When does analog compete with digital?

"I think one of the things that was missed here is why so many (non-audiophiles, mostly) people believe CD's sound better than vinyl"

Perhaps because so many turntable systems are less than optimally set up; and frequently much less than, IMO.

I think they are less than optimally set up because they take a bit of effort, knowledge, tools and investment (accurate scale, strobe) and the average user doesn't understand what's involved with acquiring the best sound from a vinyl rig, or how to get there. The smarter ones have their dealr set them up in thier homes but you still need the ongoing sped checking, VTF, VTA, erc., throughout the TT experience. Very few are set and forget--CD players usually are. You buy a cd player, plug it in and that's pretty much it. A vinyl rig is much more complicated than that. Many TT's are offered as a one box solution, buy it, open it up,hook it up and they lead you to beieve you're good to go, but you probaly aren't and need to read a book, internet article, one of Mickey's DVD's. A CD payer out of the box usually sounds better than a TT out of the box for these very reasons. You won't buy a $10,000 TT and not understand this, but you may buy a $1,000 TT and have no concept of the work involved to set it up properly. I do believe that a $1,000 TT set up properly can outperform a more expensive TT not set up properly. The set up issue is fairly removed from CD players. IC's and PC's and isolation on a CD player are no where as much of an impact as leveling, speed, etc., on a TT.

there are TTs in the market for under 300 Dollars which are better than any CD player without good/expensive DAC. But this is not an attempt to convice you buying this 300 Dollar item...

Jferreir,

I suggest you move the left speaker out of the corner and both speakers away from refractive edges of the desk. It will cost you nothing and will make a huge improvement in imaging and sound.

My apologies for not reading ALL the responses, (lots of them!), but I started back into vinyl with a budget table, cart, and phonostage, thinking that would do just to get a chance to hear more music relatively cheaply. It didn't quite work out that way. I just wasn't satisfied with the fit and finish if the budget table, or the sound for that matter.

Now, $6190 and four years later, my analog finally outdoes digital by a wide margin, on the right recording. I tried to go against my audiophile nature, and settle for less than I normally would in the analog format.

I bought most of my gear (including the Dyna XX2MKII cart with almost no hours on it) used, in great shape here on Audiogon or the figure quoted above would be at least a third higher.

What was I thinking? I'm glad I did it, it suits my hands-on approach to audio. If I had it to do over, I would still do it, but I would learn how to extract the best out of any given group of components before deciding to move onward (and upward in price). If you don't really know how to set up your arm/cartidge, you have no idea how good, or bad, what you have is. It's taken me years to learn the intricacies and variables of set up, and some timely help and advice from such as Dave Garrettson and Doug Deacon, but I finally made it. The knowledge is the most valuable part of the whole system, as without it, you just keep wondering why it doesn't sound as good as you thought it should. But with determination, (it also helps a great deal if you enjoy the process), success can be achieved.

As Elizabeth said, they are different, but analog can and does sound better, when things are optimized (I think there is just more THERE there with analog). I love both formats, but really get a bit more out of analog.

Dan