Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
Hmmm ... I don't think an unbalanced comparison makes your point that beyond a certain level, the impact of the turntable is a wash out.
Yes, you can create imaginary scenarios to fit your theory. A high-end turntable with a mediocre arn and cartridge and a mediocre record may not sound as good as a medium range table with a top-flight cartridge, arm and great record. It's not analog rocket science to understand that each element makes a contribution and that the turntable alone cannot overcome a multitude of weaknesses downstream.
But that doesn't validate a view that says the cartridge, arm, or record make more important differences. Or that beyond the level of, for example, a Garrard, "the rig doesn't make the difference."
To see the difference made by the turntable, use the same arm, cartridge, and record on both. Then try the same again with an even better turntable.
Have done this multiple times
Nothing is imaginary. The reality is that a system with a garrard and SPU and Altec 817s is better than Tang's AS 2000/ Techdas AF1/EMT 927 with Cessaro Gamma 2, as is one with a Dual TT and Shure cart on altec 817. And better than David's Bionors with Lamm and AS 1000 and Af1. And better than Vyger RS on Cessaro Zeta, but not better than Vyger RS on Mayer Pnoe. And I am well aware of Garrard's and SPu's limitations having compared them in many systems. It all depends on what records you use and what the system is to show the record through. Western Electrics play in Munich regularly with Garrard, Commonwealth etc and are often the best at show
There are many other instances of TT compares. Continuum and Schroder TT have both been heard next to Studer C37 on Kondo bionor/Euronor. Both TTs sound great, but most impactful is the mono cart on the TT, which plays with Miya Zero and Schroder BA and the C37 with good records and tapes, not with average records or tapes. Possibly because the stereo cart is the MSL which is hifi-ish.
Last edited:
Sorry, but now you are just conflating things with multiple variables on multiple systems...silly.
If you read my previous two posts
1. I have compared same things on same systems
2. I have compared on different systems
You can draw conclusion comparing A vs B in one system that A better than B, but the realism from the records is lower on using either A or B in that system X as compared to using A in system Y.
That is because system X is lowering resolution of A as compared to system Y. Likewise, using worse records on A will drop the quality of A.
So if one system digital sounds better than vinyl and in another vinyl sounds better than digital, you will draw the conclusion both are equal and system dependent, rather than use your wider system knowledge when vinyl has sounded more realistic than digital in any system?
Last edited:
If one digital system sounds better than what vinyl? Are you saying that ANY vinyl is better than the best digital? You are so over generalizing that it is hard to even follow whatever dubious point you are trying to make.
No, you mention TT X and Y on Altec 817 vs. TT X, Y and Z on Cessaro...both having completely different SPEAKERS, amps, cables etc. It is clear you have a thing for the Altec 817... so, you keep conflating systems with individual components. THen you mention David's Bionor with Lamms with two more, completely different TTs. Finally, you throw in Mayer and Pnoe and Cessaro Zeta with Vyger... no mention of the all important phonostage, which I personally think is more important than the table, arm or cartridge...just like I think amps are more important than speakers when it comes to removing the synthetic from sound.
Talk about a hot mess! You are going to draw conclusions out of that gear soup?? I don't think so bud...seriously, you start to remind me of the Russell Crowe from "A beautiful mind", where, after having his psychotic break, he sees messages everywhere in the news paper. That is how unscientifc and random your "observations" are.
No one debates that having poor recordings will do more damage to the sound than nearly any gear...it is so obvious that it doesn't really need to be discussed. However, not everyone is ready to going into "collector" mode and spend a fortune on those rare pressings. There are plenty of very good "common" recordings that don't require that kind of effort and are also of very good performances etc.
Last edited:
Of course the record makes a big difference. That's where using the same record on a comparison is important. Brad is right that the point is obvious
I am talking about how to make proper comparisons of turntables. You said that past some point that the turntable does not matter and your examples mixed up other components to make your point. Too many variables in your examples. That's the imaginary part. A proper comparison changes just the turntable. If you can't tell the difference between Continuum and Schroeder it still does not follow that turntable is less impactful than a cartridge. That's a generalization. In the past you have offered your opinions on turntables when other variables are different. I don't buy that methodology for a proper review -- it may be interesting but anecdotal.
I have not written what you read at all. You probably don’t understand the post due to your limited experience.
I know the limitations of a Garrard and SPU, as I have compared both to other tables multiple times. It is in no way anywhere as nuanced as any modern table or cart, or the AS 2000. The AS 2000 was better than the AF1 and the 927 in tang’s system,.
Yet, the Garrard SPU and Altec 817 system was better, so why does a lesser table make one system sound more realistic than a better table? I could keep going on with examples and not going to write what I have written in previous reports in one post. If you can’t grasp, too bad
Have you heard the Garrard and SPU on Tang's system? Have you heard an AS2000 + VDH on an Altec 817 system? If not, then you don't know that it is the table making the difference because there are dozens of other differences...you cannot make the conclusions you are making based on the data at hand...it has nothing to do with my experience...however, one thing my experience is not is limited.
The lesser table doesn't "make" the system sound more realistic. If you have concluded that the table in question is of a lesser quality than say, the AS2000, and yet the system with the "lesser" table sounds more realistic, then logically the limitations of the system with the better TT lie somewhere else in the system that are effecting it's realism. You put that AS2000 on the Altec system that you love so much and perhaps it sounds even more realistic. If not, then it is possible that something about realistic sound was misjudged on the "lesser" table vs. the "superior" table. That still doesn't allow generalization...only possibly validity in a small subset.
the bolded is exactly what I am saying. I never said the lesser table makes a system sound more realistic. I am saying if you have sufficient quality of records and system, it will sound good EVEN with Garrard and SPU, you don't need a higher end table, and the delta from a higher end one will not add to realism except for comparing random attributes.
I never said TTs are not different. My point is you can do all differences and writing of one TT does bit bass here and bit stage there. That is NL. After a certain level, it is the same from a realism perspective. The level of realism is the same even though TT sonic attributes might change - and only records and systems will be different.
Upgrading across TTs to 400k TTs is no different from how you view upgrading from streamers and dacs to Wadax - analog people like you realize digital has differences, but it does not matter in the face of analog - well, I think the same goes for TTs after a level. It does not matter in the fact of the records and the system.
This has been done so many times. Get past NL point. For someone who likes NS, you seem to be evaluating TTs from the very hifi perspective that you so despise.
You said exactly that. "Yet, the Garrard SPU and Altec 817 system was better, so why does a lesser table make one system sound more realistic than a better table?"
I would argue that a better table will make the less than perfect recordings better as it extracts more information from the grooves with less "self-noise". There is a wide range of degrees of recording quality and if the lesser table makes anything less than the best not sound so great, then that is a very good reason to step up to a better table.
Exactly - it is a question mark asking why, and the answer was/is the system and records, not the table. You should try to understand what a person is trying to say across posts rather than fixate on one statement. Writing on mobile, I can see how the quoted statement can be misinterpreted devoid of any background
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard vinyl playback going through an ADC ? And if so, have you compared it on the same system with a full analog signal path?
Not enough times. I have heard it through Trinnov and without it in the same system, when I was not experienced with good records, but still remember not liking digital records in it (was blind tested) and liked the analog ones. I tried in a good horn system with the Accuphase F25 but not without it. In both there was a bit of lack of emotion. with accuphase, dollar represses sounded very good...maybe his frequency curve suited them. I don't have much conclusions based on these two. I am not interested in ADC so not investigating further.
Last edited:
Have you heard Tang’s AS2000 with Altec 817 using same recording anywhere in any room?
Similar threads
