I enjoy both vinyl and digital. I love the whole "ritual" that goes with vinyl, as well as the sound. I sit down to listen to my records. Digital lets me discover new artists and genres. It's easy to use. I will also put on long digital playlists for my house chores, or as background music while I work.
I'd agree with all of that... The key word is 'listen'. I'll stream all day long, and dip in to new recommendations but when I buy new music and sit down and 'listen', it's to records.
I call the vinyl ritual “the tea ceremony”, or to put it another way, playing LPs is like using a barbecue, while playing CDs is like using a microwave. Each has its advantages, depending on your mood at the time. I’m glad I have both.
Indeed it *was* . Capturing a good performance and not butchering it at the mastering desk was once a point of pride. Since the engineers decided to become part of the performance, modern recordings are, by and large, very poorly done. This is, of course, why I maintain that most of today's mixing and mastering engineers are far better suited to driving trains!
I live with them both. Yes that is exactly correct each has their own characteristics. You can tell one is not the other as you should in a system with a helpful amount of resolving capabilities. But neither is bad!
Great answer. I have not personally felt the vinyl magic, thank heavens. Only have heard it at audio shows, and in that environment it is kind of lost on me. Given the low cost of digital media at 44.1 I don't want to get tempted by vinyl. But happy that others enjoy it so much and the big buck vinyl rigs really are beautiful.
My interest in audio goes back to the days when vinyl was the only playback method available for good quality sound. I spent a small fortune on turntables, tone arms, cartridges etc. the sound quality was amazingly good for a bit of rock scraping on a plastic surface. I can understand the novelty in vinyl, a bit like vintage cars, but the finest quality audio today is from a digital system. I guess it depends on whether your ultimate aim is the best sound possible or whether you like the constant battle of trying to get good sound out of a 150 year old technology. Personally, I was glad to see the back of vinyl and my huge album collection is stored away in boxes. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I agree ... PCM digital is far superior to analog vinyl or tape. Even your basic $25.00 USB sound card can trump a very expensive phono cartridge, these days. But the problem isn't the medium ... it's the content. The switch between old school analog levels and the new digital scale did not go well. As soon as they discovered that when level matched, digital techniques had way more headroom than analog, they simply started turning up the volume... and now most mixing and mastering is done to produce the loudest -- rather than the best -- music. Wikipedia has a page for "alignment level" that is a very interesting read... It describes the level at which a digital recording will output the same volume as an analog one... and guess what? ... it's at -16dbfs on the digital scale. This basically means that almost all digital recordings are mixed and mastered to be more than twice as loud as they should be.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 Yes, it is a shame that there are so few really great recordings when modern digital recording and playback is capable of much better results. I often think some of the better recordings are from lesser known artists. Presumably the smaller budget limits production expenditure to maximise impact when played on a car radio.
@@geoff37s38 Yep ... I'm sure that is at least part of it. What cold we accomplish? Do a search for the "One Mic Series". John Cuniberti took performers and arranged them around a single stereo microphone, recorded the songs in a single pass and published them without editing, mixing or mastering. I gotta say it's pretty darned impressive... It's *real* music. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9w8tiikGs84.html
Well said Paul, and Matthew as well. My digital and analog front ends are not state of the art, but they *are* both satisfying and resolving enough to convey the essence of the music as well as deficiencies in recordings. Both are enjoyable, but are different. The same goes for valves vs. solid state. Valves and vinyl usually move me more emotionally.
@@PanAmStyle I only threw that out there as a rhetorical question from a statistical perspective… because obviously there are young people that have a passion for vinyl and there are old people that have a passion for Digital sources as well, so all bets are off.😉
I have both vinyl (top spec Linn Sondek LP12 with Lyra Atlas Lambda SL cartridge with Zesto Deluxe phonostage) as well as Lumin U1 streamer. My pre-amp is digital (Legacy Audio Wavelet) with Legacy Audio Valor speakers. My record collection is mainly from the 80's. For these old albums, I have found that the transfer from analog to digital wasn't good back then due to ADCs not being so good. As such, no matter how good a digital front-end you have, you can't beat vinyl for those (and the difference can be quite dramatic). However, for the newer stuff, I tend to listen to digital streaming. The mastering is different. I had some friends come round for a demo where we also compared a 2013 release by Daft Punk. In that case, they could tell that there was a difference in mastering but couldn't decide which one they liked better.
@@SpyderTracks Beg to differ. Many high end people invest in both. And I said Paul’s opinion is the expected one, not an invalid one. But one is well served to view everything he says through the prism of a guy who is trying to sell his wares. Not that he lies or is deceitful in any way, but this is not an unbiased reviewer. This is a man who needs to make his numbers every quarter. Nothing wrong with that, provided you view it accordingly.
I haven't heard Paul ever say anything that I know is false. Including cable risers. It works; and you'll hear it if you really have "ears." It might make more difference than greening the edges of cds. My cds sound more analog like when I do that. But you might have to buy 2 identical cds, and compare one treated versus one untreated; right after the other. Many audiophiles are too All Pro to do anything reasonable and scientific like that.
Well of course Paul is not going to say that Vinyl is inferior when he has a new RIAA preamp coming out. Spending large amounts of money on a turntable will hardly improve the sound compared to a modest one, simply because the limiting factor is the plastic disc itself.
@@SpyderTracksObviously a 1000$ turntable and preamp is better than a 30$ Crosley portable and preamp. But when you go above the 150$ range you don't get that huge performance boost. Only in the cartridge
@@markwilson5262 Okay, man. Whenever you want get an Azur 640P preamp and an Audio Technica or vintage Dual turntable and compare it to your more expensive setup. I don't doubt it'll be better, but not *that* much better
That's the stupidest comment I've ever heard on here; that $150 is top of Mt. Everest on phono preamps. If you had thd best $4,000 phono pre; you still wouldn't be able to see the top of the mountain for performance.
@@sidesup8286 There's a price point in which the transparency of the preamp would be enough for you not to notice an improvement beyond that. Do you think things through before you comment?
Both turntables and cd players are merely devices to use, to play discs with music on them. I have both, but for me it comes down to the software. Used Cds even with scratches will likely play perfect and can be bought in stores for $5 or so average. With lps you have to worry about condition, even with brand new ones you have to worry about not just the mastering, but the pressing quality. Cds are wonderfully consistent pressings; you just have to keep your fingers crossed on the mastering. Vinyl has become expensive in stores; sometimes ridiculously so. As far as performance, I know from what I use, that cds played on something great have a purity of sound & a directness of sound that even multi thousand dollar phono cartridges would have trouble matching. Lets forget about stuff like Sheffield Direct Discs for the time being, as they are far superior to what most lps sound like. I heard Sheffields sound amazing once on my relatives run of the mill turntable with a $25 Shure cartridge. Practicality is all in cds favor. Analog sounds built on a foundation of natural smoothness, where digital sounds like it has showmanship in it's genes. I preferred analog, including tape, for a long time. But not by enough to go to the trouble of listening to it over the ease of playing compact discs. I now like digital about as much. The turning point was when my fiddling with cd players gave me an idea of how to reduce glare on cd playback. On exceptionally good cd playback equipment, I still don't think you are going to surpass great vintage direct to disc lps for sound, but you'll give many half speed master lps from that era a run for their money or even surpass them. The compact disc solved so many things wrong with playing vinyl, but if you really want to hear what your system is capable of; you might put on a great sounding lp. No reason to not like both formats. If some vinyl audiophiles would hear truly great cd playback; would they think all the trouble they went through, to find rare pressings and all the money and time they spent was worth it. Eventually, I think not.
I’ve been exploring CD playback for the last year or two and this is about where I have ended up. I found a CD player I love the sound of, I’m saving a lot of money at the record store, and I’m not experiencing as much disappointment in pressing quality. I still buy and play records, sure. But CDs are a much bigger part of my playback time now.
The problem with vinyl record are that, yes it can sound great, but only if the pressing is perfect (rare), if it's perfectly flat (rare), if the middle hole is not off centre (rare), and if all the planets in our solar system line up perfectly, then yes it can sound great.
That's true, 80% of my record collection sounds like crap, because the pressings are crap. But most vinyl audiophiles would only buy stuff that they know sounds good, like MoFi reissues and whatnot
I have abandoned both tube audio and vinyl records. I have fine tuned my digital sources and solid state amplification with speakers that sound exactly like I want. I will no longer spend the insane amount of money for vinyl records, and TT setups and phono preamps. I now enjoy the 100db, or greater, channel separation of digital that no vinyl can ever approach, yielding instrumentation position and definition without any audible noise. I have literally 10's of thousands of songs at my fingertips as well as steaming services that have many times that and more. Once you optimize your system to digital, you minimize it's shortcomings so much that they become insubstantial. Do I love fine analog, vinyl systems? Sure I do, but they are hopelessly impractical now for me and my present system, for a tiny fraction of the money, is so pleasing I don't even look back. No one that has heard my little system has ever come away with anything but smiles and accolades. Build what pleases you.
I held on to the belief of vinyl superiority into the first few generations of CDs and CD players. Today I am squarely in the digital camp. Apart from sonic quality, where analog can still exhibit virtue, I favor streaming for its ability to offer and make discoverable so much content, from the familiar to that I have never before experienced, all from the convenience of my listening room. Ultimately, that's the type of in-home audio experience I want to have. While I have never listened to a vinyl system quite as high end as referred to by the original questioner, I did have a Linn system back in the 80s, considered to be a benchmark of vinyl playback at that time. Even with that now distant memory as a fleeting point of comparison, my preference is still for digital media, particularly streaming.
I'm sure there are some really expensive audiophile pressing lps that could make you think vinyl sounds better, and some less costly ones too. But they are not the norm, they are exceptional examples of their format. You don't judge a format by it's limited exceptional special examples; you judge it by it's usual examples. Cds are usually way better pressings than your usual lp pressing. A lot of vinyl people who want to think they are exclusive and are having exclusive musical reproduction on their turntables, at great cost in money and time, would be disturbed to find out that some cd playback equipment sounds as analog as analog without any of those unmusical digital sounds anymore, which we once thought were ingrained and part of the cd sound. How many of these people would have their $300 or more phono cartridges sound totally trounced by cd playback equipment that costs no more than what they spend on lps in a month or two. Vinyl people do not usually search out the latest and greatest cd players. It would be like searching for reasons to think you did something really stupid; financially and otherwise. Sweetness, naturalness, warmth, spatiality, detail, truth of timbre, and holographic 3D imaging is no longer the exclusive domain of vinyl.
@@davidfromamerica1871 of course , hell do I listen to modern recordings on my old Altec voice of the theater , hell yes , and do I play my old 78 rpm on my more modern systems ? Oh hell yeah . I have a collection of period correct set up in there own rooms , 50s ,60s, 70s and 80s , well I do have a few early to mid nineties in my 80s room . It's all about the love of music and the equipment from all throughout the history of reproduction for me . I did finally find a good home for all my Jamo speakers that I never could get into . I'm a little crazy 🤪, I just sent 3 Luman suckface receivers to Japan to get overhauled by a old master . And the old federated group audio and video chain in the 80s Fred rated smashing prices with a hammer.
@@sidesup8286 but some of us feel good about ourselves when holding 12 inches of vinyl love in our hands . Although the average is 5.4 inches , it's still feels good holding a 12 inch
Ying and yang for me. Sometimes you want the convenience of digital but sometimes you want the magic of the rituals involved with records and escape contemporary society. Regardless every serious music listener should put their phone on airplane mode and crank your system high.... just focus on the music away from the meaningless distractions of contemporary society. That's when recorded music is at its best.
Like everything.... they are just interesting product options to hopefully give people pleasure, joy, heartache, frustration and even pain.😂....especially when considering all the variables involved .. and mix of good and bad recordings!
I don't think a turntable has to cost the price of a house to provide the best performance available from records. Something in the high four figures (which I can't afford) including the cartridge should be more than adequate.
True. At the end of the day the most important part of the turntable, by far, is the tonearm. If the turntable itself manages vibrations well, has good speed accuracy and good wow+flutter you don't need anything else
@@dangerzone007 The difference is probably not significant, maybe not even audible, for sure. But measurabely I'm sure a state-of-the-art tonearm would have less distortion due to less friction of the internal mechanism. And, of course, a good tangential tonearm is objectively better than a pivoted one
The problem with turntable as a source is, no matter how good your turntable is, the most important thing is you need good vinyls, and it dosent come easy nor cheap, on the other end digital source is much more convenient and easy to come by.
@@ramsaybolton9099 True, but I'm assuming "easy to come by" refers to availability. It's true that if one didn't have any records, it would be much easier to build a digital collection than vinyl, especially for some genres of music. I love both digital and analogue playback, and would like to add that some of the very best I've heard was open reel tape deck playback, but there, availability and cost of records is an even greater problem.
@ramsaybolton9099 Yes, but digital is so much easier to find than vinyls and vinyls will suffer from wear and tear while digital can last almost indefinitely, but to be honest a good vinyl playback is hard to beat.
I really like your answer Paul. There is no such thing in as "better" when it comes to vinyl vs. digital. There is another word..."different" when we get into a debate like this and I think you did a great job covering an important topic.
We must assume that vinyl is analog, although I don't know if it's true after the eighties and even seventies. Analog with digital delay, master, mixing or mastering ? DDD, AAA, AAdA, DDdA...; what sounds good it's the most important for me.
Albeit one cannot beat the convenience of streaming. When I do play records, often I am asked what CD is that? Yep, I hear differences, during a serious listening session you will find me spinning vinyl more often than using my digital rig, despite the hassle. Sound wise there are reasons the CD is on the decline and records have made a comeback. Therefore, I feel there is something more that vinyl playback gives, that folk been long starved for. Combine great sound with the experience of cover art and production notes, the good old album provides a listening experience that no other format can beat. Even though the actual quality between many records and digital are not all that far apart, especially modern releases that are an all-digital recording and master.
The quality of the vinyl *medium* generally varies far more than digital sources. I have some old LPs that I purchased quite cheaply that were not stored properly and what were originally very well produced with wonderful performances became a lost cause. Others in the lot were better, so you win some, you lose some.
@@PanAmStyle TY. Great case made for taking the time and trouble to properly care for your records. That said, I have pulled many lost causes out of the $1.00 bin, cleaned them up and got something that gave me pretty darn good sound for a pittance. Resurrecting an item that was considered a throwaway for me is part of the fun. Caveat though, check the record. If it is all scratched and warped it generally will not be worth the effort.
Here's my simple story; I had a Thorens TD-166 II, with a Linn LV-X arm and a Nagaoka MP200 cart. This all ran through a Lite Audio CT37 preamp. At some point I realised that I just didn't like my cd player anymore. It was a Myryad T10 back then. I decided to stop investing in the medium and sell my CD's. A friend came over with his CD player which is, to this day, the only CD player I think sounds good. It's an Ayre CX7e. It sounded BEAUTIFUL, just as good as my Thorens. But that Ayre, that's about as awesome of a CD player as you can get. That Thorens is a 'good budget option'. I sold my cd's and my Myryad, and invested in a better vinyl setup. So, at least for me, the answer is; Digital can be great, high resolution digital audio can be mindblowing. CD, to me really cannot.
Dare I inform you that it is pretty common knowledge in the audio industry, from people who've experienced the best equipment; that streaming does not rqual the sound of cd playback. Streaming always sounds lacking in presence in comparison. But you can't use just any old cd player
I would add a 3rd medium, which I believe is better than both any digital and vinyl; reel 2 reel. I have some very rare direct master copy tapes from the old Fantasy Records and a couple independent recording studios that sound vastly better than the production versions they released in both vinyl and digital. Of course my collection of r2r is less than 200 tapes, all in 30ips or 15ips. Played on my Ampex ATR102 w/David Manley head preamp, nothing comes close. Comparing vinyl to digital I do believe is more dependent upon the media than the hardware. I’ve listened to some extraordinary systems, including the PS Audio cd transport and Perfect Wave Dac, even a $60k Nagra dac, I choose vinyl every time. If my listening were more pop and recent music, I’d likely choose digital for convenience alone as the sound difference would be nominal at best. I listen mostly to jazz & blues, occasionally rock from 60’s and 70’s. I have over 4500 records at last count. Our digital listening is mostly when we entertain as background mood and energy setting. My Brinkmann tt was not cheap by any means, I have 4 cartridges that all cost >$7k, but I can’t see spending 6 figures on any tt. I’m sure it’s possible the speed accuracy may be marginally better but is it audible? The most important issue is proper setup of mass, vta and azimuth as well as placing tt in a quiet environment away from sound waves. DO NOT place any vibration sensitive equipment, especially a tt between your speakers 🤦♂️. Unless you have a large collection of vinyl or r2r, I’d recommend sticking with digital and not worry about the sound differences that you’ll never experience. If you have vinyl collection or access to one, then and only then should you invest in vinyl.
Lord. You tape guys are something else. We all like what we like but some opinions have no basis whatsoever in reality. Even the best tape rigs in the entire world can’t begin to compare to PCM digital much less DSD. It’s simply an inarguable fact. You’re certainly welcome to prefer any number of inferior formats for reasons I’ll never understand but facts still remain facts regardless of preference. I will agree that a killer tape rig can certainly sound better than vinyl if you’re in possession of high quality source tapes to match. Still can’t come even remotely close to digital capabilities.
Personally I agree with the "tape guys.". I certainly love my SACD collection, but even on my very humble Otari and it's internal repro, a 2 track, 15 IPS copy of a master has some magic that I have never found from any other source other than live.
@@dwymer86 Once again preference for whatever reason is still preference and fact is fact. Maybe you tape guys are just used to a certain characteristic that you associate with good sound out of nostalgia and or simply being used to it. That doesn’t make it better and it’s scientifically impossible for it to be better regardless of personal preference. I’m guilty of the same thing to a point when it comes to big fully horn loaded speakers so I get it. However in the case of horn loaded speakers there is plenty of scientific data to back the claims of horns providing the most accurate, realistic, lowest distortion representation over any other type of speaker built to date. So it’s kind of the same in the sense that it’s the sound I’ve been around my entire life and still the sound I prefer over anything else I’ve ever heard regardless of cost. Otherwise not really the same because once again there’s data to back what I’m hearing and I don’t hear tape doing anything that digital can’t do better. Personal preference simply doesn’t translate to better but it’s certainly not a crime to like what we like. I just know what I hear personally and it coincides with factual data. I don’t hate tape or vinyl by any means. I’m just not under any illusions that either one sounds better than digital.
@@shannonmiller5648 We are all moved by music differently. That's a great thing about this hobby. I don't think I'm old enough to be nostalgic for reel to reel, but listening to it does move me, usually more so than my SACDs. I stopped looking at measurements years ago. When my foot taps, head bobs and I fall into that audiophile "zone" that I'm seeking, I have found what moves me. I don't believe measurements really predict that. Besides, if I want absolute realism, I go to live, unamplified performances.
What sounds better? If a comparative phono preamp and digital preamp, then it boils down to the source. I have BlueRay (even redbook CDs) and Vinyl that both sound excellent.
Every time Paul post a video all the expert audiophiles get their baseball bats out and start swinging at each other in the comments..😀🙄 Reminds me of the days of the Roman Gladiator’s in the Coliseum arena..😀🤗😎 I fail to see the connection with each video posted and the Audiophile comments helping high end PSAudio sales. 😳 Can anyone that is a heck of a lot smarter than me explain to me the miracle of High End Audio sales. 🤔
LOL... I don't know about the "heck of a lot smarter" part but, far as I can tell, the whole business about "high end" *anything* falls someplace between snobbery and stupidity. Some people think that what you own makes you a better person. Some people think that what you own brings adulation. Some people think that what you own proves success. Some people think that what you own build's self-esteem. They're all wrong. Regardless of their money and possessions, all people are ultimately judged on their behaviour. I don't own a stereo setup as a means of impressing anyone ... I own it because I love music and movies and want good sound quality.
I called my local audio shop and had them demo all of the phono preamps they had over the phone. They all sounded just like my beloved crosley. I think they must be crooks or something!
Yep... because ultimately you weren't listing to the phone pre-amps, you were listening to your compute rspeakers... and guess what... they're going to sound just like your computer speakers.
@@dangerzone007Most phono preamps nowadays have ruler-flat frequency responses and have much lower distortion plus higher SN ratio than vinyl itself. I'm quite skeptical myself that past a certain point a phono preamp can sound different
In the past you've said that DSD is far superior to tape. But in this video you seem to say that digital and vinyl are on par, with neither clearly better than the other. Does that mean you think vinyl is superior to tape? That seems to follow from what you've said. But it also seems implausible, since vinyl, if it's pure analog, is almost always based on tape.
Even if it’s digital source pressed to vinyl, cutting to vinyl adds a vinyl sound that so far is extremely difficult to duplicate on digital, that’s the whole point. The imperfection of vinyl is what makes the sound unique
Not quite. Where you going to hear a state of the art turntable? Even in most big cities that would be hard. Let's face it; digital has taken over. Physical formats are on the way out, no matter what insignificant number of people are buying vinyl.
So what we do is read reviews, rely on specs and form our audiophile opinions based on data. I suspect a great number of participants in this discussion haven't actually heard many analog systems, yet have very strong opinions, based on what? Some comments on other forums? Specs? I completely respect an audiophile's decision to go all digital (for instance Paul). But I don't have a lot of respect for comments that disparage a particular format based on questions that one asked, or forums one read, etc. I am quite sure Paul's opinions and preferences are based on actual listening experience, not reading about how something sounds. I suppose I'm lucky in that in my mid sized, mid west city, I have 2 high end audio shops where I can sit in real listening rooms and audition real equipment. So I am very lucky to be able to base my opinions on actual experience which I think is important.
That is the correct and accurate way to do things, as you say. Some of these ALL Pro Theorists don't even have to listen or experience what they're putting down as nonsense. Their King has spoken. The King's grand theories cover it all. No one should ever disbelieve in anything over someone elses conjuring. Experience it yourself, if you can, if you are motivated enough to. Otherwise their opinion is worth nothing. Other people go by them (sometimes). People think they know how a guitar or piano sounds because of the way it sounds on their stereo. If they ever go into a music store, and play the actual instrument, they realize their stereo has been all wrong, all these years. There should be courses on perception for some of these people. One guy who is trouble maker, who has his own audio channel here on RU-vid, started out a video where he admitted he can't tell the difference in taste between Coke and Pepsi. Coke has way more salt and Pepsi has a fruity aspect to it's taste. Now they are at least reasonably similar, but not cheap equipment versus beautiful serious equipment.
If analog is so much superior, why hasn't the Market brought forth a cornucopia of new Reel to Reel decks and prerecorded tape? I really enjoyed my B-77, back in the day, but Studer stopped making them because they observed the writing on the wall and there wasn't financial incentive to keep on producing the medium. I have noticed one company building decks but at 90K+ plus the cost of tape, so not worth the investment for the return, compared to an Audio Note DAC kit.
Markets don't seem to be generally driven by quality ... Beta, SACD, DVD Audio? We consume cheap foreign goods in lieu of quality all the time. This tiny little niche group, called "audiophiles," are often an exception, but that's hardly going to drive the recording industry. Most will take their cheap or free streaming music via a smartphone and be happier than my dog licking dirty plates in a dishwasher.
@@dwymer86 Its disheartening, but I fear you are correct. I grew up with my Father's Ferrograph, valve amplification, and pre recorded tapes that came via the mail. LP's were relegated to Us kids, on a budget. BTW I was a buyer of Beta, then Superbeta recorders. They were a technological success but commercial failure too.
There are currently quite a few companies releasing pre-recorded titles on reel to reel tape. Not the major labels though; except for a division of Sony. As you can guess, they are very costly. If we start seeing new sealed prerecorded reel tape titles like lps in Barnes & Noble bins, I would be amazed. Cassettes though, could be making a comeback. Reel to reel is really good.
@@sidesup8286 Are there any high end manufacturers of cassette decks, let alone tape? I had a Nak, but they abandoned those of Us that purchased their products. I traded in a BX 300 for a cannabalised lesser model, because the microprocessor that controlled transport was no longer available. So, I will never trust them ever again with my cash. I have 35 Boxes of 10 each of TDK MA 90's, maybe played once and would like to get a new good quality deck. Although I now use a Tascam CD recorder making real time dubs from CD's at the Libraries around me, so cheap, and playback through the aforementioned Audio Note Kit DAC. The Revox, I sold when I enlisted into the Navy's Flight Program and couldn't deal with moving over a quarter ton of R/R tape. Moved often, just through the training evolution, alone. Found out later the Ampex Grandmaster 456 I used to buy, had issues making the tape unplayable. My LPs were archived via the B 790 TT to the B 77 and I've hauled them around for almost 50 years. Almost done with building a phono stage based pre and still have the B 790.But damn if Tascam took their DA 3000 which has 2X DSD off the North American Market.
With mechanical devices (and a turntable/tone arm is mechanical) it is generally true that the simpler the design the better it works. Complexity leads to more frequent failure.
So mp3 is to DSD what ceramic is to magnetic... I would love to see Paul's reaction to some of these questions when he pre-reads them raw before the video.
1/2 million dollars to play an inferior format. You all are crazier than I thought. You can take a brand new album hot off the presses and it will still hiss, pop and crack from just dust falling on it. There is nothing better than a recording made for an album that was put on CD. Albums on the other hand should be left on the back of cereal boxes and played on kid's Disney record players.
@@paulb.3227 I'm sorry, but I'm so tired of the B.S. lies in this world today. Albums are inferior format compared to CD or even a reel to reel. The only reason anyone would prefer the album over the rest is because of how the recording was done for it. That's why I said the best CD's are the ones that the original recording were made for albums and then just put on CDs. Before CD I bought a Kenwood turntable 30+ years ago. Still have it sitting on top of my system today but it will be my last even though I have hundreds of albums. The thought of spending 10, 20 30 grand plus on a turn table is just stupid imho and I dont care if you do have a million dollar system, it's still not worth it. It's not going to make the album any better because it is a limited format most turntables can already get the most out of. As for that last couple % the million dollar turntable may get out of an album, a CD can do before it gets out of bed in the morning. There was a reason a lot of bands didnt want their album recordings released on CD back in the day. That was the day when "remastered" made its way into the recording world. "Remastered" meant we went in and fixed all the stuff you couldn't hear on the album but you can on CD. 😊😊
I have extremely high quality cd playback. Also quality vinyl playback. I do not know if there is one nuance you can hear with vinyl that the cd wouldn't reveal. Without an actual A/B comparison, I would guess that it would be very rare if ever, but maybe nuances would be presented in a more nuanced way, for lack of a better description. Analog at times, I sometimes think is a little cooler sounding (as in neato), but I really couldn't call it's sound quality better, or it being as good a format.
