Turntables vs. Digital - what do you get for your money?

Hi-Fi Corner
32

Hi @Bart. Speaking as a vinyl fan, with the luxury of an RP10, and recalling from my youth the limitations of a rather-above-average (in my neighborhood) Dual 1215 and Shure M44E, considering the more-for-your-money possibilities of vinyl versus digital, I think die-hards with some money are well rewarded for staying with vinyl. Most practical people are better off avoiding this nerd space. I know only one actual human peer outside this forum who still uses regularly a record player — his other friends consider him a “character”. I wish it were not so.

Nick

3 Likes
33

Not comparing maybe end game digital with an end game analog…

Comparing Nd555 with p10 maybe? End game vs very good one

34

In the following comparisons, what you get for your money is based simply on what different systems cost, with the two vinyl ones only very rough estimates in today’s money.

First analogue, two systems cited here, the first being the one I had, and the second a friend’s. (Note, the preamp has to be included in costings because pertinent to the sound comparison and neither needed nor present in the digital systems)

  1. ~£3k?: Thorens TD150 TT with beefed up plinth and felt mat, Rega RB300 arm and AT-OC5 (or may have been OC7, I don’t recall for sure) TAG McLaren PA10 preamp.

  2. ~£5k+: LP12, Ittok, AT-OC9, through Musical Fidelity MVT preamp.

Digital (mine, previous and current)

  1. ~£3k: Mac Mini running Audirvana, through Gustard U12 isolator, Chord Hugo DAC feeding power amp direct (no preamp in system).

  2. ~£10k: Mac Mini running Audirvana, into Chord Dave DAC feeding power amp direct (no preamp in system).

Before giving reactions to these systems it is pertinent to give background to the two people involved: I have enjoyed digital in the form of CD since 1989 or 1990, with the Cambridge CD2, before that disliking the sound. From then on I thought that overall on balance digital was pretty comparable to vinyl, some individual recordings sounding better on one, some on the other, though I particularly preferred the lack of background noise and wide dynamic range of digital with classical music. My friend on the other hand is a die-hard vinyl lover (he did get a CD player in the 1990s, but only because not all music was released on vinyl). Even with my Cambridge he felt the digital sounded harsh compared to vinyl, and same with my first streamer (ND5XS), all having what he called “that digital sound”.

Now how they compare, these conclusions formed from numbers of occasions over several years.

Digital system 1 to my ears beat both analogue systems for sound quality. My LP12 owning friend said he felt it was pretty close, no longer having that ‘digital edge’, but he thought his system did it better.

Digital system 2 to both my ears and my friend’s ears unquestionably si better in sound quality than either analogue system. He loves the sound - but still prefers vinyl for the ‘magic’ of the process, albeit accepting my digital system sounds better (but then it cost a fair bit more).

So in conclusion, a mixed reaction: to one person the £3k digital sounding better than even the £5k analogue, to the other the £5k analogue sounding better than the £3k digital, though close, but not as good as the £10k digital.

———

Corollary:

  • Firstly, the above is based on sound, or sound quality. It does not take into account other factors that make one or other more desirable to different people, such as aesthetics or ritual (the ‘magic of the process’ as mentioned above) or convenience or storage space etc, and as far as possible I have even ignored the surface noise aspect, although with some music it inevitably becomes part of sound quality.

  • Secondly, sound quality immediately presents a difficulty in any comparison, namely that you have to compare like with like. Very often digital and final releases have different mastering, so direct A-B comparison is meaningless, and a balance of many different recordings is needed.

  • Thirdly, another factor of significance is whether the recording is released has made the best of the medium: for example an LP trying to squeeze the absolute maximum length music onto a disk can end up with significantly reduced bass response, while a phenomenon that apparently has plagued digital has been deliberate severe compression reducing the dynamic range in the so-called “loudness wars” despite the medium inherently having a much wider dynamic range capability then vinyl. Such recordings are not a measure of the analogue or digital medium, but of the media production quality, so in my view irrelevant to TT vs digital comparison, but of course possibly relevant in day-to-day musical enjoyment depending on the individual’s music choices.

4 Likes
35

I would like to compare ND555 to my turntable/phonostage. That’s closer to the same cost. As it is I think my TT sounds better in general than my NDX2/XPSDR. I wonder how a 555PS on my NDX2 would compare. That would really put them about the same cost.

36

My Rp10/ ear 912 inside phono( around 3k)/ Lyra Delos : total: 8,5 k euros
Is on the same level as Nds/555dr/Melco n1zh2 / Etheregen / MCRU : 25 k euros
And with some Audiophile Lps, the rega is clearly above.

2 Likes
37

I’ve owned an RP10/ Apheta Rega IOS and a linn majik LP12/ puresound p10.

At the time, I made direct comparisons to a chord Hugo DAC and Schiit gungnir multibit DAC aided by a Berkeley Audio alpha usb from a Mac Pro. I did instant switching of sources on the NAC for comparisons and I also did long term listening on each individual source to hear and understand the sonic character of each.

I never thought that RP10/ Linn was any more smoother or informative than the digital setup. In fact the RP10/ Apheta was almost identical to the Schiit DAC. The Linn was less detailed and had a warmer sound overall.

Now as the DACs were priced at half the price of the turntables I don’t think the value of turntables is based on performance alone.

Record collecting, the aesthetics of the turntables, artwork of the records, these are the things about vinyl that really appeal to me. I plan to buy a turntable soon but I know that it’s more about the romance of vinyl than the performance.

Another thing that I would add is that vinyl is a pretty expensive hobby these days. The prices of records in comparison to a tidal/Qobuz membership or even CD is very high indeed. But I do understand that in this day and age the format has to be supported for it to survive.

2 Likes
38

As soon as my cartridge gets some more hours on it I’ll do that a vs. b via input switching on my preamp. I can use the 50th anniv. Sgt. Pepper’s lp, and digital file of the same.

1 Like
39

I prefer vinyl and find streaming unsatisfying for some reason. I also have a CDS3 as my only digital source which is good but gets little use.

2 Likes
40

Hi Bart,

On my system, (basically the baby of yours - R8/Apheta3/Aria vs NDX2 (bare) into the amplification (252/SCDR/300DR)) the Abbey Road 50th anni LP is more full with deeper bass elements and more space between layers than the Qobuz hi-res version of the same LP. Both fantastically listenable. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other, but they definitely are rendered with different personalities.

2 Likes
41

I’ll see if I can talk my wife into doing the a vs b with me tonight!

2 Likes
42

So still talking?:slight_smile:

43

Ha ha we ate pizza and watched the first two episodes of Picard – no music last night.

I did on my own do a Yes - Close to the Edge bake-off. First press lp. vs lossless digital of the original cd release (Barry Diament mastering). Other than still a little light in the bass on the lp, which I attribute to the cartridge only having 10 hrs on it, man they are REALLY close. The volume level happened to be really well matched, and in going back and forth with the 2 input buttons at some points I had to look to see which I was listening to.

1 Like
44

IB, my brain is hurting now! I’m sure what you say is true, but it’s just sooo complicated. All this trying to compare and analyse everything just, for me, sucks the life and fun out of both the kit and the music. This is probably why my favourite room is The Padded Cell, and my favourite thread the WAYLTI2020!

2 Likes
45

I take a purely romantic view (and apologies, not probably germane to this thread at all)
I could sell my beloved Naim CD players if I had to.
My LP12…over my dead body!

3 Likes
46

Yeah I’m really looking for the ‘value’ and costs angles. It’s difficult, as even on the digital end per se, one can do pretty well for relatively little money e.g. with an old Mac mini, software and a ‘decent’ USB dac.

47

Hi, @Bart. I do have to concur that if one is playing the value game, vinyl can be a winner.

My own experience: I bought a c2000 Planar3 in 2008, cheaply, had it refurbished at the Rega dealer, loved it for 10+ years, then traded it at my dealer for close to my original cost.

But the money is not the whole story — until I discovered the brilliance of modern turntables like my humble Rega, I had never heard convincing fidelity from the format at all — in all the years before CD existed, I do not recall hearing any vinyl without glaring flaws due to speed variance, rumble, resonance, peak distortion, and surface noise. I never knew how far these defects could be engineered out, even by simply moving the turntable to a better site.

Clearly, I was never exposed to a well set up Linn in all those years. In intervening years, digital has largely set the benchmark for the common listener. Fortunately, lower-end record players these days have closed a good deal of the gap to top players.

For me, a big part of the fun with vinyl is how it exceeds expectations, even winning sometimes vs digital. It does not need to win every match to hold my interest and respect.

Nick

7 Likes
48

Now respect is one thing I certainly have for vinyl - after all it was my only music source for about 34 years, bringing unimagined pleasure almost daily, and I have such fond memories of the magic of each new LP I bought, it taking pride of place in the collection for a while. The magic did fade over decades, but that doesn’t diminish any of it.

2 Likes
49

And it is certainly not how I listen to music! Only written up that way as an attempt at a methodical reasoned answer the question of what do you get for your money, focussing on the sound. (And normally I only compare things when adding something new, which is rare.)

50

When it comes to value, I see two different answers here.
With digital it’s possible to get something really, really good for relatively little money. My own setup of MacBook and Naim DAC, linked with a good Toslink cable, is beyond what every turntable, arm, cartridge and phono stage combination available for the same price can do sonically.
On the other hand analog is able to give you something special without spending ND555 or Meitner money.

2 Likes
51

Okay, here’s the thing.
A good streaming amp (Naim Uniti of some variety for instance) gives you access to all the great recordings there have ever been, plus the entire world’s internet radio. It’s fantastic.
A good turntable (Rega Planar 3 does the job admirably) gives you the pleasure of collecting and playing vinyl, reading the sleeves, enjoying watching the turntable go round. It’s a tangible experience in the way digital will never be. And quite often you will get the sense that, wow, that sounds better than anything I’ve heard digitally. Quite why I don’t know, but it just does.
Enjoy both, for what they give you.

7 Likes