LP vs. digital from a price perspective?
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
Simply? I find myself more just listening to the music, not the system.
Well...in that case and if I were you the answer would be yes...when can you deliver the setup to me?
A big problem for me is that a high percentage of the music I listen to is not commercially available on LP.
Again I ask, what does this mean?? I lived with R2R tape and high-end LP playback as my primary sources for over 30 years (counting from my first "audiophile" stereo), what more is there to "get"??
I think he is referring to people who made statements like "Not one click! Not one pop! I won't tolerate it!" People who make those type of statements "don't get" analog and what it brings to the table (pun intended or not intended depending on your sense of humor or lack thereof). And we have some of these types of digital zealots on this forum who have made those exact statements I quoted.
True, although we seem to have more posters unwilling to compare high-end digital to even an entry-level LP system
I was wondering if it was something more analogous to "getting" Lowther and similar single driver "wide-bandwidth" speakers?
I wouldn't know about Lowther type speakers. I have never had any desire to own those squawkers. Do they come with cotton to stuff you ears with while listening to them?
IMO, the best of them do a few things very well; image, microdynamics and smooth midrange response. Unfortunately, even these virtues tend to disappear as the volume increases.
Some of the most rabidly vocal LP lovers also love this type of speaker (e.g. Jack Roberts, Art Dudley) so I just wondered.
To me digital and even low level LP are not comparable , they just sound different , with digital i find the differences between expensive and cheap players not big enough to spend serious $$$ at it , ML 390 S , Lindemann and zanden somewhat excluded (and some others ).
When you go up the analogue chain the differences become a lot more clearer , cheap players/(carts) have usually limited bandwith , are less dynamic and have more distortion.
Good analogue can sound organic , digital sounds .....overly smooth /artificial, although that can be impressive it wears me out pretty quick
I do like the audio added to dvds /blu rays .
I am in search for an excelent multiplayer ???
When you go up the analogue chain the differences become a lot more clearer , cheap players/(carts) have usually limited bandwith , are less dynamic and have more distortion.
Good analogue can sound organic , digital sounds .....overly smooth /artificial, although that can be impressive it wears me out pretty quick
I do like the audio added to dvds /blu rays .
I am in search for an excelent multiplayer ???
Last edited:
I havent heard it ,Arcam BDP 300 is also good , and cheap although it doesnt play sacd , which i think sounds better(cleaner ) , i compared the FMJ arcam cd player to the 390 s some years ago
) , i compared the FMJ arcam cd player to the 390 s some years agoInteresting thread ...
The way I look at it is strictly from my system point of view in which it takes a superb turntable to better my Ikemi within my system. In fact, the Ikemi forced me into improving my analog rig based on it's performance when I first installed it into my system. No Rega P3 or equivalent tt has bettered it, but it cost nearly 5 times more. People are falling in audiophile luv with the Technic 1200 series, which I still consider an average performer, and I can safely state that within my system, it doesn't nearly approach the sonic capability of the Linn.
So, in my system, it takes a near $5K(can) player to better your average turn-key introduction hi-end turntable ... a cost differential that's considerable. My turntable easily betters the Ikemi, but it's cost is considerably more than the Linn.
tb1
The way I look at it is strictly from my system point of view in which it takes a superb turntable to better my Ikemi within my system. In fact, the Ikemi forced me into improving my analog rig based on it's performance when I first installed it into my system. No Rega P3 or equivalent tt has bettered it, but it cost nearly 5 times more. People are falling in audiophile luv with the Technic 1200 series, which I still consider an average performer, and I can safely state that within my system, it doesn't nearly approach the sonic capability of the Linn.
So, in my system, it takes a near $5K(can) player to better your average turn-key introduction hi-end turntable ... a cost differential that's considerable. My turntable easily betters the Ikemi, but it's cost is considerably more than the Linn.
tb1
My take on this is that the answer to this is and will be extremely time dependent. The DAC's have and will continue to have an increasing cost advantage, simply because of the decreasing cost of technology and economies of scale. Expensive TT's will continue to be expensive until there is (and don't hold your breathe) some tremendous leap in demand, so that development and production costs can be amortized over a much larger number of units. Until then, TT's will be a cottage industry and expensive. I know, since I have a TT front end that doesn't cost as much as a new Ferrari, but does cost as much as a new Camry. You can see the effect of large volumes on TT's with some of the new TT's with USB outputs, like the Ion selling at Costco for $100-$150. I don't consider this quality of TT as part of this discussion, but volume produces a much better price point. DAC's will continue to benefit from lower costs through large volume sales - the most notable is the Oppo and probably the MyDAC.
BTW, comparisons at the extreme high end of cost for both DAC's and TT's to me are just looking at outliers - taking an average of the two Stereophile A+ TT's with the 30 or more A+ DAC's makes no sense. The DAC's have a comparatively huge range of prices compared with the TT's. So the price of one or two TT's skews the average tremendously.
For me what is more important is the cost of the listening material. So far we have a very uneven playing field. There is a huge amount of vinyl which is quite high res and is very cheap, particularly used (you can find classical used vinyl in really fine condition for $1-5 an album in many large used record stores - I don't buy pop or rock or jazz). This is not true of high res digital files - which cannot be bought used (not including 16/44 CD's which can be ripped). SACD's and DVD-A's are quite difficult to find used, and certainly not in great numbers or at all at $1-5 each. (I am excluding pirating digital files.) What I see is that downloads from the usual sources cost $15 to $50 an album. So a collection of a couple thousand albums will cost as much as a new Lexus. If high rez really catches on and sales of downloads increases by an order of magnitude or more, then the economy of scales should drive down the cost of digital listening material.
My guess is that five years from now, the cost of high end TT's will not be much different - maybe more expensive, but what we take as high rez DAC's (192/24 or equivalent) will be much, much cheaper. With increased number of high rez DACs, the price of downloads should also drop significantly.
Larry
BTW, comparisons at the extreme high end of cost for both DAC's and TT's to me are just looking at outliers - taking an average of the two Stereophile A+ TT's with the 30 or more A+ DAC's makes no sense. The DAC's have a comparatively huge range of prices compared with the TT's. So the price of one or two TT's skews the average tremendously.
For me what is more important is the cost of the listening material. So far we have a very uneven playing field. There is a huge amount of vinyl which is quite high res and is very cheap, particularly used (you can find classical used vinyl in really fine condition for $1-5 an album in many large used record stores - I don't buy pop or rock or jazz). This is not true of high res digital files - which cannot be bought used (not including 16/44 CD's which can be ripped). SACD's and DVD-A's are quite difficult to find used, and certainly not in great numbers or at all at $1-5 each. (I am excluding pirating digital files.) What I see is that downloads from the usual sources cost $15 to $50 an album. So a collection of a couple thousand albums will cost as much as a new Lexus. If high rez really catches on and sales of downloads increases by an order of magnitude or more, then the economy of scales should drive down the cost of digital listening material.
My guess is that five years from now, the cost of high end TT's will not be much different - maybe more expensive, but what we take as high rez DAC's (192/24 or equivalent) will be much, much cheaper. With increased number of high rez DACs, the price of downloads should also drop significantly.
Larry
-- Good post Larry.
BTW, forget about Class A+ from Stereophile here for a sec (still, the most expensive front end analog source; turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono preamp combination is about $775,000 - And the most expensive front end digital source is about $85,000), and go with only Class A. Now you have way more products (over a ten years period), and the average PRICE difference (perspective) is roughly four times more for the analog source, as compared to his "successor" the digital 0s and 1s. ...And DSD.
...Or $25,000 for analog source, and $6,500 for digital source (Class A).
BTW, forget about Class A+ from Stereophile here for a sec (still, the most expensive front end analog source; turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono preamp combination is about $775,000 - And the most expensive front end digital source is about $85,000), and go with only Class A. Now you have way more products (over a ten years period), and the average PRICE difference (perspective) is roughly four times more for the analog source, as compared to his "successor" the digital 0s and 1s. ...And DSD.
...Or $25,000 for analog source, and $6,500 for digital source (Class A).
If i would go digital again , it probably would be the Lindemann 825 SACD/CD , still a lot cheaper than top analogue
I need both.
My current TT set up is sligthly cheaper than my digital rig but it gives it a beating. However a large portion of the music I enjoy the most is simply not available on vinyl. Digital is therefore not a second choice and I don't question myself on how it would sound on vinyl.
I guess Bruce is right about the 12-15K mark. Digital is improving but so does the TT. When I purchased my previous TT some 15 years ago, the choice was rather limited. When I went on the hunt for new TT few months ago, I could not believe the range of the offering (on paper at least as for arranging an audition or a shoot out, this was mission impossible).
The great thing is that vinyl is back big time with a lot of current rock and indie rock production available on high quality vinyl. Unfortunately, this is not the same for classical music and particularly baroque music on period instruments with cottage labels such as Alpha, Harmonia Mundi, DHM, Channel Classics, Ricercar, Bis and the like that cannot afford the associated costs of a parallel vinyl production. Even Linn (with its label Linn Records) does not support vinyl anymore but they are still producing the LP12.
My current TT set up is sligthly cheaper than my digital rig but it gives it a beating. However a large portion of the music I enjoy the most is simply not available on vinyl. Digital is therefore not a second choice and I don't question myself on how it would sound on vinyl.
I guess Bruce is right about the 12-15K mark. Digital is improving but so does the TT. When I purchased my previous TT some 15 years ago, the choice was rather limited. When I went on the hunt for new TT few months ago, I could not believe the range of the offering (on paper at least as for arranging an audition or a shoot out, this was mission impossible).
The great thing is that vinyl is back big time with a lot of current rock and indie rock production available on high quality vinyl. Unfortunately, this is not the same for classical music and particularly baroque music on period instruments with cottage labels such as Alpha, Harmonia Mundi, DHM, Channel Classics, Ricercar, Bis and the like that cannot afford the associated costs of a parallel vinyl production. Even Linn (with its label Linn Records) does not support vinyl anymore but they are still producing the LP12.
Like anything audio, if the equipment is mismatched, not setup, poor recordings or an acoustic nightmare of a room, expensive equipment is just that expensive equipment and little else. I own LP's, CD's equipment and DAC's and I can't find a faulty in either if the equipment, recording and room are all working together.
-- Very true what some members previously mentioned here:
It is primordial to do the right matching between the turntable, the tonearm, the cartridge (MM or MC), and also the Phono Preamp.
And then everything has to be set up accurately for top-notch performance. ...Isolation, azimuth, level, constant controlled speed, vertical & horizontal tracking, stylus tracking force gauge, proper phase with a switch, anti-skating or not, set of RIAA curves, etc., etc., etc.
And it is essential to have a 'good' Record Cleaning machine. ...And to have good quality music recordings on LPs.
The money and time required to be a serious analog aficionado is definitely substantial.
...And I forgot a lot of other things attached to it ....
No doubt though; after all of that ($$$ included), the 'sound quality' rewards is for the soul of the music.
_________________
Digital (DSD from SACDs for example, and also hi-rez music from downloads) has its positives as well. ...Less costly on average (four times less), large music selection accessibility, and much much easier to set up, and much much less time consuming.
And the 'sound quality' is also close to the soul of the music, the artists.
It is primordial to do the right matching between the turntable, the tonearm, the cartridge (MM or MC), and also the Phono Preamp.
And then everything has to be set up accurately for top-notch performance. ...Isolation, azimuth, level, constant controlled speed, vertical & horizontal tracking, stylus tracking force gauge, proper phase with a switch, anti-skating or not, set of RIAA curves, etc., etc., etc.
And it is essential to have a 'good' Record Cleaning machine. ...And to have good quality music recordings on LPs.
The money and time required to be a serious analog aficionado is definitely substantial.
...And I forgot a lot of other things attached to it ....
No doubt though; after all of that ($$$ included), the 'sound quality' rewards is for the soul of the music.
_________________
Digital (DSD from SACDs for example, and also hi-rez music from downloads) has its positives as well. ...Less costly on average (four times less), large music selection accessibility, and much much easier to set up, and much much less time consuming.
And the 'sound quality' is also close to the soul of the music, the artists.
Similar threads
Members online
- Juiced
- Camus
- Kingrex
- luca.pelliccioli
- BigDogsTug
- keithc
- Jofish
- ci1952
- Mike Lavigne
- Pietka08
- Ron Resnick
- Mark212121
- andromedaaudio
- ticktock
- Notdead
- BCRich1960
- audiom3
- slowGEEZR
- unboxed
- SL1800
- waltersalas
- M27HF
- octaviars
- Kingsrule
- Johan K
- DonH50
- Sablon Audio
- saurabhg
- WildPhydeaux
- an.vamv
- astrotoy
- VinylSavor
- Tlay
- trekpilot
- Nsxturbo
- Long Live Analog
- takacs75
- lucia1506
- kmyl
- tubes59
- Ligriv
- Opabin
- wbass
- the sound of Tao
- Echo1
- abeidrov
- skinnyfla
- nirodha
- Mike
- jbrrp1
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |