Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD

@rauliruegas 
Thanks for explaining AHEE. My guess wasn't too far off, was it?

Do I understand you correctly when you imply that systems optimized for digital will also make analog sound better? Are you saying this because a digital source is supposedly more neutral than analog? I'm not so sure about this. Digital audio devices have to work with a limited number of processor options, so to a certain extend the sonic result has already been decided for you. Perhaps this is why most cd players have the same sonic 'imprint', but this doesn't necessarily mean it's 'neutral'.

With analog there are many more aspects that can be influenced by the listener. I assume we're all familiar with the unexpected magical 'click' when suddenly you hit on a perfect arm/cartridge synergy. For me this is one of the reasons analog audio is so much more fun. There's more 'editorial space' to influence the sonic characteristics  to suit your musical tastes.

@fleschler 
I agree that live music often sounds terrible due to bad acoustics, too high SPL's or any number of reasons. This is exactly why I implied there's no solid frame of reference. The 'gestalt' of live music is instantly recognizable for better or worse. This could be called the 'Absolute Sound', but that doesn't necessarily mean it always sounds absolutely great. 

Dear @edgewear: Your guess was rigth-on.

If for " neutral " you mean: lower noise levels, lower overall signal degradation, lower overall distortions, way better bass range management, etc, etc, the it’s because is more " neutral ".

Yes, we have more " fun " with analog but that’s not of what I’m talking about as it’s not:
"" the sonic characteristics to suit your musical tastes. """

Each one of us " musical tastes " are not directly in relationship with the room/system target: truer to the recording.
Where when the performance of the room/system is " truer to the recording " always will suit our musical tastes.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I keep waiting to this thread to die but it won't. The undeniable truth IMHO is that there is more SQ deviation with vinyl than digital. There is also more variation as to proper set-up and overall deck quality with vinyl and vinyl playback gear than CD's and CDP's. The best vinyl pressings on a great and properly set-up vinyl rig will eclipse any CD on any CDP for those that appreciate the attributes of vinyl. Yes, lots of variables apply as to software, hardware, and variation of we humans who value various audio qualities. Vinyl is ultimately more rewarding for those of who value the sonic qualities of good vinyl and who are willing to work for it. To quote Timothy Olyphant in "The Girl Next Door", "the juice [is] worth the squeeze!". 

As to performances, there are LPs and CDs which do not duplicate them or have equally good mastering/sound.   My Marston CDs of vocalists and pianists are not available on LP and often extremely rare originals (78s, Pathes, Edisons, etc).  They sound wonderful on high end equipment.  They don't necessarily need the analog equivalent to extract the best sound possible.  

As to high end sound, I have many LPs and CDs, where both were good remasterings, yet the LP is slightly better than the CD.  Then again, I have so many mediocre LPs due to inferior mastering or pressing where the CD kills the LP.  Until I purchased my EAR Acute CD player, I didn't enjoy CDs.  Now CDs are on an equally enjoyable footing as my analog gear.  I wouldn't want to live without both.

There was a very interesting study done many years ago. It was a professional study done by psychologists and following established procedures to minimize anything that might influence the outcome. There were for example no questions about which is better or why. People sat and listened to some music. Different kinds of music. The questions that were asked were directed at the music. Its been so long now I forget but they were asked questions along the lines of have you heard this before, would you be interested in buying it, do you feel more or less inclined to listen to more of this music in the future, that kind of thing. 

They had an assistant bringing the questionnaire hand it to them from behind, eliminating any chance the subjects might see an expression or mannerism and be influenced in their answers. Not that they could have done much, even the assistants had no idea what was going on. All they knew was light goes off you go in hand this over take it back, wash, rinse repeat. Easily the most comprehensively objective, scientifically and statistically sound study I have ever seen or heard about.

The music they heard was played three different ways, all carefully matched to volume, frequency response, everything possible to eliminate all but the two parameters being studied. In the first method it was turntable and tube amp. In the second it was CD and tube amp. In the third it was CD and SS amp. 

While I said 1st, 2nd and 3rd they weren't always in that order. People might get tired after a while. That might influence results. So the order was randomized.

Now even though this is to the best of my knowledge clearly the definitive study on the subject, since nobody was asked which one sounds better we can't come to that conclusion. What they did show however and by a statistically large margin is people enjoy and want to buy music more when it is played on turntables with tubes. There was a clear ranking with turntable/tube first, CD tube second, CD SS dead last.

At the conclusion of the study the poor assistant who had been hearing all this for weeks asked what in the world was going on? Why? Because she couldn't figure it out. But over time she had come to dread the time when it would be the one awful sounding one.

That would be, just so you know, the CD and solid state.