Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Richard Austen]

I am surprised at the lack of interest/curiosity in the Audio Note DACs/CD players on WBF. They are a completely different approach to almost all other digital gear such as Wadax and MSB.

My friend, Chris Bryant, was one of Colloms listening partners when he reviewed the top of the line combination (2012). My friend thought at the time it was as good as the best vinyl replay.

Perhaps different markets - their DACs are geared for CD. They don't make a DAC designed for computer-based/digital streaming so that probably takes out most American consumers even back in 2012 when Colloms covered their gear. AN's biggest business is in Hong Kong/Singapore/China. Add to this long wait times to get anything at the upper price ranges and it's not as attractive to the "want it yesterday" American mindset. The CD physical media formats are still quite large in Asia compared to the West so I think this could be a factor. Although there is still a decent presence in larger US markets like California, New York, and Canada.

Strange, since even the owner of Audio Note doesn't think his digital matches his vinyl playback:

Yes, I have been fortunate to audition their flagship Reference Turntable with their powered IO Limited Cartridge and it's basically about as perfect as vinyl gets. But I like to note that there is the manufacturer's take on things who wants everything made to his standard and is "closer" to his baby than the average Joe. His turntable beats his CD player - I agree. The question in this thread is can digital get to vinyl sound and IMO his CD players accomplish that - that's a bit different than can it surpass it? To me, you need both formats because any given CD can beat any given vinyl and vice versa. And that's not just AN but other companies as well. Still, I prefer the NOS approach that they have been using since the mid-1990s. It's the most "analog" sounding CD replay I have heard. But for that money, I suspect it is tougher to sell people when it's not designed for their computers and doesn't win any numbers games.

Here in Hong Kong where dealers are plentiful and you can visit 40 audio dealers in a distance of 3-10 minutes by train or walking you can get a handle on stuff quite quickly - with proper setups and no people at audio shows blabbing and fighting for chairs listening to music they don't know. I think the only way to really get anyone to drop $12k+ on a NOS bad measuring CD player like the 4.1X or above is to listen to it directly against, say a Bricasti/MSB/Chord etc playing the same music. Even then the lack of features etc - I am amazed that people spend the effort to actually check it out. I mean CD players in 2012 were a tough sell - in 2024? They're still making them and working on new prototypes - someone is buying them.

To be fair Yamaha just brought out a 5-6 disc carousel player for like $550. I kind of like that - CD isn't dead - if Yamaha is doing it they must see a market. Maybe it's the retro thing - or perhaps maybe people know it sounds better - let the hearing impaired by their streamers.

 

[Lagonda]

Strange, since even the owner of Audio Note doesn't think his digital matches his vinyl playback:

Maybe just not enough silver in the signal chain ?

 

[adrianywu]

On a side note, I sometimes find it easier


I clarified what I meant by referring to it as being "clean" and "dynamic". I guess this is what I expect from a good recording. Perhaps the term is too vague, and maybe one could analyze and decompose different sonic attributes that explain it. Funny how most people would agree on what are "good recordings" but disagree on how to describe them

I will check out the example you provided.

Digital can sound dry compared to vinyl because it is missing the mechanical resonances introduced during the cutting process and by the tonearm and cartridge during playback. Mastering engineers who analyzed vinyl records cut from Redbook digital files found frequencies above the Nyquist limit on the LPs, which clearly did not come from the source file. This is why vinyl records often sound different from the master tapes used to cut the lacquers. A member here argues repeatedly that a vinyl record cut from a tape always sound better than the tape itself.

 

[adrianywu]

thanks. he writes

“
Disclaimer:

I realize this gear is very expensive. For those who can afford it, it's not the flash that you are buying, it is strictly the wonderful playback sound. The gear itself is very understated looking, it is truly all about the music that the equipment spits out.

My long term loan of this gear has no strings attached whatsoever. I'm writing this review because I'm excited about the sound and feel that others might be as well.

No one at Audio Note UK has ever ordered or even requested that I ever write a review.”

Interesting. I bought a PS Audio Directstream Mk II DAC at staff price since I write for their music/audio magazine. I am very enthusiastic about this piece of gear, and asked them if I can write a review for the magazine. They said no, it is not appropriate since I got a benefit not available to the public.

 

[defride]

AN digital v vinyl compares are interesting in the context of this thread.

A friend has their TT2, Arm3, IQ3 combo into the phono section of Meishu Silver or M2riaa along with their 1.1 dac, the vinyl far more expensive, one would think it should sing. Nothing we've done inc AN setting the TT up at the factory has got it sounding as good as his AN digital. In fact I've yet to hear an AN demo where I preferred their vinyl to their digital implementation including recent demos of their new field coil speakers with TT3 & Dac5. Their vinyl implementations seem to suck the life out of the music, by comparison. I haven't heard PQs system

Surprising as I usually prefer vinyl in comparisons of top tier digital and analogue in the same system.

Someone recently mentioned they don't like the AN arm, perhaps it's that?

 

[Richard Austen]

Interesting. I bought a PS Audio Directstream Mk II DAC at staff price since I write for their music/audio magazine. I am very enthusiastic about this piece of gear, and asked them if I can write a review for the magazine. They said no, it is not appropriate since I got a benefit not available to the public.

I think the issue is there because you purchased the product at a discounted price before you decided to write the review. Although, so long as you state that in the review I don't see why there would be a problem. Well no - I think the problem would be that they have two price thresholds and people may wonder why they too can't get the "staff price" as you did - that's likely their concern.

One maker sells a preamp I was interested in reviewing - however, they wanted me to buy it at reviewer accommodation of ~40%-50% off. This is a small company that is made-to-order. So they wanted me to buy it - then if I didn't like it I could return it and get my money back. How would one view this? Is it a bribe? maybe maybe not. It's not the 40% discount that is the issue it's largely the order in which the discount happens.

If I review XYZ product at $10,000 - once I use it and review it is a used product. It is now second-hand. Second-hand items typically drop 20-40% the second they are opened. Thus, these reviewer discounts people moan about are very close to the price any normal customer would pay to buy a second-hand product/dealer demo.

Steve Hoffman is a Recording mastering engineer and is not a reviewer. He is a "fan" of AN UK gear as he has attended most Audio Shows in California over the decades. No doubt Peter Qvortrup of AN UK is happy to send him loan gear because it's a form of advertising without advertising when you have the "right people" touting your stuff. Steve Hoffman has put on several audio demonstrations over the years at his home with audiophiles commenting on what they heard. So this is not a bad way to get your products out into a market which is mostly lousy-sounding audio shows and sporadic dealers. Indeed, when I first heard a high-level AN UK system it was at a customer's house - my audio dealer arranged to have me listen to it. This was years before I became a reviewer - I was a broke student - the fellow picked me up at my house and also drove me home - I was a prospective customer for like $1500 speakers - I was going to be a teacher. So I was not likely to ever be a high-end customer netting them much of a profit.

But I was a fairly vocal forum goer and word of mouth is good advertising (and free advertising). Yes, you had the usual negative nellies but they are ALSO a great form of advertising. When people are blasting each other back and forth on internet forums over a company that generates curiosity (people sent me death threats lol). But it got more people to go to the dealers to hear what all the fuss was about. I point out that back then there were 3 US/Canada dealers. Now there are 24.

Some companies, including Audio Note, send their products for various listening nights and weekends at all sorts of venues to be auditioned. Klipsch I believe does the same. B&W provides speakers to recording studios for free because they can get advertising like "X Studio" uses our speakers. I believe ATC advertises which studios use their speakers.

Forums have very little impact because all you get is some back-and-forth battles where the same 30 people are reading the same 30 people when it comes to largely esoteric brands like this. It's all appeals to authority. For me, I liked AN UK as the result of a pseudo-blind audition before I had ever heard of the company back in the year 2000. Actually, it was 2 auditions - one was when I heard their$3kish CD player non-oversampling but analog filtered back then beat the crap out of the Linn Sondek thing that was $30,000 and every other CD player in the store. And the other was a SET amp I thought was a SS powerhouse and ugly rectangle speakers basically mop the floor with everything I had heard over the last decade from every major raved-about brand. Then to find out it was a stupid ass 8-watt SET amp well it was kind of a life-changing audio moment. Of course, since then, I have heard far more and better set-ups and so I am not the zealot about this stuff as I once was because - well this stuff isn't that important - I mean if it is -it's time to actually get a life.

 

[Richard Austen]

AN digital v vinyl compares are interesting in the context of this thread.

A friend has their TT2, Arm3, IQ3 combo into the phono section of Meishu Silver or M2riaa along with their 1.1 dac, the vinyl far more expensive, one would think it should sing. Nothing we've done inc AN setting the TT up at the factory has got it sounding as good as his AN digital. In fact I've yet to hear an AN demo where I preferred their vinyl to their digital implementation including recent demos of their new field coil speakers with TT3 & Dac5. Their vinyl implementations seem to suck the life out of the music, by comparison. I haven't heard PQs system

Surprising as I usually prefer vinyl in comparisons of top tier digital and analogue in the same system.

Someone recently mentioned they don't like the AN arm, perhaps it's that?

I have not found this to be the case but it again depends on what you're listening to. What I note at dealers and audio shows is that most rooms play a certain set of recordings over and over and over - Diana Krall "Live in Paris" Keith Don't Go" etc.

A couple of weeks back I went to a dealer here in HK and as I walked over to their stereo - they immediately stopped playing the music they were enjoying and put on Diana Krall - I had to laugh - maybe they know I am Canadian.

With Vinyl - AN doesn't play pristine Audiophile-approved recordings - they'll play the music they like even utterly horrendous sounding ones. Ie they don't do what 99% of every other show demonstrator does. So it's important to bring your own LP and your own CD.

In my demos of both - both sound great - AN is probably the only digital I would buy because I think it's that good. There are plenty of great turntables - AN isn't the only one I like. It's the same with speakers - I own AN speakers and I like AN speakers but I could probably list a dozen other speakers and amplifiers that I would like enough to be happy listening all day every day.

The TT2 is very good but it is not "spectacular"
The TT3 is somewhat unique in the sense that if you "get it" then virtually every high-mass turntable will sound "wrong" to you and if you don't then you don't.

Hi-Fi Critic had three reviewers cover the TT3's design https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/89c2...jVrTAGL7qaxbo3RAgI5BZ1NvD3z81-egw6eOrcYoqc4jE

 

[Audiohertz2]

What kind of accommodations do AN allow you ..?


Regards

 

[hopkins]

Peter Qvortrup explains here his approach:

Peter Qvortrup: High Fidelity, the Decline of the Decades

Hi-Fi news, gear reviews, and interviews

parttimeaudiophile.com

The premise with Audio Note is that you achieve best results by using a full Audio Note system. How that applies to their digital components, I would be very curious to understand, but I suspect it is the analog component (output stages?) of their DACs which are "tuned" to achieve synergy with the rest of their equipment.

As mentioned before, I was really struck by the sound I heard years ago from a top of the line full Audio Note system (vinyl at the time) but I would be curious to hear one again now, after having acquired much more experience (both with modern and "vintage" gear). Their entry model speakers (heard extensively more recently) don't come close, IMO, to achieving the goals PQ mentions in the above article, and it makes me wonder...

Given the objectives/claims stated by Audio Note, I think it would make sense to compare their best system to the "real thing" - original Western Electric/Altec sound...

They now have a field coil version of the AN-E.

 

[Richard Austen]

What kind of accommodations do AN allow you ..?


Regards

Customers will be able to negotiate 10-20% off their list prices (assuming you can find a list price at AN) and a reviewer will do 10-20% better than a customer. Although the product is technically used once the reviewer has reviewed it; thus, I am not sure how much better reviewers do since a customer can get another 10-20% off buying secondhand.

Unlike basically every other company in the entire audio industry - AN UK keeps their product models in the line-up for like 20-30 years and the prices rise every year. So it's difficult to determine if you're "getting a good deal"

I paid $1800 Canadian for my OTO Phono SE integrated amplifier back in 2003 - Still works great. A new OTO Phono SE is around $4,000USD ($5,350 Canadian).

So on various resale sites like US or Canada audio mart, you will often see them selling for around $2200-$2500 second hand and they will list the new price of $4,000. Not bad - I can get an OTO for nearly half price - but because the OTO has remained unchanged for 25 years - you don't know that the guy actually paid $1800CAD ($1,350US). He is selling it for more than he paid. I got more than I paid for my AN J/SPE speakers that I owned for 13 years. I sold my TT2 turntable for 15% or so more than I paid - I can sell my OTO and my AX Two speakers for considerably more than I paid because they don't drop models. That's why I personally scoff when people say it's expensive - really - had I bought any of my runner-up choices I would get peanuts.

Once a company changes a speaker to MK II or V2 or replaces an amplifier or discontinues a product basically they are saying the old model is BROKEN and needed to be fixed - and if it is discontinued then it says - this piece of shit couldn't sell because everyone who auditioned liked something else better. Sure it may not actually be TRUE - but that's the perception and it takes out enough second-hand buyers to the point the resale value is killed.

Getting back to the reviewer discount - AN makes things by hand and charges based on current currency value - so an AN E speaker in February may be one price - in June it is slightly higher and in November slightly lower. You listen at the dealer - decide to buy it and you give the dealer your money and wait for your speaker to be built and you get it a few months later.

The reviewer is reviewing the local dealers' available stock version or the importer's product - My dealer in Hong Kong stocks a few AN E speakers - one light wood one dark wood and the demo. A reviewer will get one of them to review but you may be reviewing a 3-year-old AN E that sold for $5k - you get it for say $3,500 but the new AN E of the same model may now be $7k - you think you are getting a huge 50% discount - but you're not.

With a typical speaker or amp maker- they make a whole bunch - they have figured out the profit they want etc and they price the speaker at $7k - and that price stays at $7k for maybe 4-5 years - When the sales plateau - they come out with a .1 or .2 or XD or something to justify a price bump and get it back into the review cycle. But a customer knows and a reviewer knows that if they get it for $3500 - they got it for half price. I had a Rotel preamp - after 5 years they came out with a new model which internally was IDENTICAL to the model I had - they added a few useless features and changed the casework - price went up $200. Obviously, the old version is no worse but it will seem worse because new is always better!

Then you have to consider markets - here in Hong Kong there is no sales tax and no import duties. My Line Magnetic CD player cost $2200 HKD. In the US they charge $1500 USD. Although, I sort of feel Americans are getting bent over for lots of things when it comes to prices from prescription drugs to audio gear to wifi/phone plans etc. We Canadians are really screwed over for WIFI/Phone plans. In HK it is far better and far cheaper. I mean I can walk into a Rolex shop and actually get a Rolex - I keep reading about Americans having to go on waitlists hoping their dealer will give them a watch. I think - just fly to Hong Kong - spend a few nights in a hotel - go to a Rolex dealer and buy the watch - it's probably cheaper too even including the air and hotel. Same for audio - ship the gear back to yourself.

 

[Richard Austen]

Peter Qvortrup explains here his approach:

Peter Qvortrup: High Fidelity, the Decline of the Decades

Hi-Fi news, gear reviews, and interviews

parttimeaudiophile.com

The premise with Audio Note is that you achieve best results by using a full Audio Note system. How that applies to their digital components, I would be very curious to understand, but I suspect it is the analog component (output stages?) of their DACs which are "tuned" to achieve synergy with the rest of their equipment.

As mentioned before, I was really struck by the sound I heard years ago from a top of the line full Audio Note system (vinyl at the time) but I would be curious to hear one again now, after having acquired much more experience (both with modern and "vintage" gear). Their entry model speakers (heard extensively more recently) don't come close, IMO, to achieving the goals PQ mentions in the above article, and it makes me wonder...

Given the objectives/claims stated by Audio Note, I think it would make sense to compare their best system to the "real thing" - original Western Electric/Altec sound...

They now have a field coil version of the AN-E.

Peter Qvortrup likes other speakers more than the speakers he sells. He has said this on other forums.

He has heard all the heavy-weight speakers and sold most of them at his dealership back when he was an importer. I think many valve and speaker driver diehards would be impressed by the WE drivers and rare tubes he possesses.

But remember - there is what you can sell commercially versus what you can't sell commercially. Take the AN K - back when I bought it - I asked Peter why all the other speakers used foam surrounds but the K used Rubber - and he said Foam sounds better but at that time he had to buy 500 pairs of the driver to be able to get foam and it didn't sell enough to justify a massive order - so rubber was a compromise.

But if you are a DIYer or someone willing to buy rare drivers or someone who will pay for custom speakers you're not going to accept the "compromises" - Peter has listed several speakers he considers the best but you can't actually make them in any sort of numbers that can actually sell - for a commercial business you have to sell a product that will fit in a normal living space and not be horrendously ugly. They're already far too retro-looking as it is for most people who demand space alien-looking speakers with piano black finishes. They are only designed for medium-sized rooms. Once you get into larger rooms you have to look elsewhere. Personally, I like their American distributor audiofederation when they present in a big room they use Acapella Audio Arts - interestingly when it is not being driven by AN electronics (CD replay) I find Acapella to be so-so - but with AN's digital wow - their room was my show winner twice. But the speakers are just so big. I'm gonna need a bigger house.

 

[Lagonda]

Seems like Peter Q. is one of those hypnotic people that you have to experience and be sold by to really get the products. I have always been left uninpressed with Audio Note products, wich are predominantly other peoples design, bought and marketed as AN, with extra silver everywhere of coarse. And he sure works his magic on some reviewers !

 

[dcathro]

That's why I personally scoff when people say it's expensive - really - had I bought any of my runner-up choices I would get peanuts.

Off Topic:

Back in 1980 I went to buy a pair of speakers for A$500 at a local dealer in Melbourne. It came down to a choice of 2, Canton le600s or 15ohm Chartwell LS3/5As. I bought the Cantons because they were bigger, went louder and had better bass. Years later I sold them to my brother for peanuts and he later put them on the nature strip (hard rubbish). It amuses me in comparison how much those Chartwells are now worth.

 

[dcathro]

Seems like Peter Q. is one of those hypnotic people that you have to experience and be sold by to really get the products. I have always been left uninpressed with Audio Note products, wich are predominantly other peoples design, bought and marketed as AN, with extra silver everywhere of coarse. And he sure works his magic on some reviewers !

I have never owned a piece of AN gear, and probably never will, but I have a lot of respect Peter Qvartrup for his knowledge and passion (for both audio and music). I enjoy watching his talks, and agree with a lot of his viewpoints on the hobby.

 

[Richard Austen]

Seems like Peter Q. is one of those hypnotic people that you have to experience and be sold by to really get the products. I have always been left uninpressed with Audio Note products, wich are predominantly other peoples design, bought and marketed as AN, with extra silver everywhere of coarse. And he sure works his magic on some reviewers !

I don't think that's a very fair assessment since there isn't much that is new in audio and at least Audio Note UK does hold actual patents on various things. I mean everyone that made a CD player other than Philips/Sony was "copying" so every single company in the entire audio industry made their products off "other people's designs" Although to be fair AN UK was the company that made Non-Oversampling digital and analog filterless players famous to the point where a lot of other companies over the last 2 decades have been trying to copy the approach from Border Patrol to Zanden to SW1X to various others.

I am sure you didn't intend it as an insult but saying that the only reason people/reviewers like AN products is because they got suckered by Peter's words or charisma seems odd to me - there are plenty of fun personalities in the audio world from several companies but most of the time people already like the product ahead of time. The proof of this is all the AN UK haters - Peter's personality as a gregarious rather humourous fellow didn't persuade the haters to all of a sudden love his stuff.

As for copying - well kind of in a way - the original Snell Type E had different drivers, a larger port and were made of different materials inside and out (the cabinets) with different caps (the parts and the values) and were designed for free standing locations (some versions had rear firing tweeters). Their preamps and power amps are designed by them so there is no equivalent M3-M10 preamp from any other company past or present - their power supplies are in house made and patented so there is no previous equivalent that they copied. They design and manufacture their own tonearms. They design and manufacture their own caps, resistors, and transformers. They still outsource some things certainly but less so than anyone else.

Still all that "stuff" is the cherry on top - one still has to "like" the sound - but if you do "like the sound" then all that "stuff" adds a lot of value or "prestige" for their owners in that they are buying hand made stuff where the parts inside are also hand made. Similar to Patek-Philippe - you are buying something handmade where they make the internals. If you buy a Tissot or an Omega or Mido or Hamilton - you are buying a watch from the Swatch group where they stick in an off-the-shelf ETA movement so you will see the same movement in a $650 Tissot as you will see in a $3,000 to $4,000 Omega. One can accept this more in a Tissot/Hamilton/Mido - given the prices but to me and some other folks it makes Omega seem kind of meh.

What is interesting from your equipment list is that at one audio show - I ranked MBL as a bottom 2 room - boy they STUNK. Then the next show I covered I ranked them a tie for best sound of show. I have extensive experience with Martin Logan and had similar polarizing results. I didn't conclude that because they stunk everyone was suckered by their "cool looks" or the "conversation appeal of "panels" - "wow that doesn't have a woofer" etc. I don't get the appeal of the top models from Wilson or Magnepan or B&W or Magico - never been impressed but reviewers and audiophiles rave about them so they are hearing an appeal to them that I am missing. The owners aren't all sheep who got taken. The reality is all speakers and systems have weaknesses and indeed, even the ones that sound as right as right can sound - owners may simply get bored by it. It's why a guy like Hugh Grant is caught with a hideous-looking hooker when he has Elizabeth Hurley at home or the guy who cheated on Halle Berry.

Look how many people on forums rave about XYZ for 6 months telling everyone how great it is and then - wait - now they're raving about something else. On a couple of forums - there are people blah blah blah Benchmark this and Benchmark that and ASR forum measurements are GOD - then they buy a bloody tube preamp and buy a different power amp that measures worse. How many of them have gone through a dozen speakers over the last 10 years?

 

[Richard Austen]

I have never owned a piece of AN gear, and probably never will, but I have a lot of respect Peter Qvartrup for his knowledge and passion (for both audio and music). I enjoy watching his talks, and agree with a lot of his viewpoints on the hobby.

I admit that I like Peter and the fact that into his 70s he gets excited over some valve that can't be used because there is no amplifier left in the world that can take them - or his pride over his new valve bases. It's just a different thing than 99% of everyone else who just seems to me to buy a bag of caps from Mundorf and make stuff from a textbook.

Skip to 10 minutes. And 31 minutes. At 31 minutes it is why I don't take the posters here seriously or with any ounce of credibility when they say AN copies - they are doing things no one else does in the world of valves by actually going out to try to bring back valves with the best materials.

 

[Rensselaer]

Whether or not digital can reach the sound quality level of analogue and if so at what cost is the question. Being biased in favour of analogue sound over digital, my findings will be suspect. However, I have come across a recording mastered from 256 (kilobit/sec) DSD that definitely, by my ears, sounds better than the same exact recording cut from the master tape (safety copy?) on a valve amplified stereo Ortofon system with minimal editing and pressings (Electric Recording Company).

I actually conducted two comparison tests: The first comparing a pure analogue and definitely one-step Supersense acetate/lacquer (no. 59 of 99) of Marvin Gaye / What's Going On with that same recording cut at 45 RPM from a DSD master and released by Mobile Fidelity as an Ultradisc One Step (4471/7500). The second comparison test was with a pure analogue Electric Recording Company cutting of Crosby Stills and Nash (297/450), with the DSD-to-analogue 45 RPM Ultradisc Onestep by Mobile Fidelity version.

The winner of the first test is obvious, by a mile. The MoFi DSD64 sounded a bit harsh and draws one's attention to various "Hi FI' characteristics of the presentation, whereas the lacquer sounds like lovely music washing over you like gentle waves upon a shore, no aspect draws attention to itself. The winner of the second test however, has to be the Mobile Fidelity 45 RPM Ultradisc OneStep of Crosby Stills and Nash. The pure analogue ERC recording sounds a bit muddy, voices hard to understand. I played around with my crossover settings, even removing the super tweeters from the system once, but I couldn't get the sound right. The MoFi recording on the other hand sounded great, very clear but with none of the harshness of the Marvin Gaye example.

Discussion: Mobile Fidelity lists all the 45 RPM Ultradisc Onestep's they have sold on their website except for the Marvin Gaye record. I contacted them to find out why and they wrote back thanking me for bringing it to their attention, however they have not corrected that omission yet. I also read on their web site that DSD-256 was used on all those listed, but in response to my question as to which was used on the Marvin Gaye I was told DSD-64. Is this the smoking gun, is DSD-256 now able to match analogue but DSD-64 not? Or was the master tape of Crosby Stills and Nash more needy in terms of editing than Marvin Gaye and so, since ERC didn't mess with it, improved by MoFi editing?

 

[Audiofile]

I ditched vinyl and moved to purely digital .
Reasons :
1.Infinite amount of songs via steaming
2.Ease of use.
3. Sounds better/cleaner to me on most albums especially high res formats .
I don't feel I'm missing out on a lot honestly .
Anyone here made the same move ?

 

[adrianywu]

I ditched vinyl and moved to purely digital .
Reasons :
1.Infinite amount of songs via steaming
2.Ease of use.
3. Sounds better/cleaner to me on most albums especially high res formats .
I don't feel I'm missing out on a lot honestly .
Anyone here made the same move ?

I have transferred all my tapes to DSD128, and with the PS Audio Directstream Mk II, I am quite happy listening to digital and only occasionally listen to the tapes. Since I have most of my beloved analogue recordings now on tape format (vast majority master tapes, a few on 4 track tapes), I have been gradually thinning my vinyl collection. For new recordings, there is no point in getting vinyl if there are high rez digital files available. At risk of being trolled, once you have heard a good tape or even high rez DSD file, vinyl often seems compressed and distorted. This has nothing to do with playback equipment, as the problems have been baked into the LP itself.

 

[Audiofile]

. At risk of being trolled, once you have heard a good tape or even high rez DSD file, vinyl often seems compressed and distorted. This has nothing to do with playback equipment, as the problems have been baked into the LP itself.

I'm also going to take a risk and say that I feel the exact same way