Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD


Long story short, i've just brought home a VPI classic 1 mounted with a Zu-Denon DL103 on JMW Memorial 10.5 with the appropriate heavier counterweight. Had everything dialed in..perfect azimuth, VTF, overhang, with only a slightly higher than perfect VTA. Levelling checked. All good. 

I did a comparison between the VPI and my Esoteric X03SE and it's not even close. The Esoteric completely crushes the VPI in all regards. The level of treble refinement, air, decay, soundstage depth and width, seperation, tonality, overall coherence is just a simply a league above from what I'm hearing from the VPI. The only area the VPI seems to be better at is bass weight, but not by much. 

I'm honestly quite dumbfounded here. I've always believed that analogue should be superior to digital. I know the Esoteric is a much pricier item but the VPI classic is supposed to be a very good turntable and shouldn't be a slouch either. At this point I feel like I should give up on analogue playback and invest further in digital. 

Has anyone had a similar experience comparing the best of digital to a very good analogue setup?

Equipment:
Esoteric X03SE 
VPI Classic, JMW Memorial 10.5, Zu-DL103
Accuphase C200L
Accuphase P600
AR 90 speakers

Test Record/CD:
Sarah McLachlan - Surfacing (Redbook vs MOV 180g reissue)



chadsort

Showing 4 responses by whart

I think most of the MOV stuff is sourced from digital files, not that this is bad per se (i've heard some great reissues that aren't "all analog") but I will add this: I have been a vinyl die-hard all my life and in the early days, found digital (CD) sound to be intolerable. I have a very good vinyl front end and have a large record collection, much of which is not "audiophile" vinyl at this point, just good pressings, many of which would be hard and/or very costly to replace.  
I only started using digital in my main system recently and didn't spend nearly the money on the digital front end that is sunk into the vinyl front end. 
I'm actually quite stunned at how good digital sounds on my system. Not every CD or file, but a lot of them.
 I like the black backgrounds, lack of any surface noise (I go to a lot of trouble to source very clean playing copies and clean and maintain the records to a very high standard). There are times when I suppose I could compare a recording on both formats and conclude that the vinyl betters it, but both 'formats' have their strengths. 
If I were starting out today without a sunk investment in a lot of records, I don't know that I'd concentrate on vinyl-- it is a PITA, can be costly to get to a high playing standard, turntable, arm, cartridge (a consumable that can be costly), phono stage, proper set-up, isolation, etc. along with a good record cleaning regime. 
I've become more agnostic despite my life long commitment to vinyl LPs. There is stuff that never enjoyed a quality reissue on CD or hi-rez and there are CDs that are absolutely stunning. I straddle both formats at this point despite the considerable investment I have in the LP. I've gotten over the 'one is better than another' thing-I think you need both types of formats to get access to the range of music that is available, old and new. 
@noromance - no doubt. But there are exceptions. The Speakers Corner reissue of Herbie Hancock's Crossings is just spectacular compared to a time capsule original Warner Green label (which is not a shabby pressing by any means). It just sparkles, has more punch. Perhaps due to the kind of music- a sort of collision of hard jazz, Fender Rhodes funk, no vocal parts as I recall.
I do find a lot of "audiophile" reissues to sound more detailed, a little more 'tipped up' but lacking a certain cohesion and organic quality. I suppose that some listeners want to hear more detail. The other issue, obviously, is price and condition of original pressings (assuming the word "original" means something in the context of time and place). In some cases, the records are so expensive, mid-to high three figures or more, that a reissue makes sense. 
I think it is case by case. But, so often I do find that my go-to, particularly from the dawn of stereo til the mid'70s, is often, not always, an early pressing. (Some reissues and remasters from the period are also better sounding than first pressings in my experience, e.g., Led Zep 1, but again, it's case by case for me).
The hard part is buying a bunch of pressings to make the comparisons (costly and time consuming), or relying on others for their anecdotal views-- sometimes, it is a matter of preference, e.g. Heart of Gold, original Lee Hulko cut is just so natural sounding, but some find it congested and it is hard to find a quiet copy. The Chris Bellman recut is easy to source, has more "clarity" but loses a little of that organic quality.
I really don’t want to feed the analog v digital which one is better debate. I suspect that in many cases, the difference is a reflection of the level of gear being used- I disagree with Glupson that any old (or new) turntable is the same as another- but there are so many other factors, apart from the equipment, and the set-up, including the sonics of the recording and mastering.
I didn’t aim to do a ’gotcha’ on the Warnes’ record Glup--in fact, you raise a good question, because I couldn’t think of an album that was recorded in analog and digital media simultaneously, for comparison purposes. (There was an album recorded using different mic’ing techniques to showcase the differences). (just saw Folkfreak’s post- that’s a help- I actually listened to one of the Yarlung tapes at Myles’ apartment several years ago- it was pretty impressive)
There are a number of digitally recorded albums released on vinyl that sound spectacular. Just as there are some really bad analog recordings.
At this point, for me, much comes down to the quality of the source material. And despite my life-long love affair with the vinyl LP, I enjoy digital playback immensely.