How Much Do We Need To Spend To Hear What CD/SACD or Vinyl Really Has To Offer

$11,275.65

 

Everything you said after that sentence I agree with. So no need to disagree - we agree on premise and principle - it is just a word or semantics where we differ.

Personally - I don't own any protractors, statics guns, special tools, RCM machines., etc, etc, etc, yada, yada......... but I do own a lot of TT's, cartridges and LP's and set them all up, clean and play them with the simplest means and methods possible.

I clean by hand, set up with simple tools, and have taught and / or posted the "simpler is better" moniker for quite some time. I marvel at all the doo-dads, etc people think they need. But my records are as clean, and my tables / carts are set up as precisely - probably more - than most with all the expensive, noisy RCMs and drawer full of 1000's of dollars in un-necessary tools. I agree with you, many who think they are helping newbies with the slew of RCM and specialized tool recommendations are sometimes doing a better job of scaring them off than making converts.

So it is you say potato, I say potatoe, but we both like french fries!

 

TL;DR.

.

 

$4500 to $5000 buys a really nice sounding 'complete' vintage system.

Some CDs are better than others. Just get a nice NEW $300-$400 CD player and that will sound just fine. I don't expect much from digital. If I really want to 'hear it', actually 'feel it', I get the LP.

Some CDs do sound outrageous though.

 

No, it'll sound like crap.

 

Hmm. Serious?

 

My NAD CD player sounds just fine! And has been functioning perfectly for 10 years now.

I really don't care all that much about digital... never have. I'm an analog guy. I just enjoy CDs for their accuracy and convenience.

For me - why try to make digital sound like analog? Just get the record.

 

Dead. If anyone thinks a 3 or 4 hundred dollar CD will sound just fine they've never heard a what a nice CD player sounds like.

 

Digital playback really starts smoothing out once you hit $1500-2500 and begins resembling high-quality analog in the right systems. There are better-sounding machines of course but the price-cost ratio begins seeing significantly diminishing returns after that price range. And I'm talking about modern equipment made in the past decade or so. DACs have improved by leaps and bounds since 2010, to toss a ballpark figure out there for when the tech noticeably improved.

 

I'm with F1nut, you have never really invested in digital reproduction. Some of my SACDs and CDs are amazing, fidelity I have never experienced before. Why would you not really care that much about digital, when you have not invested in it? Today is NOT the same digital everyone criticized in the 1980s, when you bought your Sansui equipment, much has changed since then, you have just elected not to continue the quest, which is fine, I wouldn't mind having some of my old Pioneer stuff back for the fun of it. You said you like CDs for their accuracy, so if they are accurate in your estimation, why try to find the record? Do you really, truly believe a record played on old equipment can be compared to well mastered digital presentations from say Reference Recordings and other top shelf labels, on a well engineered SACD/CD player or CD/DAC combo, surely you don't!

 

I have posted in 2 threads now that I really like the sound of the Oppo 95, 105 and 205, close to as much as any of the best digital I have heard. Each time, responses include many who agree and a few people who claim Oppo is junk. But I finally noticed that the positive responses are all sincere, with detailed information of what and why so many listeners (and viewers) like them so much. Whereas, the pundits typically post one liner criticisms that do not sound sincere at all.

I have decided that these negative posters are mostly thread-crappers, who just want to complain about Oppo for some undisclosed reason. Some of them may need to justify to themselves that they have spent more than the cost of an Oppo on their digital playback equipment. Maybe theirs' do provide better sound, particularly with redbook CDs, but this doesn't mean Oppo are not a very fine choice for people interested in owning one player that will play all formats.

My recent research reveals, consistently, users and reviewers report that Oppos are amazingly good in sound, picture, features and quality, particularly in relation to what they cost. The 95, 105 and 205 are excellent for audiophiles who don't want to spend a lot of money on digital, but want a player for all digital disc formats that will not disappoint. And they still are excellent today compared to any digital playback, although only available now used.

 

I never heard it but the Ayre DX-5 was very highly praised and I think would be the best bet! The Primare BD32 mark one (I thought it better than the Oppo 105 in a 2 hour test at a hifi shop) is very good, i’ve never heard the mark two. Of players today then I think the Pioneer UDP-LX800 would be the one that may better the Oppo’s (I don’t know as I haven’t heard it but it apparently runs the same analogue stage as their top SACD player).

I’m not saying I know these are better than the Oppo’s but I think they would be a good place to start if I were searching for universal players that may have better sound!

Ps: I don’t think any of the above players would match the Oppo’s on value at their rrp!

 

Quite happy with my vinyl playback system and see no need to upgrade anytime soon. (That said, I am forever toying with the idea of an Audiomods tonearm.)

1. Resto-modified Thorens TD-160 Super Reproduction with Moth (Rega) 202 arm - $1500 from Vinyl Nirvana.
2. Dynavector DV 20X2-H high-output moving coil cart - $950
3. Graham Slee Reflex M phono with external PSU - $600 second-hand here on the forum
4. IsoAcoustics Orea Bronze isolation feet for the turntable - $200 for four
5. Herbie's Way Baby Booties isolation feet for the phono stage and power supply - $60

Digital. I recently shelved the CD player while I contemplate my next move. All my CDs are ripped in AIFF format to a MacBook Pro, which also contains all my high-res audio files...

1. Rega Apollo-R CD player. $600 second-hand.
2. Exo-Gal Comet Plus DAC with external power supply. $1,800 for a demo model used at shows.
3. 2010 MacBook Pro upgraded to 16 GB ram and a 500GB solid-state drive loaded with Audirvana Plus. Laptop was a hand-me-down. Hardware upgrades cost me about $200, Audirvana was $75.
4. Herbie's Way Baby Booties for all components - $120

Very happy with the system, but have been pondering a transport upgrade or a switch to an Aurender server.

 

Seems to me You don´t need a poll.

 

Interesting poll LJ, and the results should be a decent general data point to use to get a feel for what level of analog front-end you might need in order to top the digital front-end you currently have (which seems to be your goal). Though obviously, the best data will come when you go and listen to some really good analog front-ends at various dealers.

I would just say the following...

1) Perspective... from your profile, seems like you have a $6000 CD/SACD/other transport and a $6000 DAC currently, which is a $12000 digital front-end. So, maybe it's not so surprising that your former $5800 analog front-end didn't quite keep up with it.

2) I would agree with those who say that analog has a lower floor than CD/SACD but a higher ceiling; and that, yeah, you probably have to spend more with analog to reach that ceiling.

3) Some of this is just so very 'ear of the beholder'. The poll might give you a rough average, but the 'break point' at which analog passes digital is obviously individual to some degree (and may not even exist for some ppl), and also depends on system synergy to some extent, not to mention LP vs CD/SACD mastering.

Case in point: For me, entry-level analog gets clobbered by entry-level CD, mid-fi entry-level turntables never had a chance. The only exception is if the LP mastering on a particular record is obviously better than the CD (which does happen).

Then you get to something budget-but-good like a Systemdek IIX (discontinued; would be about $1000 in today's dollars), plus a decent but not outlandish cart and a good budget phono, and it becomes a wash overall vs reasonably-priced digital... analog does some things better, digital does some things better.

Then you move up to 'the good stuff', like a Linn Sondek, Michell Gyrodec, Goldmund Studio/Studietto (used), etc., and digital starts to get whomped on. IMO, of course.

Then above that, there's a whole class of 'super tables' that cost well into the five figures (or above) that are better still. And of course, hyper-expensive phonos and carts to go with 'em. So... how crazy do you really wanna get?

If it were me, I'd just trot down to the nearest truly high-end 'analog guy' dealer around (road-trip if you have to), and tell him, "Impress me... hit me with your best shot, bruh!" Then judge the results against how much pain in your wallet you're willing to accept for the benefit heard.

After all, just blindly buying a VPI Prime Sig as you've mentioned elsewhere may not be a good bet... you don't know yet where your own personal 'analog vs digital breakpoint' is, all you know is that the VPI Scout/Shure cart you had before was below it.

So find out where it is for you, then go from there. And happy hunting.
.

 

For analog, you can get something that sounds good for not much money. The entry price used to be $500, including the turntable, cartridge, phono stage and stereo receiver. Today’s prices are a lot higher for a lot of gear, but you should still be able to get moving with a $750 budget.

Two examples from my experience:

1) MCS 6700 ($85), Denon DL-110 ($140), Rega Fono Mini ($140), Marantz 2235b ($65).

For this system, I scored a vintage turntable sold byJC Penny’s, which combined the innards of a Technics SL-1950 with a Sansui frame. Paired with the Denon cart and Rega phono stage, the music was very dynamic, fluid and just a touch of velvet warmth.

2) Realistic LAB-420 ($100), AT 440mla ($100), Pro-Ject Tube Box II (400), Marantz 2235b ($65).

Another vintage turntable paired with an excellent cartridge on sale. The phono stage was the priciest thing, but you could just as easily use the stereo’s phono stage, which would keep everything under $300.

 

I own an Oppo 105 player, and I'm fine with it. It's amazing what this little machine can do--especially when one considers its price. Still, both of my Esoteric machines beat it in that they have more of the living breathing quality that one can get from good vinyl playback. Of course, they do NOT do surround sound or video of any kind.

(I'm still kicking myself for not placing an order for one of the 205 units when Oppo announced their withdrawal from the hifi sector.)

 

I voted $2000 to $4000 to get a good taste of what the high end has to offer.

My analogue setup includes:
Techincs SL-1200G ($4000)
Lyra Kleos MC cart ($3695)
Parasound JC3+ phono pre ($2995)

This system gives my Esoteric K-01X SACD player a run for its money. But the low level resolution of this thing is off the charts even with plain old CD. Still, given the cost it should be.

 

Esoteric K-01X costs about $20K. An analog system of that price range, is simply unbeatable.

 

This post really matches my own feeling on vinyl. As you spend more on it the vinyl rig seems to sound more and more accurate and in some cases more digital like (less distortion) but it always seems to have some degree of organic distortion that provides richer tones. I have many times compared my digital to vinyl setup and I can pretty much hear a difference every time. This is especially evident in albums that have come out recently from a digital master. Some times I prefer the vinyl, other times I prefer the digital file. It just seems to cost a lot more to get to that point with vinyl than with digital! Knowing what I know now about vinyl playback (and if I had not had a good turntable to start with) I may not have bothered with vinyl at all!

 

Nope, I changed my mind. I must have been in a bad mood when I wrote the above. Sorry everybody. That opinion is too negative for the fact that I sincerely trust just about everyone's opinion on Steve's forum. Even if we don't agree, we should respect each other's differences in taste and budgets.

So my new opinion, which may be not much more generous, is that some of us simply refuse to believe that a mass-market audio component, sold through mass-market outlets like Best Buy and Amazon, can be as good as salon-only components costing much more. And, some people don't use their ears; they don't listen before they judge. They either read the audio reviews with too much trust, or they interpret price as a component's #1 indicator of its sound.

I like THIS opinion as very reasonable and sane. Sometimes, audio DOESN'T have to be very expensive to be very good. Maybe we can buy some audio equipment that is simply practical for us rather than the best we can afford. Maybe, for some of us, our vinyl playback can be worth MANY thousands of $, but for our digital playback, just a couple of thousands of $ can do what we want it to do.

I like THIS opinion too, because I feel exactly the same way, but in reverse.
----> Knowing what I know now about digital playback, I may not have bothered with digital at all! Or at least I would have kept to inexpensive digital expenditures, just to play background music.

 

I enjoyed reading your post, good information there. On a personal level, I have found that I am able to assemble digital equipment that provides an end product at a much higher listening level than an analog set up. You made a good point on the analog end, if we can afford the ultra cartridges at $5,000 to $10,000 level, as well as the ultra phono stages and reference turntables, analog reproduction could be transformative, however I could never reach that level, but I can reach a nice level of comfort on the digital end. I could be mistaken, but I believe with digital, we can keep our cost parameters at a much lower level, lower than with analog and be very close to the top tier, sonically, with little being gained by spending over $8,000 to $10,000 on digital equipment. I believe with analog, much is gained by spending the really big bucks, far above $20,000, which I could never dream of. I am still testing different systems in the digital realm, trying to find the most natural sound, so it's an ongoing effort. You must have checked my profile out and noticed I was using the PS Audio Direct Stream DAC and the Direct Stream Memory Player. Recently I sold those two pieces and bought the Marantz SA-10, as I want to compare it's capabilities to the PS Audio equipment. One thing is for sure, the SA-10 is a beautiful piece of equipment indeed. So, while others are concentrating on analog, I am doing most of my experimentation in the digital arena.

You mentioned that buying the VPI Prime Signature might be a gamble, I don't think so. I realize VPI has some very expensive tables, but to get 95% there, so to speak, IMO the Prime Signature will get close enough to design perfection. I don't think I will ever be able to move above that turntable, short of a lottery win, and that's ok!

 

Marantz equipment is certainly beautiful. It always has been!

 

Close.

 

So true, and it is very irritating at a corporate level they have decided the American customer does not deserve a choice between Champagne and Black. I have ordered the NA-6006 streamer and no way I could get it in Champagne. It's not an earthshaking situation, but everyone wants their equipment to be uniform.