Vinyl vs high def audio i.e. 24bit / 96 or 192khz


I was born to the world of cassette tapes and soon digital music. My only experience with Vinyl was the one rather audition I had recently. It wasn't feasible at the time for us to try a blind fold A/B test. So my question for anyone has experienced both, is that is it worth it to buy a turntable? 

The entry level ones are not really expensive compared to the gears I currently have. However, it's my habit to not keep things that I would not use. That includes thing that is a hassle to use or requires a lot of maintenance. The shop owner where I auditioned a Rega turntable kind of insinuated it falls into both of the aforementioned categories. For instance, the Vinyl doesn't hold many songs so swapping is pretty much a necessity. Upon some research, I also found that vinyl albums recently issued are likely produced from a digital master anyway, some are even just slightly above CD Quality. I have a large library of songs from HDTracks that are at least 24bit / 48khz and honestly I cannot tell a difference once they hit 24 bit / 96khz. 

With the above said, what's so great about Vinyl in your view? Thanks for the feedback. 
angelgz2

Yes I'm into vinyl to the extent that I no longer care for CD's; only use them to determine what records to buy. An entry level table is a waste of money.

I would not advise anyone to get into vinyl, because of the headache and expense. I was collecting records long before CD, consequently I had a bunch. For a long time I was exclusively CD; but since I already owned LP's, I decided to see what the fuss was about.

Let me clarify, the fuss is "only" in high end analog, not in the "mid fi" we used before CD; that's why all the controversy. CD's are better than "mid fi" any day of the week.

If you don't have records, why bother with the headache and expense; the very best digital is just a shade shy of high end Analog.

The bottom line in Analog is; "You have to run with the big dogs or stay at home"!
If you have no passion for records why do you need a turntable?
It’s never too late to start, but it’s not about quality as much as you may think (especially with entry level turntable), it’s about record collecting, digging, it’s more like a life style, an expensive hobby. If you can invest into a decent analog system then you will understand why it’s so much better in terms of quality too, but do not expect that from any cheap turntables. You gotta love this media format first (it’s a culture), do you have any reason to pay more for the music on vinyl that you can buy cheaper (or to have for free) in digital ?

Do you want to own an original pressing (vinyl) or all you need is digital copy in high resolution?

I don’t care about digital, the music i love i want to have on vinyl.
It's all good! Get yourself a turntable set up and enjoy!
My vinyl rig mostly blows my CD and Tidal Hi-fi streaming away.
Mostly.

It depends on the recording.
Some of my vinyl is crap. Most of it is decent and some is fan-freakin-tastic.
It’s the great recordings that maintain my interest in the gear. It’s the history of my collection and deep emotional ties to the music that maintains my interest in playing vinyl.

The rig is so good at extracting the music that I don’t even hear the clicks and pops, and even if I do, I don’t mind. It's not inexpensive and it helps to know what you are doing.

All it takes is for one song, late at night, when all is quiet, to make you shed a tear, or weep, to know vinyl is worth it.
I remember a few years back I was in the situation of Getting back into vinyl, had all Krell gear, amps, CD player etc.
I bought a cheap Project TT ( debut I think) about $300 .

I also recall being deeply disappointed in the sound ... Lol.

Lofi or even midfi is probably not going to cut it.

Sold that Project pdq and held off for a while until the itch resurfaced. Then I did a lot more research and ended up with a Clearaudio TT that although not top flight did give me encouragement.

Now my main TT is a Nottingham Spacedeck cw Scheu Analog MC SL cart through a Goldnote ph10 phono.

With good vinyl it really sings ( pun intended). But there is a heck of a lot more $ in it now than my first attempt.
So how much are you guys spending on a turntable rig that rivals say $5000 worth of DAC and streamer?  I suspect quite a bit more and that's the issue I'm finding myself in these days.  I love vinyl from its historical meaning and connection to me.  I particularly enjoy collecting 1st pressings of 50s and 60s jazz knowing that I'm holding a piece of history and of limited quantity.  But...my vinyl rig is quite modest and it cant come close to touching a good quality DAC.  I just don't have the appetite to spend like $10K on a rig to get my vinyl to sound as good as my streaming.  But I will still occasionally pick up new records because of the connectedness I feel with them, not due to a sonic benefit and I'm learning to be ok with that.  I wish dollar for dollar that vinyl sounded as good as digital but it just doesn't sadly.
I also love older analog jazz and blues records from the 60s and 70s.
My table comes in around $6k all in. Plus $2k for a phono amp. Within its limits, it’s one of the best sounding rigs I’ve ever heard!
I always suggest an 'attention test'  if you listen to your digital casually how long till you think about work or the day or reach for your phone?.

Now for when you listen to records?
For me there is an obvious difference.

Yes analog wins for me. If it doesn't for you move on :)
With the above said, what’s so great about Vinyl in your view?
On a well set-up rig, the sound is full and natural sounding (i.e. there are no jarring frequency peaks & the phasing is good) and extended on both ends of the spectrum.But then, you already have that - or should if your digital rig is set up correctly!
I have a large library of songs from HDTracks that are at least 24bit / 48khz and honestly I cannot tell a difference once they hit 24 bit / 96khz
Since you already have excellent content, why on earth add another source where you have no content at all? Instead, why not just invest in a better dac / reclocker-regenerator / cable combo... Best!

Anything Audio vs Anything Audio & What’s so great? = endless variables & subjectivity/opinions.
“Since you already have excellent content, why on earth add another source where you have no content at all? Instead, why not just invest in a better dac / reclocker-regenerator / cable combo”.

That’s the best advice so far....I held off the the temptation of owning vinyl rig for the very same reason. Instead, I chose to better my CD and digital playback system. 

It doesn’t make you any less passionate or collector of music if you don’t own Vinyl. I own plenty of SACD and remastered XRCD’s that sounds just as good as Vinyl in my system, YMMV. 
I own high-end vinyl and digital equipment. Several years ago vinyl sounded better than digital however with modern technology in my opinion digital has caught and sounds great. As others have said if you don't already own a large collection of LP's save your money and enjoy what you already have. If I had it to do all over again I would pass on the expenditure of vinyl equipment and LP's.
Since you are mainly interested in convenience then you should just stick with what you know. Vinyl is more for people who love music.
“Vinyl is more for people who love music.”

Thanks for humoring us.......LMAO!!!! 😂 🤣😂
"Since you already have excellent content, why on earth add another source where you have no content at all? Instead, why not just invest in a better dac / reclocker-regenerator / cable combo... Best!"

Yup, I agree. This is the best advice. Thanks to all who has responded. From all the response so far, it seems like turntables are really for people who have a predisposition to love records, either because you guys already have a large collection, or because you could relate to it. While there might be some level of sonic differences, a larger part appears to be personal preference and the emotional aspect of it. For someone like me who’s never touched a turntable in my life, I should probably just stick to what I know best.

Thanks again!

If you like acoustic music vinyl is better , for rock and pop  is irrelevant .
@angelgz2 -  YEP!  Happy listening!
Dear @angelgz2 : That's the best way to go for you.

Btw, @schubert :  "  If you like acoustic music vinyl is better... ""

that was true in the past but today digital is superior alternative no matters what and remember that the human beens listen not in analog way but digital due that at our inner ears ( that's where we " hera " any sound. ) exist an ADC.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

We hear with our ears but need to interpret what we hear with

our whole brain. The ''classical'' nature- nurture question.

One need only to listen to whatever Chinese opera to grasp

the difference. Description of our ''inner ears'' will not do.

Certainly not Kantian '' imperatives'' in their Mexican form.

Certainly not Kantian '' imperatives'' in their Mexican form
@nandric, what are you on about?? AFAIK, Immanuel never travelled to Mexico :)



FLASH, we listen to music with our brain , our ears just work for brain .IF you have listened to a large number of acoustic concerts , which no rocker has , Brain will give you sound based upon memory .and that memory will be acoustic ,

Tha'ts how a conductor in his 90's who can't hear 5k on a machine testcan correct  a player at 12K . I have seen them do it .
and memory is emotion which is electrochemical...

@schubert , Thanks!  I was wondering about those (very) old conductors also. Even more about my own sensitivity for the high frequencies because I hear nothing above 10Khz. BTW Kant's (aka German) ''moral philosophy'' was translated in Spanish and by some curious accidence imported in Mexico.

but even tho the OP seems to have settled on the digital path, I see value in extension of the thread past silly generalizations....very much possible to build an emotionally satisfying digital system....I spent many years doing that...as well as investing in high speed tape and eventually relatively high end vinyl to understand deeply relative merits and faults...a prudent investment in vinyl may make you much more appreciatve of the subtle differences and more apprecitive of the strengths of digital done very well.

for example a BASIS 1400 on an HRS base with a Lyra Delos or Benz Glider into a NOVa II can be quite good in the range of $6K....

invest similar sums in a high speed half track Revox B-77 and 8 Tape Project of similar tapes and see what is possible with that format...

your milage may vary..but be certain to enjoy the music..
3 easy payments,
For 5K spent on turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and phono stage, and a willingness to consider used equipment (or maybe even if you stick to new), you can easily equal or surpass a 5K digital front end. It all depends upon you as listener.
Yes it is very possible to build a emotional satisfying digital system but many times more expensive to build one even close to the real deal,analog .

nandric , one of the most in demand conductors in the world is the American born Swede , Herbert Blomstedt . His concerts for the remainder of this month are,

Feb 21, 22, 23 Cleveland Orchestra

Feb 28, New York Philharmonic

The maestro is 92 .

@schubert The British speaker producer Bowers&Wilkins

introduced as first ''super tweeter'' . The general opinion than

was that there is no sense to produce speakers with higher

frequency  than 14 Khz. Their super tweeter started by 14

Khz but could be switched of and on . By their testing they

used ''old people'' as ''test panel'' which was capable to hear

 when the super tweeter was on and off.

@lewm Thanks for weighing in.  I very well may tackle an upgraded TT system in the next couple of years since I'm hearing feedback like yours and @noromance indicating a $5K -$7K setup could yield analog results on par with digital in the same price range.  
I have an emotionally satisfying digital player. It is satisfying in every way - except that within an hour I always turn it off.

Not so with my analogue system.
@schubert , you write: 

Tha'ts how a conductor in his 90's who can't hear 5k on a machine testcan correct a player at 12K . I have seen them do it .

With greatest respect, could you elaborate? The highest fundamental analogue note that I know of is about 5 KHz, so ... ? I don't understand.
From all the response so far, it seems like turntables are really for people who have a predisposition to love records, either because you guys already have a large collection, or because you could relate to it. While there might be some level of sonic differences, a larger part appears to be personal preference and the emotional aspect of it.
@angelgz2

In most cases a turntable will sound better than anything streamed. This is because streamed files, even though 192KHz, may not have any more information than the 16 bit CDs because the master file was not used.

LPs are far more likely to have used a file closer to the original than even a commercially released CD! This is because CDs and other digital formats have the expectation of being played in a car and so are compressed as a result.

LPs don't have that expectation. I run an LP mastering operation, and when working with a digital master, we always make sure its not the file mastered for digital release. We get the one that is unprocessed- it sounds better.

LPs have a number of advantages over digital formats even to this day. Since the late 1950s, the record side has always had bandwidth out to well past 40KHz. That helps improve the perception of the soundstage due to reduced phase shift.


LPs have less or no aliasing at all. This is important- aliasing is a form of distortion which the ear/brain system perceives as a brightness - 'crisp' is of then term when its really bad. This is a major reason why LPs are so much more relaxed.


So these things are not taste issues. Digital just isn't there - yet.

BTW- one of the better deals in turntables these days is the new Technics SL-1200G, which looks like the SL1200s on Craigslist but is actually a whole new design from the ground up and is one of the most speed stable turntables made anywhere.
Thanks @atmasphere for pointing out that (some) vinyl may actually be a superior format after all. Despite the dissenters who've never heard higher-end vinyl reproduction, it's an affirmation that there is something tangibly and qualitatively better with vinyl.
I have over 100K digital files and it is great to be able to peruse the library and pick from the litter, or to even pick from many 100's of thousands via Qobuz or Tidal but.........having very recently gotten into Vinyl I am absolutely loving it.
True Story, I wear an Apple Watch everyday but my F.P. Journe Chronometre Bleu is so much better to look at.....SO MUCH BETTER.  Price comparison is equal here.

Just recently I got a brand new considerably warped record; What do I do? send it back.

I've been through that before, and they sent me another warped record. I don't feel like going through the hassle.

Fortunately, I didn't hear the warp on playback. Since it was a collectors item LP, I recorded it on new expensive R2R tape so that I could hear it without handling the record.

So far, I haven't heard the warp, not even on playback with the reel.

I watched the cartridge ride up and down those warps like a car going up and down hills without flexing the stylus, my tone arm is so well balanced, and the cartridge compliance is such that it's not affected by warped records, and this one is more than mildly warped; another reason to stay out of vinyl if you're not already in.
 I’m wondering how that conductor was able to correct a musician on a note at 12,000 cps, when there is no musical instrument that produces primary tones at that high a frequency. the very top key on a piano is only eight or 9000 cps. So although I agree that the brain can overcome hearing deficiencies, enabling one to sense frequencies above the range of one’s hearing, I doubt the veracity of this particular story.

 I have also softened on my opinion about digital. But you have to incorporate Ralph’s point, that much of the digital source material has been created according to Redbook standards, so no matter how Hi-Rez the digital output may be, the benefit is severely limited by the way in which the original digital recording was made. Given that qualification I do think that the very best digital is on the same plane with vinyl with digital being subjectively quieter and vinyl having superior downward dynamic range. Like in the old westerns, the farmer and the cow man can be friends.
I've been reading a lot of chats between modern-day vinyl users. The final "nail to the coffin" that made me decide to continue my digital path is exactly what @atmasphere mentioned: the master file isn't even being used. I read that in many modern-day LP production, the source is actually already digital, often time already "lossy". The inability, or at least limited ability for me to get authentic vinyls in the future is definitely a "no deal" for now. 

I guess for those of you who have enjoyed vinyl for a long time, it makes sense to continue this path, but for me who never ever owned a single LP, I wouldn't know what I've missed. 
I've been reading a lot of chats between modern-day vinyl users. The final "nail to the coffin" that made me decide to continue my digital path is exactly what @atmasphere mentioned: the master file isn't even being used. I read that in many modern-day LP production, the source is actually already digital, often time already "lossy". The inability, or at least limited ability for me to get authentic vinyls in the future is definitely a "no deal" for now.

I guess for those of you who have enjoyed vinyl for a long time, it makes sense to continue this path, but for me who never ever owned a single LP, I wouldn't know what I've missed.
@angelgz2 ,
You might have missed my point- which is the often the LP uses a digital file that is closer to the original than the file used to make a digital release. IOW if you want to get closer to the original, the LP might be the ticket.


Dear @angelgz2  : """  I wouldn't know what I've missed. """

in true and with today HR that digital alternative already achieved and still growing up about you missed nothing at all, only a different experience.

When I said " nothing at all " I'm talking that nothing " superior " to today digital mediums.

The nearer to today digital medium you can compare through analog is with the Direct 2 Disc LP recordings .
R.
lalitk-
“Vinyl is more for people who love music.”

Thanks for humoring us.......LMAO!!!! 😂 🤣😂


Vinyl is so much better than digital its silly to even talk about, as that can't be done without assuming they are comparable, when they aren't. One is music, the other noise. A whole lot of people miss this, because the noise of vinyl is so obvious. The noise with digital is woven right into the signal. With digital its silly even to talk about signal to noise ratio. With digital the signal IS the noise!

The situation is so bad people try and make their digital sound better by dubbing it to analog. Seriously! Famous Blue Raincoat, which shows on the jacket as DDD, the final mix-down was in fact done to analog. Several versions were compared, none of them preferred DDD, they all went with the analog.

The one thing that gives the numbers crunchers cover is the sad reality of vinyl being temperamental. Unlike digital, the plain fact is no two records sound exactly the same. Better Records has thrown a microscope on this, but anyone who cares can prove it easily enough simply by playing two copies of the same record back to back. 

What this means is that digital vs analog is not like most people think a question of sound quality. Its a question of convenience. 

Which is why I said in the beginning, " Since you are mainly interested in convenience then you should just stick with what you know. Vinyl is more for people who love music." And that's no joke.
I have it all. Vinyl is euphoric like tubes, it is tradition, it is a collectors dream, and lastly it is tweaky. There is so much you can do with it. What are you going to do with zeros ones. Vinyl once set up is really just a little more work than CDs
I have 192/24 HDtracks and Vinyl versions of both Dylan’s Desire and the first Santana album. Actually the Santana might 88/24.
the Vinyl has a sense of space missing in the digital versions. This might be a euphemism but I like it. The vinyl obviously has more noise. Tell me of any venue that does not have extraneous noise. People cough and shuffle around, talk to each other etc. as long as it is not a big loud scratch the noise in the vinyl biases your brain. It actually is more like the real experience!  Digital is silent, drier, more up front. The violin in Hurricane has a bit of a sting to it missing in the vinyl version. Dynamics are the same.
Albums that have been remastered specifically for high resolution digital are however amazing. Just have your wife cough once in a while.

@atmasphere Actually I understand your point. It's true that the original master digital file could be closer to the original. It's not completely lossless like Vinyl -- I'm no expert, but do they sample above 786khz / 32 bit depth? If not, I may as well just invest in a Chord Hugo 2 which can play up to 32 bit / 786khz or DSD 128. We have a local Vinyl shop in Austin and the owner acknowledged that some "Modern reproduction" of old vinyls are converted back from Digital, often at no greater than CD quality. The only way to experience true Vinyl, at least from what I read, is if the LP is pressed from a pure analog master recording which is rare nowadays let alone going to the future. 

I have no doubts pure analog is better -- I've experienced it in various friend's homes or boutique shops, the "three dimensional-ness" that many refer to. However, given the lack of willingness pursuit for quality products exhibited by today's younger generation, I fear less and less recording studio will be willing to spend time and effort to create a pure analog master tape. If you tell my sister, who's 23, about Vinyl, she will give you a quizzical look and just ignores you completely. This is unfortunate, I know, but the industry is profit driven, and the few of us who's willing to pay for it won't be as profitable as the masses who just want something cheap and simple. 


On a side note, anyone a Celtic music fan? I almost listen exclusively to Celtic music. Here are some artists I listen to:

Loreena McKennitt
Enaid --  Avalon - A Celtic Legend
Méav Ní Mhaolchatha
Enya

I also have some albums from Sara Brightman & The Carpenters. I know The Carpenters definitely have "real" LPs, but those Celtic artists may not have "true" LP releases. I am not expert enough to figure out whether those out there are just from digital conversion or real analog press. If I manage to pick up some true analog LPs for the above mentioned artists, I may invest in a system. Certainly, any recommendations to other good Celtic music is strongly appreciated. 
Dear @millercarbon :: """  Vinyl is so much better than digital its silly to even talk about, as that can't be done without assuming they are comparable, when they aren't. One is music, the other noise. A whole lot of people miss this, because the noise of vinyl is so obvious. The noise with digital is woven right into the signal. With digital its silly even to talk about signal to noise ratio. With digital the signal IS the noise!  """

what's silly is try to ridicule digital alternative with your riculous statements because things are that all can be or can be changed the other way around for any one but a silly person.

Where are your facts or the foundations for what you posted other that: "" that's what I like it ""

At least try to post something that can be " coherent ". MUSIC is some kind of " noise " too.


R.
@angelz if you are looking for good Celtic music in LP you need to go back to the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Labels like Tara, Fontana, Dara, would be good places to look.
Angel, I think Atmasphere has some substantial arguments in favor of vinyl. Breaking down into the simplest terms, older music that was recorded well and in analog is generally going to sound better than CD quality. There is plenty of fantastic old stuff. Newer music recorded in digital and mastered with High res in mind is hard to beat. If the CD master is used dynamic compression is forced to the max and everything has the same volume which is not real but it sounds great on a car radio. Most everything prior to 1980 is analog. 
In the end you are going to have to make up your mind by yourself. Get one of the less expensive Rega tables and an Ortofon Blue cartridge when you get the disease go for broke.

Dear @angelgz2  : I like analog and I like digital but I try to not be " stupid " about the digital alternative or been sticky with analog to end of the times. And I'm not stupid because first than all I'm a music lover as you are.

The arguments that post and posted the " irreversible " analog persons are just opinions with no solid facts/foundation true facts..

Speak about aliasing in digital as if today been the 70's when we are living in 2019 and through very advanced aliasing filters that digital problem just disappeared years ago.

In other threads where some of the same persons that posted here posted " there " I posted ( several times with facts fron scientific source. ) that all human beens listen sound through our ears/brain at the inner ear where the SPL waves pass through an inner ear ADC, yes we listen in the digital domain not analog.

If we convert in bits the analog information in a LP it goes only to: 122-14 bits, never approaces 16bits as CD's.

A often " problem with digital information is exactly that:  The format is a two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1khz ( sampling rate: 22.05khz. ):

analog advocates say frequency response in CD is limited against LP that can goes say: 40khz or whatever.
But that fact is useless for support LP superiority over digital alternative because over that high frequency range exist no single fundamental music NOTES but only harmonics that are a seria certain development that it's easy covered inside the oversampling proccess that can give the CD a more true extended high frequency range and that's at 16bits but today DAC's comes with 32/768 technology ! ! a native not 32 bits but 24/96 or 192 outperforms totally any analog alternative, no matters what.

But exist a major disadvantage with the analog LP recordings and is that even that the recording microphones pick up the signal in stereo way down to the lowest bass  frequency range things are that for LP limitations and during the LP cutting proccess that bass range stereo signal is converted to mono fashion and obviously along its harmonics that are the ones that affects all the whole frequency range and the main harmonics for a pristine quality performance.
In the digital domain that just does not happens because what we have in the CD's is what the recording microphones pick up: everything including harmonics in STEREO fashion as must be always.

There are a lot of facts against analog and in favor of digital but is useless to say about when people just don't understand the reality they and us are living with.

The main issue/subject is not whom has the reason or whom wins the subject is to understand all those facts true facts I posted here and if I'm wrong ( because I can be wrong. ) I invite any one to post why I'm wrong with facts to prove it.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
The bottom line in Analog is; "You have to run with the big dogs or stay at home"!



  A little story to illustrate just how far off the mark that is:

Back around 1995 I was done and very happy with my CD based system except for comments I kept coming across about records. It seemed unlikely. But my old Technics SL-1700 was just sitting in a box out in the garage, still had an old Kenwood integrated with its included phono stage, couldn't be that hard to dig it out, hook it up, prove the stories one way or the other.

Which I did. Which was quite the experience. Stupid little old (very old- 20 years old) turntable sounded more like music than my carefully selected brand new ten times as expensive CDP.

Maybe it was just me. But then my wife came home. Looking in the door, from where she could hear but not see, she asked what was I playing? Tom Petty. No, I mean what is it? Because it sounds really good.

So my wife with no clue whatsoever immediately preferred the sound of the vinyl. As did I. For one very simple reason: it just sounds a whole lot more like music.

Now again, this was back 20 years ago, back when nobody had a record, or record player, to buy or even see in any store anywhere, except maybe a few that specialize in used equipment. Today, last time I went looking, every room in every audio store had at least one turntable all set up and running.

That simply would not be the case if it were true that "You have to run with the big dogs or stay at home." But it could easily happen if it turns out records just plain sound better.

One flies in the face of reality. The other conforms beautifully.

Choose wisely.
Dear @millercarbon : Tales/histories as the one you posted are for thousands but are only tales with no single fact that can tell us the LP superioerity against the " thrash/noise developer " name it CD's.

To whom try you to deceive only because you can't understand facts?, you can follow spreading your tales but that is useless against facts and if you follow posting here and there those tales ( as other persons that do it too. )  that just does not change the reality, no matter what.

You can't tell/impede to a " baby "  that stays slepping in the nigth only because for you the sun ( in the nigth. ) is already shinny and is a day and not nigth as your wife and baby think because are slepping both but you.
You can't change facts/reality only repeating those tales: a tale/history does not change the facts, it's only a tale coming from some one that like you just can't understand and are sticky heavy sticky to the no-sense world, like a zombi.
Are you an audio zombie? because at least it's the way you look on this specific regards.

R.