FREE HIGH-END AUDIO SETUP CONSULTATIONS

Reference Vinyl Recordings — What Are We Actually Striving For?

Before I begin publishing a series of articles about improving vinyl playback systems — whether through targeted upgrades to an existing setup or through a more carefully matched combination of tonearms, cartridges, and turntables — I would first like to upload several reference recordings that demonstrate what I personally consider good vinyl sound.

For this purpose, I suggest downloading and listening to several test digitizations. At this point, I should immediately address an obvious objection:

“How can you evaluate an analog vinyl setup through a digital file?”

At first glance, the idea does indeed sound strange. But only at first glance. The reality is that modern high-resolution digital recorders using DSD 5.6 format have advanced enormously compared to the digital technology used during the first wave of CD transfers in the late 1980s and 1990s. In fact, if the digital technology available today had existed back then — and if the majority of analog master tapes had been digitized with the quality we can achieve today — the vinyl renaissance itself might never have happened in the form we know it.

What we often have today are mediocre early digital transfers of extraordinary analog master tapes from the 1970s and 1980s. Only the largest and most commercially important artists — bands like Pink Floyd and a handful of others — regularly receive expensive modern remastering and archival re-digitization from the original tapes. So what does this have to do with vinyl playback?

A modern digital recorder connected to a properly configured analog vinyl playback system can capture a surprisingly accurate imprint of the sound coming from the turntable itself. Of course, the result is not identical to direct analog playback. Digital artifacts still exist. High frequencies become slightly grainier, low-level jitter appears, and some degree of analog continuity is inevitably lost.

Despite this, a modern DSD recording can still serve as a very accurate “snapshot” of the sonic character of a vinyl playback system.

And this is the key point: we are not comparing “digital versus analog.”

We are comparing multiple high-resolution snapshots of different vinyl playback systems against each other — and, if desired, against your own turntable system at home. I believe many listeners will find this comparison extremely revealing.

Before moving on to vinyl playback itself, however, I want to establish one more important point:

In my view, a truly good vinyl playback system is one that approaches the sound of analog tape as closely as possible.

After all, the great recordings of the 1970s and 1980s were originally recorded on analog tape. Vinyl is already a second-generation medium derived from that source. Compared to the original master tape, vinyl will always involve certain compromises and losses. But the closer a turntable system comes to reproducing the character of the original tape — its density, focus, tonal integrity, timing, and natural flow — the higher the level of that playback system can be considered. So before discussing vinyl itself, let us first remind ourselves what analog tape recordings actually sound like.

The first folder contains several short excerpts transferred directly from analog tape. The tracks are well-known recordings, but only short excerpts are provided — between roughly 40 seconds and 1.5 minutes each.

FOLDER 1 - TRUE ANALOG TAPES

These files, taken from master tapes, also allow you to evaluate the overall recording quality of the DSD 5.6 recorder itself. The same recorder was used for all test recordings presented in this article. This is important to keep in mind, because every analog setup in this comparison was recorded under identical digital capture conditions, using the same recorder and recording chain throughout the entire test series.

The second folder contains 3 versions of the same well-known track recorded from the same record.

If you do not want to go too deeply into comparisons, download dozens of files, and spend hours listening, it is enough to compare just the 3 following recordings. The track was recorded from the exact same vinyl pressing on two different turntables. The third comparison track was transferred directly from the analog master tape.

FOLDER 2 - REFERENCE BUDGET VINYL SETUP vs REFERENCE HIGH END SETUP vs TAPE

If you listen to these fragments one after another, you will hear that the first version — which can still be considered a fairly good example of vinyl playback — nevertheless sounds, compared to the second version, less energetic, more blurred, less focused, and less dynamic. It has less bass authority, a less energetic high-frequency response, and, overall, a looser, less controlled presentation.

The difference between the first and second turntable setups stems from several major changes introduced simultaneously: the transition from an MM cartridge to a properly matched MC cartridge, the transition from a 9-inch tonearm to a 12-inch tonearm, and several additional improvements in the turntable's construction and overall engineering.

It is important to reiterate that this “reference budget” turntable remains a very respectable and highly capable solution for vinyl playback within a limited budget. The total price for the first setup was about 2,500 USD. At the end of this article, for those who wish to go deeper into the comparison, there will be more than a dozen additional recordings made from turntables that were actually significantly more expensive — in some cases several times more expensive — yet whose playback often sounds less engaging than the reference budget setup. The reason is quite simple: the overall analog chain was not carefully assembled and optimized, the cartridge-tonearm matching was less successful, or the cartridges themselves were simply less interesting and convincing in terms of musical presentation.

The next 4 folders contain examples of turntables and vinyl playback systems that I personally consider to be reference-level. If evaluated on a hypothetical ten-point scale, I would place these systems at roughly 8. More advanced systems certainly exist — systems that could reasonably be considered 9s and 10s — but I simply have not yet had the opportunity to record them properly. So for now, we will limit ourselves to what I would already consider a very high level of analog playback. All of these systems are broadly within the same class, but they differ in:

• turntable design,

• tonearms,

• cartridges,

• plinth construction,

• and overall presentation.

As a result, each system has its own sonic character and emphasis, even though the general performance level remains consistently high. Most folders contain the same set of tracks:

• Reference Track 1 - Livin Blues Black Night 1972

• Reference Track 2 - Judas Priest - Beyond the Realms of Death 1978

• Reference Track 3 - Iron Maiden Strange World 1980

The reason these particular reference tracks were chosen is quite simple. They are ordinary blues rock and rock records from the 1970s and 1980s — not exotic audiophile pressings, but regular original pressings from those years, exactly the kind of records that make up the collections of most vinyl listeners.

These tracks were selected because they contain a wide variety of musical material that clearly reflects the sonic character of a vinyl playback system: vocals, guitar textures, slow atmospheric intros, fast riffs, dynamic transitions, and dense instrumental passages.

There is intentionally no classical music included in these reference tracks because I strongly believe that classical repertoire requires a different cartridge and tonearm configuration than those used in these reference turntable setups. For classical music, a separate dedicated reference setup is presented later in the article.

These repeated recordings allow direct comparison between different playback systems using identical musical material. Some folders also include additional tracks that do not repeat, but help reveal the specific strengths and character of a particular setup more completely.

FOLDER 3 - REFERENCE SETUP 1

FOLDER 4 - REFERENCE SETUP 2

FOLDER 5 - REFERENCE SETUP 3

FOLDER 6 - REFERENCE SETUP 4

The next two folders contain two systems configured specifically for classical music playback. Interestingly, the turntables themselves are largely similar to those used in previous examples. The major differences lie in the tonearms and cartridges. This is extremely important because classical music requires a fundamentally different approach to playback than rock, pop, jazz, or electronic music. For truly convincing classical playback, cartridge behavior becomes critically important - cartridges that excel with classical music are quite different from those optimized for rock or modern rhythm-based genres.

FOLDER 7 - CLASSICAL MUSIC SETUP 1

FOLDER 8 - CLASSICAL MUSIC SETUP 2

Interestingly, Classical Music Setup 2 costs roughly three times less than Classical Music Setup 1. Nevertheless, both tonearm/cartridge combinations belong to the same sonic family, sharing a similar tonal balance presentation and musical priorities. Each excels at conveying the qualities that matter most in reproducing classical music.

Another folder contains an example of what I would consider a strong result within a relatively moderate budget. 

FOLDER 9 - REFERENCE BUDGET SETUP 1 

FOLDER 10 - REFERENCE BUDGET SETUP 2 (The channels were accidentally swiped during the recording for SETUP 2. For accurate comparison, please swap the left and right channels during playback.)

These two examples should provide a useful reference point for what is realistically achievable in the 3500 USD for the whole vinyl setup. If someone manages to achieve even more within that budget range — excellent.

Finally, the last two collections are intended for the most dedicated audiophiles. They contain Reference Track 1 and Reference Track 2, recorded on 12 different vinyl setups using a variety of cartridges and tonearms.

In both folders, the first position is occupied by the high-end reference system that personally sounds the most convincing to me. The remaining recordings are arranged according to my own subjective preferences. Most of them fall within what I would consider a respectable performance range, although the last two examples strike me as noticeably less engaging than the others.

What makes these comparisons particularly interesting is that price and performance do not always move in the same direction. Some of the cartridges I personally prefer are significantly less expensive than those ranked lower on the list. For example, a cartridge placed around the middle of the ranking cost only a fraction of the price of the two last cartridges at the bottom. Likewise, one of my favorite cartridges in the collection costs roughly half as much as another model ranked below it.

In other words, this is not a ranking of price, prestige, or technical specifications. It is simply my personal listening hierarchy based on musical enjoyment and long-term experience. Your own preferences may be very different.

The main purpose of these collections is to provide a rare opportunity to listen to twelve different cartridge-tonearm combinations side by side, compare their presentations, and discover subtle differences in tonal balance, dynamics, texture, imaging, and overall musical character.

FOLDER 11 - VARIOUS CARTRIDGES AND TURNTABLES - REFERENCE TRACK 1

FOLDER 12 - VARIOUS CARTRIDGES AND TURNTABLES  - REFERENCE TRACK 2

I intentionally do not provide complete technical descriptions of every setup, cartridge modification, tonearm, or turntable combination used in these recordings. Partly because the exact hardware itself is less important than the audible result. And partly because I would prefer listeners to focus first on what they actually hear — rather than immediately reducing every difference to brand names, pricing, or internet mythology. Anyway, beyond the highest-level examples, nearly every subsequent step downward primarily demonstrates one thing: a gradual movement away from the sound closest to the original analog tape recordings. 

The changes in sound are quite easy to hear. As the progression follows from top to bottom, the presentation becomes:

• looser,

• less controlled,

• less resolved,

• and noticeably less energetic.

High frequencies begin to lose their natural physical character. Cymbals no longer sound like real impacts against metal surfaces, but instead collapse into a soft, indistinct “tsssh” somewhere in the background. Bass becomes inflated and less articulate. Rhythmic precision weakens. Spatial focus softens. Instrument separation becomes less stable. The entire presentation starts to lose coherence and tension.

And the important thing is this:

These differences are clearly audible even through high-resolution digital transfers — because the transfers themselves preserve a remarkably accurate imprint of the playback system’s character. The turntables themselves sound exactly this way in direct listening as well.

So, for me, this entire collection of reference recordings forms an informal scale.

If we imagine the best examples presented here as roughly an “8 out of 10” and the weakest as closer to a “3 out of 10,” then these recordings can serve as a practical reference for comparison. If you own some of the same records used in these examples, you can compare your own playback system against them and roughly estimate where your vinyl setup currently stands.

If your system performs at or above the 8-level examples, congratulations. That is already an excellent level of analog playback, and beyond that point, improvements become increasingly expensive, subtle, and system-dependent.

If your playback falls noticeably below that level, however, then there is still considerable room for improvement — often through much more targeted and intelligent upgrades than many people realize.

All excerpts included in these folders are intentionally short — typically between 40 seconds and 1.5 minutes depending on the length of the original track. In most cases, this represents roughly 10–15% of the full composition.

The recordings are provided solely for technical and comparative listening purposes. They are not intended for commercial distribution or replacement of the original recordings in any way.

The purpose of these examples is to demonstrate how dramatically vinyl playback quality can change depending on:

• setup quality,

• tonearm type 

• cartridge matching

• mechanical control

• phonstage and SUP selection

•  overall fine-tuning 

And perhaps even more importantly, to demonstrate what is realistically possible from vinyl playback when a system is assembled and tuned correctly.

In future articles, I will offer several additional comparison sets that demonstrate how the sound of a vinyl system can change with a few relatively simple and inexpensive modifications—most of which enthusiasts can implement themselves.

The first comparison will be devoted to my Goliath project—an upgrade of a well-known and affordable moving-coil cartridge that allows it to perform at a level far beyond what its original price would suggest, bringing it surprisingly close to genuinely high-end designs.

At the time these recordings were made, however, I was still unaware of another important factor that would later become one of the most valuable lessons in my analog journey: a turntable’s sound is influenced not only by its cartridge, tonearm, and electronics, but also by what the turntable itself is standing on. Had I known then what I know today, these recordings could likely have been improved even further by reducing the subtle resonances introduced by the wooden plinth and support structure I was using at the time.

That discovery became the basis for the second comparison. In that experiment, I will present before-and-after recordings demonstrating the effect of a specialized support platform and the changes it produced in the system's overall presentation.

The third comparison is aimed at owners of more advanced belt-drive turntables. In this test, I will demonstrate the sonic differences between a conventional belt drive and a thread-drive conversion—an upgrade that can be implemented on certain turntable designs with relatively little effort and expense.

Whether these differences prove significant to you is something only your own ears can decide. My goal is simply to provide real recordings, real comparisons, and an opportunity to evaluate these ideas through listening rather than theory.

Why the Denon DL-301 Still Matters

 

While editing my article on REFERENCE VINYL RECORDINGS, I opened an old collection of recordings made over several years while I was actively experimenting with vintage MC cartridges, tonearms, step-up transformers, and various analog setups.

The original collection was quite large. For the reference section of the website, I selected only a handful of the most revealing and representative recordings. Out of curiosity, I decided to listen to them again.

But this time I did something differently.

Rather than looking at the cartridge names, I listened to the recordings blindly and arranged them according to my own ranking, from best to worst. In a few cases I recognized a cartridge from memory, but in most cases I could hear clear differences without remembering what I was actually listening to.

THE REFERENCE TRACK 1 RATING

Only after completing the ranking did I look at the names.

Several results surprised me, and one surprised me more than all the others.

A relatively inexpensive vintage MC cartridge, which originally sold for only a few hundred dollars, finished remarkably close to several modern cartridges costing several thousand dollars.

It also outperformed the MM cartridges that I continue to recommend to listeners who are not yet ready to invest in modern MC designs such as the Lyra Kleos or the My Sonic Lab series.

The cartridge was the Denon DL-301.

A Brief Note on the Denon DL-301

This cartridge occupies an interesting place in analog audio history. Unlike the legendary DL-103, which became a cult cartridge with an enormous following, the DL-301 was always somewhat quieter in reputation. Nevertheless, among experienced analog enthusiasts it earned a reputation as one of the most balanced and intelligently designed moving-coil cartridges in Denon’s lineup.

The cartridge remained in production for many years, evolving into the DL-301 MkII, and developed a loyal following among listeners who wanted a more refined and detailed presentation than the classic DL-103 could offer.

The Important Caveat

I don't say that everyone should immediately start searching for a vintage Denon DL-301. In fact, the result reinforces one of the central points I made in my article on MM versus MC cartridges. Finding a vintage gem is possible, but building a strategy around finding one is risky.

This particular comparison was made from recordings created around 2017. At that time, finding a healthy DL-301 was relatively realistic. Today, however, finding one is becoming increasingly difficult. While occasional new-old-stock examples still appear, most DL-301 cartridges available today are used units whose condition can vary dramatically. As with any vintage MC cartridge, the challenge is not simply finding one—it is finding one with a healthy suspension, a low-hour stylus, and a known service history.

Unlike vintage MM cartridges, where a replacement stylus can often restore performance, an MC cartridge presents a much more complicated challenge. If you happen to find a well-preserved example that has been carefully stored, you may be fortunate. But building an entire analog upgrade strategy around the hope of finding one is another matter entirely.

What This Experiment Actually Proved

First, the experiment confirmed that comparative listening through high-quality digital transfers can be surprisingly revealing. While a digital transfer is never identical to hearing the cartridge directly, it remains an effective tool for comparing different analog front ends under controlled conditions.

Second, the experiment reinforced something even more important. The development of MC cartridges genuinely represented a significant step forward in analog playback. At certain points in history, some MC designs clearly outperformed the best of the MM cartridges available at the time. But progress was never linear - some MC cartridges were exceptional, others were merely expensive. And this is precisely why listening matters more than reputation.

But more importantly, the Denon DL-301 reminded me of something that many audiophiles eventually learn:

Sometimes the most interesting discoveries are not found at the top of the price list.

What makes the DL-301 remarkable is that a middle-price cartridge designed decades ago can still hold its own in serious comparisons today. Many products are impressive when they are new. Far fewer remain competitive years later when evaluated without knowing their name, reputation, or original price.

One more thing I remember about this cartridge proves it sonic quality very well.

Years ago, while actively buying and testing vintage cartridges, I would usually sell them after completing my recordings and evaluations. Some sold quickly. Others sat on the shelf for months.

The Denon DL-301 produced one of the most interesting experiences.

A potential buyer came to audition several cartridges. I demonstrated three or four different options. By that point, my ears had become somewhat accustomed to constant comparisons. I had listened to so many cartridges in such a short period of time that few of them stood out dramatically.

The visitor, however, arrived with a completely fresh perspective and after listening to several options, he immediately chose that Denon. There was no hesitation. No comparison charts.  

He simply listened and said, in effect:

“That’s the one.”

And bought it without negotiation. 

Years later, while listening to these recordings blindly, I experienced something remarkably similar. I already knew that some of the tracks had been recorded with expensive cartridges. I knew that some were supposed to be stronger performers than others. Then, somewhere in the middle of the playlist, a particular recording suddenly caught my attention.

“Wait a minute… what is this? Wow!”

The sound had more authority, more coherence, and more musical involvement than I expected from the category I assumed it belonged to.

I looked at the notes, and once again, the answer was the same:

Denon DL-301 - Reference Track number 6

 

       

Paul Gerbert, Independent Audio Consultant

Helping audiophiles navigate an expensive and confusing hobby through smarter decisions and long-term planning.

I haven't read all of it but it seems you are missing one aspect: your experience is unique because you didn't have the abundance of funds and equipment (10s of 1000s of dollars) that most people on this forum do. You didn't restore vintage gear because you felt like it, you did it because that's all that you could put your hands on.

You can make something out of nothing (if you still remember it )

 

My friend, that’s all the point - you didn’t read. Not only I had abundance, I think I had what most people on this forem have multiple 20. Simply because I’ve been a professional dealer for more than 10 years. At some poimt you’re completely right -when I first recorded that Denon it was "something out of nothing". But I re-listened that record today, after I put my hands on all the best stuff you can name in high end world and that record still works even against very strong competitors. That was a surprise and that is why I wrote the article ablut 301.