I perform in orchestras, the sound in the woodwind section is different compared to when you are playing as a soloist in front of the orchestra which again, is different when you are playing in a woodwind quintet or performing a delicate baroque chamber work with a harpsichord.
 
Live music is a living thing, it changes with time and temperament, as the performers interpretation of the work changes - no two live performances are "bit-perfect". Music that has been vitrified into recording is no longer living, recordings are just echoes of a performance. You can change your amps, change your speakers, but the recording will remain the same.  My beef with live recordings is that there is always some sneezing jerk who went to the concert hall rather than see a doctor, who completely shatters the atmosphere of a well played Chopin nocturne as he hacks and wheezes in the front row.
 
The real question here is the archival longevity of the media: Is Vynl inherently more stable than a bunch of 1s and 0s on a disc or held within a memory chip? Longevity is an issue that has plagued photography for more than a century* and music recordings will have to face the same problems. Who can say if a turntables will still be made to the same exacting standards as they are today? will certain file formats fade into obscurity?**
 
* I also work as a commercial photographer, I work with both film and digital cameras. There are some things that film can do that digital cannot, the reverse is true as well.
** this has already happened with certain camera RAW formats, they are no longer supported and the images cannot be read.

 

[goodvibes]

I can tell you that having to bake even decade old magnetic tape to make it usable for transfer doesn't bode well for it's longevity. You'd be surprised at how many store them tails in ( on the feed reel) which makes print through many times more apparent.

 

[bagwell359]

I used to be a vinyl > digital guy - since day 1.  But now?  It depends. 
 
I've had cartridges such as the ADC XLM, Sonus Blue, FR 3F Mk 1, Carnegie, Shelter 501, Shelter 501 II on a FR-64 knock-off (with VTA adjustment), and a Souther (Clearaudio) sitting on a VPI TNT Jr.
 
I have a Gumby DAC too.  Good speakers, good electronics, good headphones...
 
Some recordings are best on digitial, and the converse is often true.  I'm going to sell off all my lesser recordings soon and just be happy with whatever is best.
 
I'm glad the digital folks finally got their Schiti together...