LP vs. digital from a price perspective?
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
Very useful Bob, thanks
Its clear from those statistics (and anything can be proved with stats) that digital is offering more bang-for-the-buck according to Stereophile.
Well, I think your summarization is a wee-bit harsh. And that comes from someone who has a rep for being harsh on people sometimes. I did tell the OP that I thought he had his mind made up before he started the thread, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with mep about the harshness of this. To me it looks like you're rationalizing your prejudice here by smearing the OP. But could just be me
Class A+ is for the best performance in both analog and digital categories.
* In the Class A+ category for Analog (Turntables) Playback, it represents the achievement recognized by the reviewers on the Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn ($160,000 with tonearm and stand), and the Rockport Technologies System III Sirius ($73,750) turntables.
** In the Class A+ for Digital Playback, it is a requirement that it plays high resolution audio at a higher rate (like SACD/DSD, DVD-Audio, and 24/192 at a minimum).
Some' like that Steve.
Truth knows no bounds.
I agree with mep about the harshness of this. To me it looks like you're rationalizing your prejudice here by smearing the OP. But could just be me
This doesn't even make sense.
Get a grip and read more of my posts where I try to explain things a little more fully. My "bias", based on experience and preferences, is that in the low to moderate price ranges digital gives better "performance" (meaning to me more satisfying to listen to, and I listen to a lot of music almost every day) than LP. I haven't spent any time other than at shows (i.e. no meaningful time at all) listening to megabuck digital, but have to reasonably pricey LP (not in Mike L's league) and like it a lot. My son and his friends are all over entry level LP, so I can listen to that a lot. Even though I sold my "expensive" (for me) 'table about 10 yrs ago, I still have some reasonable stuff (way better than entry-level) to play if I want.
Obviously sonic characteristics most important to me are reproduced more enjoyably by mid-level digital than mid-level vinyl. I know others feel differently and I'm interested in knowing whether that reflects actual thought and consideration about sonic performance or knee-jerk anti-digital feelings.
Very useful Bob, thanks
Its clear from those statistics (and anything can be proved with stats) that digital is offering more bang-for-the-buck according to Stereophile.
---- Comin' from you Richard, it makes me feel useful. :b
Your preference is not the issue, even though each and every one of your threads seems to hinge on a strawman argument asserting the opposite. It's as if you want folks to tell you that your system sucks. Like what you like, it's not as anyone really cares and you know that. That seems to be the problem from your end - a lack of attention. This is why you begin introducing inflammatory language into your posts, in effect trolling other for a reply. It is what it is.
I read your first original post very clearly, and it was perfect. ...The reason why I decided to post in your thread. :b
* If others are seeing (reading) things that aren't there, that's their problem; not yours, and certainly neither mine.
Ah that's your style Bob For me, tact is something you did in a small dinghy when the wind was against you...
For me, tact is something you did in a small dinghy when the wind was against you...
I'm a 'vinylista'...at home I listen to vinyl 99+% of the time but I have to agree with the OP's thesis.
When people ask, I tell them that if you have less than $5k to spend on a source, go with digital.
$5-$10 is a push for sound quality, especially factoring in the costs of extra cables and a quality phono preamp.
Above $10k, you should be able to get better sound quality from vinyl and at the extreme fringe, it's really no contest, analog is better....
But (and there's always a but), that's if you have the patience to do a quality set up (many ?most? expensive analog systems are not well set up) and are willing to spend the money to get quality software. These caveats should probably give significant pause to the vast majority of folks contemplating a greater than $5k expenditure.
When people ask, I tell them that if you have less than $5k to spend on a source, go with digital.
$5-$10 is a push for sound quality, especially factoring in the costs of extra cables and a quality phono preamp.
Above $10k, you should be able to get better sound quality from vinyl and at the extreme fringe, it's really no contest, analog is better....
But (and there's always a but), that's if you have the patience to do a quality set up (many ?most? expensive analog systems are not well set up) and are willing to spend the money to get quality software. These caveats should probably give significant pause to the vast majority of folks contemplating a greater than $5k expenditure.
Sorry, am I back in high-school? Your original response consisted of an "I know you are, but what am I" - a brilliant retort only rivaled by "I am rubber and you are glue" - buttressed by ...well... nothing. Now you call me out again with another bit of nonsense. Where would you like us to go from here?
-- Gotta move forward, and let the emotions behind, and we want to truly advance.
* In reply to post #..
* In reply to post #..
I'd like at least some meat on the bones for why what you quoted doesn't make sense to you. Then perhaps I can explain where you're making an error of interpretation. How does that sound?
Similar threads
