Parks Audio Waxwing measurements

[Bland_username42069]

I need to get something off my chest, because I feel like the vinyl community is being brainwashed by modern tech marketing.
Look at devices like the Parks Audio Waxwing or other DSP-based phono stages. They take the beautiful, continuous analog signal from your cartridge, immediately smash it into digital 1s and 0s (AD/DA conversion), process it with an app, and then turn it back into analog.
Am I the only one who thinks this completely defeats the entire purpose of playing vinyl?
If I wanted to listen to a 24-bit/96kHz digital file, I would just stream it from Tidal or buy a CD. It’s cheaper, more convenient, and has zero surface noise. The whole reason we spend money on turntables, cartridges, and records is to enjoy a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain from the groove to the speakers. That continuous physical wave is where the "magic" and life of vinyl lives.
Injecting a digital computer right at the start of the chain just to get "perfect RIAA" or digital click-removal is a lazy cop-out. If your setup has so much noise or poor synergy that you need a DSP app to "fix" it, you shouldn't buy a digital phono box—you should just buy a better analog phono stage and learn how to setup your table correctly.
Why are people tolerating AD/DA conversion in a medium that is defined by being analog? Are you guys actually enjoying vinyl, or are you just streaming a record with extra steps?

Any re-release or new record you buy has already been through ad/da during recording / mastering except for a very few examples.

 

[markstein]

I need to get something off my chest, because I feel like the vinyl community is being brainwashed by modern tech marketing.
Look at devices like the Parks Audio Waxwing or other DSP-based phono stages. They take the beautiful, continuous analog signal from your cartridge, immediately smash it into digital 1s and 0s (AD/DA conversion), process it with an app, and then turn it back into analog.
Am I the only one who thinks this completely defeats the entire purpose of playing vinyl?
If I wanted to listen to a 24-bit/96kHz digital file, I would just stream it from Tidal or buy a CD. It’s cheaper, more convenient, and has zero surface noise. The whole reason we spend money on turntables, cartridges, and records is to enjoy a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain from the groove to the speakers. That continuous physical wave is where the "magic" and life of vinyl lives.
Injecting a digital computer right at the start of the chain just to get "perfect RIAA" or digital click-removal is a lazy cop-out. If your setup has so much noise or poor synergy that you need a DSP app to "fix" it, you shouldn't buy a digital phono box—you should just buy a better analog phono stage and learn how to setup your table correctly.
Why are people tolerating AD/DA conversion in a medium that is defined by being analog? Are you guys actually enjoying vinyl, or are you just streaming a record with extra steps?

It seems you are a victim of the marketing fairy tale that digital processing does harm to an analog waveform. If done properly, it does not. However, it does provide many benefit the ancient analog technology cannot offer (like, e.g., linear phase filtering, click removal etc.).

 

[Bob from Florida]

. The whole reason we spend money on turntables, cartridges, and records is to enjoy a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain from the groove to the speakers. That continuous physical wave is where the "magic" and life of vinyl lives.

Perhaps you are unaware that virtually all vinyl records produced since around 1980 were recorded by digital means instead of analog tape. The “magic” of vinyl playback or digital playback is not related to the whether it is pure analog or pure digital. The performance itself and post recording mastering is the “magic” that allows maximum enjoyment. The Waxwing removes the need to spend funds chasing “better performing” cartridges or an expensive “status symbol” phono preamp . You can pick a suitable stylus profile on a reasonably priced cartridge and “fix” the response if needed. You can turn on the “Magic” function if you have a record with”clicks” and make it more listenable. The Waxwing simply gives you”choices” - simple as you want or more involved, at a decidedly low cost.

 

[Sonyman]

Any re-release or new record you buy has already been through ad/da during recording / mastering except for a very few examples.

That is a classic strawman argument, and it completely misses the point of system architecture.
We all know that most modern albums are recorded and mastered digitally in the studio. But once that music is cut onto a vinyl record, the medium itself becomes completely analog. When my cartridge tracks those physical grooves, it generates a continuous analog voltage signal.
My goal with a high-end vinyl playback system is to preserve that specific analog signal from the groove to the speakers without further degradation.
Think about the logic here: If a studio master is digital, the best way to listen to it is to play that exact digital file through a high-end DAC. That gives you the cleanest, most direct route.
But buying a physical vinyl record (which adds mechanical distortion, tracing errors, and surface noise), and then adding a second unnecessary AD/DA conversion stage at home just to process it through a smartphone app? That makes zero engineering sense. You are taking a compromised mechanical medium and adding quantization noise, clock jitter, and two extra conversion stages on top of it.
If you want digital perfection, stream the file. If you are playing the record, keep the playback chain pure analog. Doing AD/DA at home gives you the worst of both worlds: the mechanical flaws of vinyl combined with the processing of digital

 

[Sonyman]

It seems you are a victim of the marketing fairy tale that digital processing does harm to an analog waveform. If done properly, it does not. However, it does provide many benefit the ancient analog technology cannot offer (like, e.g., linear phase filtering, click removal etc.).

I’m not falling for any fairy tales—I’m looking at the actual physics of physical hardware vs. ideal mathematics.
When you say 'if done properly, it does no harm,' you are talking about textbook digital theory. In the real world, an AD/DA phono stage isn't just pure math; it’s a physical box with a budget.
To convert a fragile, sub-millivolt analog signal from a cartridge, you need an analog input stage, an ADC chip, a master clock, digital processing, and a DAC chip. Every single one of these components introduces real-world physical compromises: quantization noise, clock jitter, and thermal noise. You cannot add two complete conversion stages to a micro-signal and claim it does absolute zero harm to the signal-to-noise ratio compared to a single, ultra-clean analog path.
Furthermore, you mention benefits like click removal and linear phase filtering. But as I stated earlier, if you have a well-engineered, ultra-low-noise analog phono stage and you actually clean your records, you don't need those band-aids.
Why compromise the architectural purity of the signal chain with jitter and quantization just to fix clicks that shouldn't be there in the first place, or to get 'perfect' filters to correct a medium that is inherently imperfect?
If I wanted linear phase filtering and zero clicks, I would stream the source file. Adding DSP to a turntable setup is trying to turn a mechanical Ferrari into a Tesla by putting an electric motor in the trunk. It misses the entire engineering ethos of the medium

 

[Sonyman]

Perhaps you are unaware that virtually all vinyl records produced since around 1980 were recorded by digital means instead of analog tape. The “magic” of vinyl playback or digital playback is not related to the whether it is pure analog or pure digital. The performance itself and post recording mastering is the “magic” that allows maximum enjoyment. The Waxwing removes the need to spend funds chasing “better performing” cartridges or an expensive “status symbol” phono preamp . You can pick a suitable stylus profile on a reasonably priced cartridge and “fix” the response if needed. You can turn on the “Magic” function if you have a record with”clicks” and make it more listenable. The Waxwing simply gives you”choices” - simple as you want or more involved, at a decidedly low cost.

You are shifting the goalposts from engineering principles to consumer budgeting.
First, let’s address the claim that you can just buy a cheap cartridge and 'fix' the response in DSP. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of mechanical transducer physics. If a cheap stylus has poor tracking ability, high inner-groove distortion (IGD), or fails to extract micro-details from the groove due to a heavy cantilever, no amount of digital EQ or DSP can recreate that lost data. DSP can change the frequency response (tonal balance), but it cannot recover information that the physical diamond failed to read in the first place. You cannot upscale a blurry mechanical reading into high resolution using code.
Second, regarding the 'status symbol' comment: Investing in a high-quality, ultra-low-noise analog phono stage (like a well-engineered discrete transistor or tube circuit) isn't about chasing a status symbol. It’s about choosing a component designed to do one single job perfectly for the next 30 years without needing a smartphone app, firmware updates, or relying on a Bluetooth connection that will become obsolete when iOS or Android updates drop the protocol.
The Waxwing gives you choices, yes. But it gives you digital choices to solve mechanical problems. If you enjoy using an app to digitally manipulate your turntable playback to make cheap cartridges and dirty records sound 'listenable,' that’s fine.
But don't confuse digital damage-control with high-fidelity analog playback. Some of us prefer to solve analog problems with proper analog engineering—like clean records, correct physical setup, and a transparent analog signal path—rather than using a digital band-aid to simulate what a great system should do naturally

 

[Sonyman]

Probably not. Though you, and those who think like you seem to be missing the point that the AD and DA step don't detract in any way from that "beautiful, continuous analog signal from your cartridge"


The analogue signal that comes out of the waxwing - or any other DAC (if a digital output is used) is audibly 100% identical to the analogue signal going in (except of course for the needed gain and RIAA). So your reasoning for wanting a 100% analogue signal chain - has no basis in sound quality.


No, it isn't. Or yes it is. But either way the wave coming out of the waxwing is just as continuous and objectively just as "magic" as the one that comes out of any analogue phono stage.


It really isn't. From a design perspective it is much simpler to do RIAA in the analogue domain. But going to the effort of doing everything digitally gives you better performance, together with the features the waxwing delivers that simply can't be done in analogue.


For me the enjoyment of vinyl has little to do with absolute sound quality, and certainly nothing to do with "a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain". If it were I would not be doing it, since it can't come close to digital for objective sound quality.




Bottom line - if your reason for listening to vinyl is only so you can have a "pure analogue signal chain" - regardless of the fact you don't get any audible benefit from that - then obviously the waxwing is not for you.

It is for people who desire the obvious sound quality and convenience benefits that the DSP can bring to the vinyl experience.

Saying it has 'no basis in sound quality' because the conversion is theoretically transparent exposes the ultimate logical paradox of the ASR philosophy when applied to vinyl.
If your absolute priority is a 100% transparent, audibly flawless signal chain with zero distortion and zero coloration, why are you playing vinyl in the first place?
By definition, vinyl is a technically compromised, high-distortion, low-dynamic-range mechanical medium compared to modern digital audio. A cartridge tracing a plastic groove introduces tracking errors, inner-groove distortion, and physical cross-talk that no DAC in the world can eliminate.
So, let's look at the actual logic of your setup: You take a heavily distorted, mechanically compromised analog source (vinyl), and then you run it through a transparent AD/DA converter just to output that exact same compromised signal to your speakers.
If the Waxwing's conversion is 100% transparent, it means it is perfectly preserving all the mechanical flaws, rumble, and distortion of the turntable. You haven't achieved 'digital purity'—you've just digitized an imperfect analog wave. If you truly wanted the highest objective sound quality, you would bypass the turntable entirely and stream the digital source file, which has vastly superior SINAD, dynamic range, and channel separation.
Choosing a 100% analog signal chain for vinyl isn't about claiming an analog wire is 'audibly superior' to a perfect transparent DAC. It is about architectural consistency. We play vinyl to enjoy the unique, organic, mechanical process of analog playback. Stuffing a digital converter into that specific chain—just to perfectly digitize a high-distortion medium—is an engineering contradiction.
If I want digital perfection, I use my streamer. If I want the analog experience, I keep the signal chain analog. The Waxwing is an identity crisis in a box


Calling the output wave 'objectively just as continuous' completely glosses over the actual engineering that happens inside a DAC.
An analog wave coming out of a traditional phono stage is a direct, real-time voltage copy of the physical grooves in the vinyl. It has infinite temporal resolution.
The wave coming out of the Waxwing, however, is a reconstructed wave. To get that continuous wave, the DAC chip has to look at the 24-bit/96kHz digital samples and use an interpolation/reconstruction filter to mathematically guess and smooth out the steps between the data points. While the math behind Nyquist-Shannon theorem is brilliant, a reconstructed wave is philosophically and structurally a completely different animal than a direct analog pass-through.
But let's slice through the semantics: You are still defending a system that takes an inherently high-distortion, mechanically compromised medium (vinyl) and introduces quantization noise, clock jitter, and digital filters just to output that same compromised waveform.
If you believe a digitized vinyl wave is 'just as magic' as a pure analog chain, then you’ve effectively turned your turntable into a noisy, expensive, high-maintenance CD player.
If that hybrid compromise makes you happy, that’s great. But for those of us who value architectural purity, we prefer to keep our digital sources digital, and our analog sources analog. Putting a digital processor in the middle of a vinyl chain isn't high fidelity—it’s just a lack of commitment to either format


I appreciate you admitting that doing RIAA in the analog domain is the simpler, more direct design perspective. That is exactly my point about architectural purity.
When you say doing everything digitally gives you 'better performance,' we have to look at what we are actually measuring. If 'performance' to you means achieving a lower RIAA deviation score on an Audio Precision analyzer by using code, then yes, the digital domain wins that math equation.
But if 'performance' means maintaining the lowest possible component complexity, avoiding clock jitter, preventing quantization noise, and keeping a fragile millivolt signal free from unnecessary conversion stages, then a well-engineered analog phono stage is the superior architectural choice.
As for the extra features the Waxwing delivers that 'simply can't be done in analog'—like real-time click removal—I’ll say it one last time: If you have a high-quality, quiet analog frontend and you take care of your records, you simply don't need those features. You are adding a digital cure to a disease that a well-maintained system doesn't have.
Ultimately, it comes down to what you want out of the hobby. If you want a digital toolbox to manage and tweak an imperfect medium via a smartphone app, devices like the Waxwing are great. But if you want to experience the unfiltered, continuous physical beauty of the vinyl format as it was designed, a pure analog signal chain is the only way to go.
Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophy. Happy listening, whether your waves are direct or reconstructed!

We are actually in total agreement on the bottom line.
If your goal is to use DSP as a tool to add convenience, fix clicks, and reshape the frequency response of a technically compromised medium via an app, then the Waxwing is a clever piece of engineering for that specific use case.
But for those of us who embrace vinyl precisely because of its mechanical, uninterrupted analog architecture—and who have built low-noise analog systems where those DSP band-aids aren't necessary—keeping the chain pure is the whole point of the experience.
It simply comes down to two completely different hifi philosophies. Thanks for a great, civil debate. Happy listening to everyone, regardless of how you choose to process your grooves

 

[AaronJ]

It’s not the exact same analog output as analog input. There is a perfect RIAA conversion that is quite difficult to do in the analog domain. Even if the Waxwing did literally nothing else it would be a great value.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Saying it has 'no basis in sound quality' because the conversion is theoretically transparent exposes the ultimate logical paradox of the ASR philosophy when applied to vinyl.
If your absolute priority is a 100% transparent, audibly flawless signal chain with zero distortion and zero coloration, why are you playing vinyl in the first place?
By definition, vinyl is a technically compromised, high-distortion, low-dynamic-range mechanical medium compared to modern digital audio. A cartridge tracing a plastic groove introduces tracking errors, inner-groove distortion, and physical cross-talk that no DAC in the world can eliminate.
So, let's look at the actual logic of your setup: You take a heavily distorted, mechanically compromised analog source (vinyl), and then you run it through a transparent AD/DA converter just to output that exact same compromised signal to your speakers.
If the Waxwing's conversion is 100% transparent, it means it is perfectly preserving all the mechanical flaws, rumble, and distortion of the turntable. You haven't achieved 'digital purity'—you've just digitized an imperfect analog wave. If you truly wanted the highest objective sound quality, you would bypass the turntable entirely and stream the digital source file, which has vastly superior SINAD, dynamic range, and channel separation.
Choosing a 100% analog signal chain for vinyl isn't about claiming an analog wire is 'audibly superior' to a perfect transparent DAC. It is about architectural consistency. We play vinyl to enjoy the unique, organic, mechanical process of analog playback. Stuffing a digital converter into that specific chain—just to perfectly digitize a high-distortion medium—is an engineering contradiction.
If I want digital perfection, I use my streamer. If I want the analog experience, I keep the signal chain analog. The Waxwing is an identity crisis in a box


Calling the output wave 'objectively just as continuous' completely glosses over the actual engineering that happens inside a DAC.
An analog wave coming out of a traditional phono stage is a direct, real-time voltage copy of the physical grooves in the vinyl. It has infinite temporal resolution.
The wave coming out of the Waxwing, however, is a reconstructed wave. To get that continuous wave, the DAC chip has to look at the 24-bit/96kHz digital samples and use an interpolation/reconstruction filter to mathematically guess and smooth out the steps between the data points. While the math behind Nyquist-Shannon theorem is brilliant, a reconstructed wave is philosophically and structurally a completely different animal than a direct analog pass-through.
But let's slice through the semantics: You are still defending a system that takes an inherently high-distortion, mechanically compromised medium (vinyl) and introduces quantization noise, clock jitter, and digital filters just to output that same compromised waveform.
If you believe a digitized vinyl wave is 'just as magic' as a pure analog chain, then you’ve effectively turned your turntable into a noisy, expensive, high-maintenance CD player.
If that hybrid compromise makes you happy, that’s great. But for those of us who value architectural purity, we prefer to keep our digital sources digital, and our analog sources analog. Putting a digital processor in the middle of a vinyl chain isn't high fidelity—it’s just a lack of commitment to either format


I appreciate you admitting that doing RIAA in the analog domain is the simpler, more direct design perspective. That is exactly my point about architectural purity.
When you say doing everything digitally gives you 'better performance,' we have to look at what we are actually measuring. If 'performance' to you means achieving a lower RIAA deviation score on an Audio Precision analyzer by using code, then yes, the digital domain wins that math equation.
But if 'performance' means maintaining the lowest possible component complexity, avoiding clock jitter, preventing quantization noise, and keeping a fragile millivolt signal free from unnecessary conversion stages, then a well-engineered analog phono stage is the superior architectural choice.
As for the extra features the Waxwing delivers that 'simply can't be done in analog'—like real-time click removal—I’ll say it one last time: If you have a high-quality, quiet analog frontend and you take care of your records, you simply don't need those features. You are adding a digital cure to a disease that a well-maintained system doesn't have.
Ultimately, it comes down to what you want out of the hobby. If you want a digital toolbox to manage and tweak an imperfect medium via a smartphone app, devices like the Waxwing are great. But if you want to experience the unfiltered, continuous physical beauty of the vinyl format as it was designed, a pure analog signal chain is the only way to go.
Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophy. Happy listening, whether your waves are direct or reconstructed!

We are actually in total agreement on the bottom line.
If your goal is to use DSP as a tool to add convenience, fix clicks, and reshape the frequency response of a technically compromised medium via an app, then the Waxwing is a clever piece of engineering for that specific use case.
But for those of us who embrace vinyl precisely because of its mechanical, uninterrupted analog architecture—and who have built low-noise analog systems where those DSP band-aids aren't necessary—keeping the chain pure is the whole point of the experience.
It simply comes down to two completely different hifi philosophies. Thanks for a great, civil debate. Happy listening to everyone, regardless of how you choose to process your grooves

 

[Sonyman]

It’s not the exact same analog output as analog input. There is a perfect RIAA conversion that is quite difficult to do in the analog domain. Even if the Waxwing did literally nothing else it would be a great value.

That perfectly crystallizes the core of our disagreement, and it's a great point to close on.
You are valuing the Waxwing for its ability to solve a difficult analog problem (perfect RIAA tracking) using flawless digital mathematics. From a software and processing perspective, you are absolutely correct: code does not suffer from component tolerances, drift, or physical aging. For $500, achieving that level of mathematical precision is indeed a great value on paper.
However, my perspective is rooted in a completely different engineering philosophy. To me, the 'difficulty' of doing RIAA properly in the analog domain isn't a flaw to be bypassed by a digital chip; it is the entire point of high-end analog audio. Premium analog phono stages overcome these challenges through discrete circuit design, hand-matched 0.1% tolerance components, and massive linear power supplies. When done right, analog RIAA deviation is completely negligible and audibly perfect—without introducing a single clock cycle, quantization step, or digital reconstruction filter to a fragile millivolt signal.
Ultimately, it’s a choice between two valid but incompatible ideals:

• The DSP approach: Using modern digital precision to fix and optimize an inherently imperfect physical medium.
• The Pure Analog approach: Embracing the mechanical, continuous signal path and solving analog challenges with high-level analog engineering.

Since my system already achieves an incredibly quiet, dynamic, and noise-free presentation through traditional analog design, adding an AD/DA box simply offers a digital solution to a problem my setup doesn't have.

 

[Bland_username42069]

That perfectly crystallizes the core of our disagreement, and it's a great point to close on.
You are valuing the Waxwing for its ability to solve a difficult analog problem (perfect RIAA tracking) using flawless digital mathematics. From a software and processing perspective, you are absolutely correct: code does not suffer from component tolerances, drift, or physical aging. For $500, achieving that level of mathematical precision is indeed a great value on paper.
However, my perspective is rooted in a completely different engineering philosophy. To me, the 'difficulty' of doing RIAA properly in the analog domain isn't a flaw to be bypassed by a digital chip; it is the entire point of high-end analog audio. Premium analog phono stages overcome these challenges through discrete circuit design, hand-matched 0.1% tolerance components, and massive linear power supplies. When done right, analog RIAA deviation is completely negligible and audibly perfect—without introducing a single clock cycle, quantization step, or digital reconstruction filter to a fragile millivolt signal.
Ultimately, it’s a choice between two valid but incompatible ideals:

• The DSP approach: Using modern digital precision to fix and optimize an inherently imperfect physical medium.
• The Pure Analog approach: Embracing the mechanical, continuous signal path and solving analog challenges with high-level analog engineering.

Since my system already achieves an incredibly quiet, dynamic, and noise-free presentation through traditional analog design, adding an AD/DA box simply offers a digital solution to a problem my setup doesn't have.

This is a fair point of view imo. If you are just playing good condition stereo records with a flat frequency response cart then I don’t think Waxwing offers anything to change.

Nothing wrong with wanting a purely analog set up either.

Personally it’s when you’re playing 78s and scratched mono that it really excels - then there isn’t anything to rival it at any price.

Timestep, Soulnote, Thoress, Mola Mola etc are all many thousands of dollars and waxwing is still the better phono stage (imo)

 

[markstein]

I’m not falling for any fairy tales—I’m looking at the actual physics of physical hardware vs. ideal mathematics.
When you say 'if done properly, it does no harm,' you are talking about textbook digital theory. In the real world, an AD/DA phono stage isn't just pure math; it’s a physical box with a budget.
To convert a fragile, sub-millivolt analog signal from a cartridge, you need an analog input stage, an ADC chip, a master clock, digital processing, and a DAC chip. Every single one of these components introduces real-world physical compromises: quantization noise, clock jitter, and thermal noise. You cannot add two complete conversion stages to a micro-signal and claim it does absolute zero harm to the signal-to-noise ratio compared to a single, ultra-clean analog path.
Furthermore, you mention benefits like click removal and linear phase filtering. But as I stated earlier, if you have a well-engineered, ultra-low-noise analog phono stage and you actually clean your records, you don't need those band-aids.
Why compromise the architectural purity of the signal chain with jitter and quantization just to fix clicks that shouldn't be there in the first place, or to get 'perfect' filters to correct a medium that is inherently imperfect?
If I wanted linear phase filtering and zero clicks, I would stream the source file. Adding DSP to a turntable setup is trying to turn a mechanical Ferrari into a Tesla by putting an electric motor in the trunk. It misses the entire engineering ethos of the medium

If you would have understood how digital audio works, and what are the limitations of analog vinyl playback vs (even low cost) digital playback, you would lean back, relax and enjoy vinyl playback through your Waxwing. There are plenty of threads and plenty of measurements on this site you could study - you would come to the same conclusion.

My feeling is, however, that you have no interest to deviate from your "analog signal integrity" storyline. Well, your choice

 

[Sonyman]

If you would have understood how digital audio works, and what are the limitations of analog vinyl playback vs (even low cost) digital playback, you would lean back, relax and enjoy vinyl playback through your Waxwing. There are plenty of threads and plenty of measurements on this site you could study - you would come to the same conclusion.

My feeling is, however, that you have no interest to deviate from your "analog signal integrity" storyline. Well, your choice

I understand perfectly well how digital audio works, and I don’t dispute the measurements or the math behind the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. If my goal were absolute objective performance, transparency, and high SINAD, I wouldn't be messing around with physical vinyl records, counterweights, alignment protractors, and mechanical styli in the first place.
That is the core disconnect here. You are viewing vinyl as a flawed medium that needs to be digitally corrected and managed via an app to become acceptable. I view vinyl as a mechanical, analog art form that is meant to be experienced through dedicated analog engineering.
There is no 'storyline' here—just a clear choice of system architecture. I prefer to let my streamer handle digital perfection, and let my high-end analog phono stage handle the unique beauty of an all-analog playback chain.
We can both lean back, relax, and enjoy our music. You enjoy your digital correction toolbox, and I’ll enjoy my analog signal integrity. Thanks for the discussion

 

[Bob from Florida]

You are shifting the goalposts from engineering principles to consumer budgeting.
First, let’s address the claim that you can just buy a cheap cartridge and 'fix' the response in DSP. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of mechanical transducer physics. If a cheap stylus has poor tracking ability, high inner-groove distortion (IGD), or fails to extract micro-details from the groove due to a heavy cantilever, no amount of digital EQ or DSP can recreate that lost data. DSP can change the frequency response (tonal balance), but it cannot recover information that the physical diamond failed to read in the first place. You cannot upscale a blurry mechanical reading into high resolution using code.
Second, regarding the 'status symbol' comment: Investing in a high-quality, ultra-low-noise analog phono stage (like a well-engineered discrete transistor or tube circuit) isn't about chasing a status symbol. It’s about choosing a component designed to do one single job perfectly for the next 30 years without needing a smartphone app, firmware updates, or relying on a Bluetooth connection that will become obsolete when iOS or Android updates drop the protocol.
The Waxwing gives you choices, yes. But it gives you digital choices to solve mechanical problems. If you enjoy using an app to digitally manipulate your turntable playback to make cheap cartridges and dirty records sound 'listenable,' that’s fine.
But don't confuse digital damage-control with high-fidelity analog playback. Some of us prefer to solve analog problems with proper analog engineering—like clean records, correct physical setup, and a transparent analog signal path—rather than using a digital band-aid to simulate what a great system should do naturally

If you read my post - I did say to “pick a stylus profile”. In my experience, that means Shibata or Microline. Either will be sufficient to track well and extract the groove information. The Audio Technica VM95 cartridge can be fitted with Shibata, Microline, etc. Cost with Shibata is $229 - one of the best bargains out there. Once you go to high dollar moving coils - you’ll need to make up the gain required. There are multiple paths to doing this - MC Head amps, step up transformers, select higher gain on existing phono preamp, etc. Plus, you give up the ability to replace the stylus when it wears out. As far as clean records, proper setup, and transparency in playback - I have all of that. The only way you can get “pure analog” is with an old recording done prior to digital performance recording than started around 1980. Even then, you had the inherent issues with recording to tape. I have a number of Sheffield Labs albums that were direct to disc recordings that are excellent recordings free of tape issues. But that is rarely done anymore and if we are honest, the digital recordings that are well mastered are great listens on either platform - vinyl or digital playback. There is a reason the industry went digital when recording performances- it eliminates tape issues and provides a storage medium that does not degrade over time.
Now, none of this may change your belief that “all analog” is the only pure path. The reality is that “all analog” is not readily available due to the recordings being digital nowadays.

 

[Sonyman]

If you read my post - I did say to “pick a stylus profile”. In my experience, that means Shibata or Microline. Either will be sufficient to track well and extract the groove information. The Audio Technica VM95 cartridge can be fitted with Shibata, Microline, etc. Cost with Shibata is $229 - one of the best bargains out there. Once you go to high dollar moving coils - you’ll need to make up the gain required. There are multiple paths to doing this - MC Head amps, step up transformers, select higher gain on existing phono preamp, etc. Plus, you give up the ability to replace the stylus when it wears out. As far as clean records, proper setup, and transparency in playback - I have all of that. The only way you can get “pure analog” is with an old recording done prior to digital performance recording than started around 1980. Even then, you had the inherent issues with recording to tape. I have a number of Sheffield Labs albums that were direct to disc recordings that are excellent recordings free of tape issues. But that is rarely done anymore and if we are honest, the digital recordings that are well mastered are great listens on either platform - vinyl or digital playback. There is a reason the industry went digital when recording performances- it eliminates tape issues and provides a storage medium that does not degrade over time.
Now, none of this may change your belief that “all analog” is the only pure path. The reality is that “all analog” is not readily available due to the recordings being digital nowadays.

You make some excellent points here, and I completely agree with your take on hardware value.
An Audio-Technica VM95 with a Microline or Shibata stylus is indeed one of the absolute best bargains in audio. It tracks phenomenally well and extracts an incredible amount of detail without the high cost and retipping headaches of moving coils. You also hit the nail on the head regarding Sheffield Lab direct-to-disc pressings—they are legendary for a reason, and they showcase exactly what the format was capable of before the digital era.
We also agree that modern digital recording and mastering have done wonders for eliminating tape hiss, print-through, and speed instabilities. Nobody is arguing that analog tape was perfect.
Where our perspectives simply diverge is the distinction between the source and the playback architecture.
You are completely right that a pure analog source is rare today because of digital studio chains. But to me, the 'magic' or the purpose of the hobby isn't about maintaining a pristine historical chain from 1970; it’s about the physical process happening in my living room right now.
When that Microline diamond tracks the groove, it creates a real-time, continuous analog voltage wave. My choice to use a traditional, ultra-low-noise analog phono stage is simply about preserving that specific physical wave from the turntable to the speakers without chopping it into 1s and 0s at the very last leg of its journey.
It's not a religious belief about purity; it's just a preference for a dedicated, single-purpose analog signal path for an analog medium.
You’ve built a great, optimized system with the Waxwing that suits your philosophy perfectly. I’ve built one that suits mine. Thanks for a genuinely great and insightful discussion—this is what forum debates should look like

 

[markstein]

I understand perfectly well how digital audio works, and I don’t dispute the measurements or the math behind the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. If my goal were absolute objective performance, transparency, and high SINAD, I wouldn't be messing around with physical vinyl records, counterweights, alignment protractors, and mechanical styli in the first place.
That is the core disconnect here. You are viewing vinyl as a flawed medium that needs to be digitally corrected and managed via an app to become acceptable. I view vinyl as a mechanical, analog art form that is meant to be experienced through dedicated analog engineering.
There is no 'storyline' here—just a clear choice of system architecture. I prefer to let my streamer handle digital perfection, and let my high-end analog phono stage handle the unique beauty of an all-analog playback chain.
We can both lean back, relax, and enjoy our music. You enjoy your digital correction toolbox, and I’ll enjoy my analog signal integrity. Thanks for the discussion

Thanks for the further clarification. I partially can follow your reasoning.

Yes, I think (I know) that vinyl is a flawed medium, however, I made a conscious decision to use it as an option to Tidal streaming as it slows me down. It feels different than digital streaming using an app. It requires care for cartridge and tonearm setup. It requires care to clean the medium. This makes the process of listening to music more tedious but also more conscious (others would surely disagree!)

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with analog signal integrity - for me. Maybe that is because my loudspeakers use digital x-overs, and I am using a purely digital system anyway. So sooner or later every signal going through my chain has to be digitized, and in case of vinyl playback, sooner is clearly better.

If you go purely analog, you not only miss the benefits of the many settings of a Waxwing DSP phono preamp, but - more important - also miss the opportunity of using modern DSP to enhance your in- room bass reproduction. That is a high price to pay for nostalgia!

 

[antcollinet]

You are taking a compromised mechanical medium and adding quantization noise, clock jitter,

Again you don't seem to understand the near perfection of digital compared to the imperfections of your vinyl system.


The noise floor of 24bit digital is at least 3 orders of magnitude lower than the noise floor of vinyl. All that quantisation noise is some 75dB below the surface noise of vinyl - that is 1/5600 of the level, and completely masked by it even when the music is silent.

Similarly jitter hasn't been audible in competent DACs for decades - if it ever was. Even less so in the waxwing with synchronised input and output clocks. And again is orders of magnitude below the wow and flutter of your turntable.

You are falling for all the old "digital bogeymen" that you keep reading about elsewhere without seeming to grasp that they have zero audible impact.

Desiring a 100% analogue chain might be what you desire - but again - it brings you nothing that is audible as a benefit.


Now I've spent enough time trying to shine a light into the darker corners of your understanding. As for your wall of text above in reply to my previous post - life is too short. I'm out.

 

[antcollinet]

Saying it has 'no basis in sound quality' because the conversion is theoretically transparent exposes the ultimate logical paradox of the ASR philosophy when applied to vinyl.
If your absolute priority is a 100% transparent, audibly flawless signal chain with zero distortion and zero coloration, why are you playing vinyl in the first place?
By definition, vinyl is a technically compromised, high-distortion, low-dynamic-range mechanical medium compared to modern digital audio. A cartridge tracing a plastic groove introduces tracking errors, inner-groove distortion, and physical cross-talk that no DAC in the world can eliminate.
So, let's look at the actual logic of your setup: You take a heavily distorted, mechanically compromised analog source (vinyl), and then you run it through a transparent AD/DA converter just to output that exact same compromised signal to your speakers.
If the Waxwing's conversion is 100% transparent, it means it is perfectly preserving all the mechanical flaws, rumble, and distortion of the turntable. You haven't achieved 'digital purity'—you've just digitized an imperfect analog wave. If you truly wanted the highest objective sound quality, you would bypass the turntable entirely and stream the digital source file, which has vastly superior SINAD, dynamic range, and channel separation.
Choosing a 100% analog signal chain for vinyl isn't about claiming an analog wire is 'audibly superior' to a perfect transparent DAC. It is about architectural consistency. We play vinyl to enjoy the unique, organic, mechanical process of analog playback. Stuffing a digital converter into that specific chain—just to perfectly digitize a high-distortion medium—is an engineering contradiction.
If I want digital perfection, I use my streamer. If I want the analog experience, I keep the signal chain analog. The Waxwing is an identity crisis in a box


Calling the output wave 'objectively just as continuous' completely glosses over the actual engineering that happens inside a DAC.
An analog wave coming out of a traditional phono stage is a direct, real-time voltage copy of the physical grooves in the vinyl. It has infinite temporal resolution.
The wave coming out of the Waxwing, however, is a reconstructed wave. To get that continuous wave, the DAC chip has to look at the 24-bit/96kHz digital samples and use an interpolation/reconstruction filter to mathematically guess and smooth out the steps between the data points. While the math behind Nyquist-Shannon theorem is brilliant, a reconstructed wave is philosophically and structurally a completely different animal than a direct analog pass-through.
But let's slice through the semantics: You are still defending a system that takes an inherently high-distortion, mechanically compromised medium (vinyl) and introduces quantization noise, clock jitter, and digital filters just to output that same compromised waveform.
If you believe a digitized vinyl wave is 'just as magic' as a pure analog chain, then you’ve effectively turned your turntable into a noisy, expensive, high-maintenance CD player.
If that hybrid compromise makes you happy, that’s great. But for those of us who value architectural purity, we prefer to keep our digital sources digital, and our analog sources analog. Putting a digital processor in the middle of a vinyl chain isn't high fidelity—it’s just a lack of commitment to either format


I appreciate you admitting that doing RIAA in the analog domain is the simpler, more direct design perspective. That is exactly my point about architectural purity.
When you say doing everything digitally gives you 'better performance,' we have to look at what we are actually measuring. If 'performance' to you means achieving a lower RIAA deviation score on an Audio Precision analyzer by using code, then yes, the digital domain wins that math equation.
But if 'performance' means maintaining the lowest possible component complexity, avoiding clock jitter, preventing quantization noise, and keeping a fragile millivolt signal free from unnecessary conversion stages, then a well-engineered analog phono stage is the superior architectural choice.
As for the extra features the Waxwing delivers that 'simply can't be done in analog'—like real-time click removal—I’ll say it one last time: If you have a high-quality, quiet analog frontend and you take care of your records, you simply don't need those features. You are adding a digital cure to a disease that a well-maintained system doesn't have.
Ultimately, it comes down to what you want out of the hobby. If you want a digital toolbox to manage and tweak an imperfect medium via a smartphone app, devices like the Waxwing are great. But if you want to experience the unfiltered, continuous physical beauty of the vinyl format as it was designed, a pure analog signal chain is the only way to go.
Let's just agree to disagree on the philosophy. Happy listening, whether your waves are direct or reconstructed!

We are actually in total agreement on the bottom line.
If your goal is to use DSP as a tool to add convenience, fix clicks, and reshape the frequency response of a technically compromised medium via an app, then the Waxwing is a clever piece of engineering for that specific use case.
But for those of us who embrace vinyl precisely because of its mechanical, uninterrupted analog architecture—and who have built low-noise analog systems where those DSP band-aids aren't necessary—keeping the chain pure is the whole point of the experience.
It simply comes down to two completely different hifi philosophies. Thanks for a great, civil debate. Happy listening to everyone, regardless of how you choose to process your grooves

It ok. We get it - you think the waxwing is stupid.

But you don't have any technically valid arguments to convince anyone else that you have a reasonable basis for your opinion.

Just select an analogue phono stage and move on. You are otherwise wasting your - and our - time here.

 

[Timmeon]

I need to get something off my chest, because I feel like the vinyl community is being brainwashed by modern tech marketing.
Look at devices like the Parks Audio Waxwing or other DSP-based phono stages. They take the beautiful, continuous analog signal from your cartridge, immediately smash it into digital 1s and 0s (AD/DA conversion), process it with an app, and then turn it back into analog.
Am I the only one who thinks this completely defeats the entire purpose of playing vinyl?
If I wanted to listen to a 24-bit/96kHz digital file, I would just stream it from Tidal or buy a CD. It’s cheaper, more convenient, and has zero surface noise. The whole reason we spend money on turntables, cartridges, and records is to enjoy a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain from the groove to the speakers. That continuous physical wave is where the "magic" and life of vinyl lives.
Injecting a digital computer right at the start of the chain just to get "perfect RIAA" or digital click-removal is a lazy cop-out. If your setup has so much noise or poor synergy that you need a DSP app to "fix" it, you shouldn't buy a digital phono box—you should just buy a better analog phono stage and learn how to setup your table correctly.
Why are people tolerating AD/DA conversion in a medium that is defined by being analog? Are you guys actually enjoying vinyl, or are you just streaming a record with extra steps?

I think your perspective is valid but I'd argue it completely misses the point. The pure analog signal is not the point, at all, for me. It's the ritual. Finding records out in the wild, some new and others very very used. Bringing them home, physical tangible things with memories associated. Then, there's the ritual in playing them back. That's it. Nothing precious about preserving some concept of analog integrity. I don't give a f*@# about that and most people probably don't either. That's not the point. At all. The point is the ritual. Collecting, listening. The analog purity is silly to me. For what?

That's just me.

 

[SteveC]

I need to get something off my chest, because I feel like the vinyl community is being brainwashed by modern tech marketing.
Look at devices like the Parks Audio Waxwing or other DSP-based phono stages. They take the beautiful, continuous analog signal from your cartridge, immediately smash it into digital 1s and 0s (AD/DA conversion), process it with an app, and then turn it back into analog.
Am I the only one who thinks this completely defeats the entire purpose of playing vinyl?
If I wanted to listen to a 24-bit/96kHz digital file, I would just stream it from Tidal or buy a CD. It’s cheaper, more convenient, and has zero surface noise. The whole reason we spend money on turntables, cartridges, and records is to enjoy a 100% pure, uninterrupted analog signal chain from the groove to the speakers. That continuous physical wave is where the "magic" and life of vinyl lives.
Injecting a digital computer right at the start of the chain just to get "perfect RIAA" or digital click-removal is a lazy cop-out. If your setup has so much noise or poor synergy that you need a DSP app to "fix" it, you shouldn't buy a digital phono box—you should just buy a better analog phono stage and learn how to setup your table correctly.
Why are people tolerating AD/DA conversion in a medium that is defined by being analog? Are you guys actually enjoying vinyl, or are you just streaming a record with extra steps?

"People take different roads seeking fulfilment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost." - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.