When is digital going to get the soul of music?

First off, I've never gotten-off on music more than hearing Alex's set-up at his house. I am,also, very grateful that I have an instrument to hear recordings made after 1981(I have, but rarely listen to, lp's made after that.). Alex also has given me a direct to cd recording from an analog lp, that he made. I've been burning in his cd player, also. Eventually, I will compare. Two things bother me, though. One-the music that plays through my head is generally analog. People don't realize what this means. I know that I don't(yet). Two-before modification, my cd player is Class C at stereophile, so cost of music in the home is my other problem. You can get a Rega Planar(or maybe a Music Hall)turntable and get one-dollar albums that, for sure, will bring music into the home. I have an obligation(unlike the audio press) to let the financially-challenged know that.

You know Guidocorona that I won't let it rest. I have to admit using Alex of APL Hi-Fi's modified Denon 3910 and the Jerry Garcia's band's "After Midnight" to move my speakers a little, that it sounds great! To those audiphiles that use only one source, I think that you are crazy and not qualified to comment on this situation(how does that help turntable sales?). Have you guys read what was used in the high-end rooms in Vegas? The fact(I haven't used SACD yet.) is that digital has problems in the highs. I want to boost analog in two ways. One is the relaxation that it provides(and those that use both, feel free to comment). The second is the cost. A Rega Planar(with straight tonearm) is maybe $400? With records at $3 a pop(and if you stick with 1981 or earlier albums), analog is the price leader. For those interested in cheap digital, I would suggest you investigate the Zhalou(mentioned in Head-FI). Rather than ridicule my "playing in your head" comment, I suggest you take it seriously, and when you come to the same conclusion that I did, to ask why? It might be very instuctive.

D_Edwards, thank you very much for your input. I believe that people(including myself) need to re-read what you just said. Guidocorona, you have very good points. I have to mention that I believe that you need to have analog(pre-1982) to enter this debate.

I'm kind of limited on my speakers. I have to get decent off-axis response for my roommate. I have the original DCM Time-Windows. Finances are tight right now, but any suggestions are welcome. D-edwards, I don't understand why you would get rid of music. Analog(pre-1982 albums), even if lacking complete accuracy will get you off on music. There is no question in my mind about that. I understand that it takes tweaking, and people were not forthcoming in the tweaks necessary. You have to take each parameter of a turntable set-up and listen until you hear what it does. You use the objective parameters as a guideline. I am actually a horn-guy as far as speakers go. But boy, the off-axis response, unless you are rich, is terrible. I have to tell you guys this. Alex of APL Hi-Fi(who is modifying my Denon 3910 cd player) played a cd recorded from turntables, and his recording from a Gyrodec(with his AC Power for the motor and his homemade phono preamp) killed a Rockport with Van der Zeal(?, $12,000)preamp.

D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from.

D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from. As far as scientific studies goes, have you heard about muscle-testing digital, and how it makes you weaker(just to mention studies)?

D_Edwards, I heard a cd with Eric Clapton where the guitar sounded too fast. Would surround sound make more sense of this?

Guidocorona, you make a valid point. I believe there is much more variability in digital(I'm sensitive to the point where parts of my body tense-up with certain digital stuff-obviously this is not something we should associate with music!). For instance, my friend bought two cd's recently-Led Zepplen 4 and a Beck album. The Led Zepplin cd made me want to listen to the analog album(My cd player is being updated.). The Beck album tensed my upper left side of my body. Is this what I should associate with music? That's the part I don't get.

The system I heard the too-fast guitar was Alex's of APL Hi-Fi. It was 2 channel. The Eric Clapton cd was maybe made in 1988(or later). I think I only heard one other cd that had what I call digital artifacts(which may not be digital artifacts at all). It was still very listenable. The guitar seemed to suprise me more than anything. Maybe if I had listened to it more than once, my perception would change? Anyhow, I brought it up because in "Absolute Sound" a reviewer mentioned that things that bothered him on two-channel were not a problem on(what I call) surround sound. What about a slight delay making the guitar sound too fast on 2-channel, but making sense on surround?

I don't think that I can take seriously anyone that doesn't have an analog system. What we need here is people that have both(analog and digital). An analog system consists of a belt-driven turntable(Rega, Music Hall, Project, etc.). In addition, it has records produced from 1981 or earlier, or the super-expensive recent releases. If you want details on this, e-mail me. I wouldn't discount a cd system. For one, bass is better to dial-in speaker placement. Just don't ask me to take seriously people who lack a turntable. I say this due to the relaxation quotient of analog. It is positively there with the recordings that I mention(I believe Joseph Valin tried to describe this in other terms-I will simplify it for you.). What we need here is realistic people. Cut the B.S. I have both cd and analog. Try me!

This is being compared to $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Just don't tell me that your memories of analog are equivalent to actual listening. Come on! Let's get something going here. Let's get it right!

I think the problem is that analog provides the baseline(1981 or earlier recordings, unless you want to spend $30 per album). Let me put it this way, both (or maybe three) of my designers have bought or brought back their analog systems. Guidocorona, you need a benchmark, and this is it. Let me say what happened tonight. I played the Beatles "White Album", comparing digital to analog, without an SPL meter. Originally, the analog was much more relaxing, but lacked detail compared to cd(Boy, they are very comparable!). My friend made me play the analog, instead of comparing both, but when I lowered the volume on the digital, I couldn't make up my mind. I repeat, the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cd player is for analog lovers. Alex says that it was compared to analog. For those that don't know Alex, he is straight-up! He tells me 200 hours. This was from the get-go. Still, you need a reference(My reference cost $10,000 in 1992.). I need input from people who have both. I'm sorry, Guidocorona. Cd's vary too much. I've gotten much information on this site about cd's, but let's join reality. There is much more variation on cd than on analog(My recommendation on 1981 or earlier albums is pretty valid.).

You will need to let it break in for 200 hours; it will be even more unbelievable. I can not reveal what exactly is done in your Denon because it’s confidential, but I believe it is in the league with the best all-solid-state digital units on the market today, cost no object. It was indeed developed with pure analog in mind. It was “voiced” and finalized using A-B test with vinyl.



Here is a summary of the mods in your player (this is something that can be revealed):



Linear Power supply for the DSP (Digital Signal Processing).
Low jitter APL Hi-Fi Master Clock
Various extensive power supply upgrades.
Bypassed certain Digital Processors for pure signal path.
Paralleled DACs.
Re-designed filter stage.
Single ended Class “A” MOSFET output buffer.

I really like your moniker, Nilthepill! Is it based on what I think it is? Anyhow, if you read my thread and responses, I really am an analog fan. I don't know about oversamling. You are asking the wrong person about DSP. Maybe someone can help you here? I know Alex mentioned something about it when I went to get my cd player from him. Alex's website is called APL Hi-Fi(I'm computer dumb.). Your question about whether it is just the Denon transport mechanism is unanswerable by me, due to my inexperience. I tried to print Alex's e-mail, but maybe the sensors decided that it was too commercial? I just want to say that Alex voiced it based on analog, and volume seems to be key in my system. I must mention that I've not put the(at least)200 hours on his player that Alex recommends, but you know that equipment only improves with time. I do know that his player has challenged me to fine-tune my analog. I'm not sure if(given my current finances) I can fine-tune my analog enough. I will try to post on Audiogon's analog section about Alex's player.

Alex, I appreciate your defense of me, and I owe you many gifts for your Denon 3910. I have to say, though, that my 1981 and earlier lp's recommendation is based on listening, though.

I'm not completely sure that the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 still costs $2,500. I read on Alex's site that the base Denon 3910(from Denon) has gone up in price. I now listen to cd instead of lp. I've started another thread on Audiogon, "I've found the cd player for analog lovers"(or something like that). My analog system now needs tweaking to become another source(I have 2,000 lp's and 5 cd's-with access to many more cd's). My analog sounds darker(tracking force? At least that's where I'll start.). I just can't believe how this APL 3910 went from something I didn't listen to much(but was needed to access recordings made after 1981) to something that I listen to exclusively. I have some explanations, but this current APL really turned my thinking around. Currently, I think that analog may too easily be colored(if anything is off), and, what I thought was inherent in digital, really isn't. The irritating highs are gone. For example, we played the Beatle's White album in cd and lp. My friend, and I both preferred the vinyl. After he left, I slightly turned down the volume on the cd, and the cd beat the vinyl. I couldn't believe it! I now am wondering about the amount of information with digital. For instance, I had both the cd and XRCD of the Eagles', "Hell Freezes Over". The XRCD had much more detail. It may have included more of the Hall sound. I don't even know what XRCD is, really.

I think that there is much more going on than we think(with apologies to those that have pointed this out in this thread). I just bought 38 cd's for $38. I played a few cuts from each(almost), then I got to Earl Klugh's, "Life Stories". At the back of the cd it said, "The music on this Compact Digital Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape." Well, guess what guys, when I played this cd, it was instant relaxation. Isn't music supposed to relax you? I guess I'm confused. I understand that the digital recording process is not the problem. At least, I've heard cd's from analog turntables, and I've heard cd's(like this one)derived from analog tape, and they are both relaxing like analog. But some cd's aren't relaxing. I think that we need more clarification here. What we have is a cd maker apologizing for maybe lost information, but not understanding how relaxing their own cd is. Is there something wrong with that equation?

Let me just say this. Lp's made from 1981 or earlier are all relaxing(vinyl enthusiasts don't recognize this). I'm trying to codify cd's. What I'm thinking now(and how come a cd neophyte is the one coming up with this?) is that earlier cd's sound better when coming from analog tape, while later cd's(at least 1996) can sound pretty good. I don't know why, but why am I the one even suggesting this? No ears out there?

Audiofeil, I might agree with you. The problem is sometimes with digital we accept less. As an example, I refer to my, "instant relaxation" statement. Audiofeil and D_edwards, we are all after music, aren't we? Surely, as talented as both of you are, we can all get something from both of you? Adhoc(here comes my ignorance), you didn't mention this, but I will repeat it. Ones and zeroes(on or off) aren't music. So what if you sample it at 196khz. What does that mean? It seems to me that you are just not limiting the highs(I may be wrong here.). My cd player(APL Denon 3910) doesn't unsample regular cd's, and the highs are fine(I know, my speakers!). Regular cd's are, what, 44kz? Now, we come to bits(The only stupid question is the one unasked.). 24 bits(or more) versus 16 bits(regular cd)-what does that mean? There are more ones and zeroes within a given physical area? Anyhow, in practical terms, the mechanicals of turntable playback introduce inconsistencies, that with a proper cd-player(i.e., APL 3910) are, to me, about equal. I'm not talking about arm and cartridge here. I'm talking about level, belt, and springs. I once dialed in a turntable correctly(Ariston RD 11e, with Grace 707, and ADC XLM 3), and it involved dropping the motor from the top-board. People(i.e., Fremer of Stereophile) shouldn't discount what Roksan has done with their motor.

Cdwallace, great writing! Adhoc and Nilthepill, the latest Absolute Sound agrees with you. I just wonder about the economics of it. My APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cost me $2500 and beats my $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Now, my analog is old and not completely dialed in, but isn't that why digital was so successful to begin with? Most people didn't dial in their analog, or went with direct-drive. Cdwallace, I understand that you are stating what has been said previously, but do you realize that 5.1 has Dolby involved to make it work? I haven't spent much time looking at this, but I would think that if correction is applied, that the argument that digital is meant for surround sound would have some holes in it, if it requires correction. I have read that the harshness of highs can go away with surround versus two-channel with cd.

CdWallace, you have excellent points. People should listen to what he has said. Can you give us any more insights? My last investigation of analog versus digital revealed that analog was a little more relaxing(but wasn't as detailed). Now, I don't have the most revealing analog setup, and Absolute Sound and Stereophile say that analog is still better than digital. I can only try to improve my analog setup. It takes me about a week to dial in my digital's volume, so I'm reluctant to play analog.

Cdwallace, I appreciate your response. I need to study all that you've said, and I have read what D_Edwards have said. I still wonder why or what correction Dolby does to make 5.1. It just seems to me, that if Dolby has to correct, that maybe digital doesn't quite fit surround. You know what I mean? I'm really going here with, maybe, Oneobgyn, who has both-yet listens mostly in two-channel. These discussions are beyond me, but eventually, I will have to change my speakers, so it is of interest to me.

I will have an oppotunity to listen to 5.1 soon. What I've read is that that the part of digital that is unmusical, becomes less unmusical with surround sound. I, actually, don't care one way or the other. I just really need music in my life.

Cdwallace, it sounds interesting. I've got an outside chance to hear some Yamaha 5.1. I've read some things that say that the highs aren't as disturbing with surround. The 5.1 guy is a psychic vampire, so this may take awhile.(For reference, read the Celestine Prophesy books-although they don't go far enough.) I'm 55 and they are all trying to drain my energy. How smart is that(how many people of this age have excess energy)? Don't worry about trying to explain it to people, it just doesn't work. I guess that it is more important for them to drain energy, than it is to understand energy, and try to increase it for themselves. It's a very interesting concept, but, actually, totally absurd-if you read me carefully.

Cdwallace, sorry, I lost me also. Can I thank those people that mentioned that cd has been getting better(If I go to find their names, I usually lose my "response"). That advice has helped me tremendously! Maybe we should take note of their names, and listen to what else they have to say about things?

I know we are supposed to have live music as a reference, I think that analog is, at least, a reference for digital. By that, I mean that sometimes we don't realize where digital errors, until we hear some analog. Analog is better than no reference at all. That being said, I've been listening to digital exclusively for awhile while I get my analog going. Alex, of APL, proved to me that digital could be music-which I didn't believe when I started this thread.

Boy, from what I read here, can I make English to not be my native tongue? I see nuances with the language, that are beyond my capabilities. Guidocorona, it looks like you are benefiting from your second job. I find that I'm more in the Detlof camp, with one exception. One listening experience at Alex's(APL Hi-Fi)that left me unusually high for a few hours afterward. And it was digital.

If you guys promise not to send the boys with the white coats to my door, I'll tell you what I think was responsible for my getting so high on Alex's system(my current theory). At the time, Alex had built a speaker that had a ribbon tweater that was crossed over at 23khz(I believe.). His system made my very good interconnects sound disjointed(I still use them.). Specificity and instruments sounding like themselves weren't outstanding. I think getting high had to do with the extended bandwith. It almost didn't matter what went on below this. Don't laugh, I'm currently undergoing treatment with a Rife Machine-which uses certain frequencies to kill bacteria and viruses.

I just recently got my analog(Linn Sondek, Ekos, nude Archiv, Lingo, Mana table, Lehmann Black Cube SE) going. It seems to me that if you listen deeply, digital has an end, or something, to the sound(dither?), and analog doesn't. With analog, all you have is the instrument sound, and nothing else. Now, I have heard digital recordings of analog where it seems there is no difference(from Alex of APL), but I no longer have access to these. I will be going to BAAS's session this month where we will compare live versus recorded(both analog and digital). Cookie, who owns her own recording studio and is hosting this session, claims that you have to record to 3 1/2 inch analog tape to get proper sound. I don't know if I've stated this before, but I have the following theory: With analog, you have the iron(?) particles lining up(or changing)due to music. And with digital, you have the recording mechanism imposing(you fit into my one's and zero's-or else..) itself on the music. Maybe that's the difference?

Tbg, I see you have a very resolving system. I am not anti-digital, as I just recently bought 180 cd's, and I feel the damage that digital did to music was mostly done in the past. The only Halcyonic isolator I could find costs $7,500(their headquarters is less than 20 miles from me.). I could imagine that the Halcyonic lowers the noise floor. My Lessloss pc's lowered the noise floor, but I still have reservations about digital. Do you hear a background to digital that isn't natural? Also, do you feel as relaxed after listening to digital as you do after listening to analog(We used to do muscle testing that showed that digital weakened your muscles.)? Shadorne, I will go into my live versus recorded sessions with an open mind, but will revisit what you said after they are over.

This is not a digital versus analog viewpoint on my part. It's about enjoying music. For instance, before I wouldn't listen to lp's made after 1982 in case digital was in the mix somewhere. Even drunk(not me!?), you could feel the relaxing nature of all analog versus analog with some digital. Finally I had to do something, as I had missed all music after 1982. I have a very fine digital setup(APL Denon 3910 and Oritek pre/dac{used at BAAS's recent events}-both with Lessloss pc's), and I hope to build my digital library. That being said, I wonder about the ability of the musician to translate his intent on digital. It seems that maybe analog makes it a song, and digital has sounds that don't seem to quite add up to a song-or you have to listen to it a lot before it becomes a song. Is this due to the lower resolution of redbook cd? Here is where I'm going to show my ignorance/laziness. Don't all these bits and extended frequency sampling still give you either a 1 or a 0?

I want to point out that if it weren't for digital, many advancements in audio would have taken much longer to arrive at, or may not have arrived at all. I'm thinking of power line distortion, power cords(?), line-stages of preamps, speakers, etc.

Tbg,I emailed Ori about your not being able to find his webpage. Mapman,I would like to have more time to listen to his battery-powered Pre/Dac in my system, but for me, you're right about a date that will live in infamy. Some questions still arise in my mind. I would think that somehow the low resolution of standard cd could be heard, but I don't think it will be disturbing. If microphoning would be less ping-pongey with digital, I think that would help with the illusion of music(I'm thinking about one of the Dire Straits cd's.) I think I might prefer listening to mostly digital, but Ori showed that analog is a teeny bit more relaxing, but digital is not tense now(I feel it in my throat.). Analog seemed to fill the spaces between sounds a little unnaturally(cloudy?). Tgb, consider yourself lucky, as I've never heard digital that was music until now.

I haven't looked further into this site, but this does work. http://pwp.att.net/p/pwp-oritekaudio

I don't know if I can articulate this properly. I was playing "Crosby-Nash(a platinum-plus lp), and I asked my brother where the click and pops were. Then I heard some. When I focused on them, it was very disturbing. After thinking about that, one idea came to mind. What if all the non-musical artifacts(maybe rumble,too-anything that didn't have anything to do with the musical message)were separated out in a sense. In other words, when listening to ticks and pops, one also was listening to all(or a lot of)the non-music stuff. That could explain why the ticks and pops drive people crazy.

I want to apologize Aplhifi, for misspelling your name, and thanks for having me over there. I also heard that DVD-A disc that Aplhifi made, and my comment was "this sounds like analog vinyl". I did notice that the most natural sounding discs were originally recorded in analog. That would be an Elvis Pressly recording, a Nat King Cole made by Reference Recordings, plus that DVD-A Aplhifi recorded. This might related to what Jlambrick and the guy who recommended Mapleshade's cd's were saying. C5150, this might relate to your point. Discussions are good.

I have had access to a current spec APL Denon-3910 cd player for about a week, and it's not broken in yet. First, get the cd, "Jerry Garcia Band's" "After Midnight" at Kean College(in Texas), 2/28/1980. You will not regret it. I would think the Grateful Dead site would have it. Since I received this APL, I really haven't listened to analog, and I have a Linn, Ekos, nude Archiv, Mana table, Lingo. I feel that I have to attend to the turntable's setup before I do, and I thought it was sounding pretty good before this. I'm not sure that I can recommend pure digital recordings yet, but I think recordings made in analog, played back on a good cd player are okay. That has to open up more music for people. For instance, the analog lp's that I listen to are 1981 or earlier, because I found digital lp's recorded after that time to be a problem.

I have been drinking(for those ad hominum people-actually that's the only term that I remember from my Logic class- you can discount what I say immediately.). First, I want to mention the Las Vegas show-where analog was featured(according to both the "Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile"). When setting up an analog system, you use objective parameters(such as, levels and recommended tracking forces, etc.). This gives you a goal. I am actually using digital to dial in my speaker's(DCM Time Windows) distance from the wall(Thank you Alex of APL Hi-Fi for your modified Denon 3910(Class C according to Stereophile, before Alex does his magic.). Then you use your ears(with analog, it's no problem). For instance, with 3 feet or 3 springs, they are audible. So is the arm-cable tie-off. I'de err on the side of conservatism(Gemini's don't touch that dial.). You get suprised what does what, no matter what your preconceived notions are. The youngsters out there have actual short-term memory. I suggest you use it. Don't try to use things to make up for deficiencies in the playback mechanism. See what does what, by experimentation. Confusion is confusion. I'de suggest that you don't do anything until it is no longer confusion.

I have to mention here(God forbid) the "Absolute Sound" has two things in its last issue dealing with surround sound(I'm sure this is not the correct term.). One has to do with not auditioning a backlog of cd's. The other had to do with an Outlaw equipment review. I think both relate to what D_edwards has been talking about. I do want to say that Valen is great addition to the "Absolute Sound", in my opinion. Admit it, Guidocorona, you've had some training in the medical field, as I found your terminology to be correct.

What I'm thinking(and I haven't followed digital stuff), is the Dolby stuff that made 5.1's(and I'm not sure that they did), did some kind of delay in the surround situation. If that would be true, it would not sound correct on two channel, but would on surround. Since I don't currently have my cd player(APL Hi-Fi's Denon 3910), I can't give you more specific info. Sorry. I also need to expand my digital library. I'm a little hesitant here. I know that analog(pre-1982) has value. Can you say the same about digital? Although, I've been given some great advice on cd, here and elsewhere, I find myself spending my funds on things that I believe I shouldn't just to keep my credibility. My cd collection and access to cd is a disgrace! I'm now a subsciber to "Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile"(boy, they cost so little!), and it was the last "Absolute Sound". I will try to narrow it down to you, but you have to admit that they are reading this topic.

Wow! I just got back my APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910. I can't believe it. I've only listened to Led Zepplin's, "Houses of the Holy", which I'm not too familiar with, and Neil Young's, "Decade". Let me tell you, I couldn't tell "Decade" from my analog set-up(which is no slouch-Linn, Ekos, nude Archiv, Lingo, and Mana Sound Table). I actually went to my turntable three times while listening to "Decade". Once, when I went to the bathroom, to see where on the record the needle was. I also went to take the arm off the record when the cd was done. I understand that a lot of cd has to do with recording quality. My current understanding is that analog to digital is good, and that later cd's are much better recorded. But, who wouldn't like analog sound with a remote?

I don't know how Alex of APL Hi-Fi did it(he doesn't even have an active turntable-although that will be changing soon.). But for you analog lovers, I believe his APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910, will do the trick. I'm not sure why. Let me give you a little background. He modified my APL Denon 3910. While I was waiting, I upgraded my Nuforce 8.02b's to 8.5's(this mostly had to do with a power cord upgrade, and maybe their footers.). I dialed in anti-skate on my analog(see Mana Acoustics, Hi-Fi Room, "How to tune the Mana Sound Table by Ear".). While I was waiting for the upgrade to my cd player, I raised my signal cables(per Mapleshade). I also separated my signal cords from my cords. I slightly changed my speakers distance from their back-wall. All I can say is that I've only listened to his player since I got it on Sunday. I will investigate further, but I believe analog lovers need to investigate his APL Denon 3910! I will be investigating this further, and provide further info on my set-up. I have dialed in my anti-skate for the tracking force that I'm using. The end result is that I feel I need to fine-tune my analog to be competitive to this cd player.

Very interesting, Adhoc. I too believed that digital was wrong-and it was backed up by listening. Now, I'm not so sure. I've found digital more than tolerable with the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910. Maybe it's due to less than optimum setup of my Linn(circa 1992). But, I no longer, necessarily get tense from all digital. My current interconnect(Oritek X-2) was designed mostly listening to digital. I do have ideas on cd's now. First, cd's made from analog tape are mostly(albeit, maybe, they are a little clinical, but generally that's musically insignificant) okay. Second: cd's made after 1995(approximately) can be excellent. My question here is, was there a breakthrough at this point(1995), or was it incremental improvements(I don't believe the second.)? I have found one cd made earlier that was able to communicate the music message with the cd format(R.E.M.'s, "Automatic for the People"-hell, what do you want for a buck?). I've got to admit that I've not tried turning down the volume of those objectionable cd's, to see what effect that has. D_edwards, when you talk about surround, are you mostly talking about 5.1 cd's?

Mapmann, I start my morning with the "What's Going On" cd(issued 2003). Remember, that was recorded in analog originally. I do think that people recognize there is something too clinical with digital. Guidocorona, the AMA is a political organization, and is dedicated to protecting MD's interests(Although, I read something recently about the AMA selling those interests to the insurance companies.). Actually, the head of the AMA tried to buy the original Rife Machine. Has anyone heard the HRx system from Reference Recordings(as mentioned in the recent issue of Absolute Sound)?

Kijanki, that end to the sound I was describing about cd's might be dither, and if it is, I'm not sure that digital will ever fully satisfy me. Although, if I like the song(like Paula Cole's, "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone" on the 1998 Grammy Nominee's cd), I don't object-or even hear-the end to the sound. Alberporter, do they add this dither to the digital master tapes? Could that be why it takes more "plays" to understand the song on cd, compared to understanding the song on analog? Tvad, I've got a conspiracy theory and/or an excuse that leaves me totally blameless for not reading Albertporter's posts. The conspiracy theory(which might just be an error in processing by Audiogon) is that Audiogon has decided to review my posts before they are posted. The excuse is that I'm getting old, and missed a complete page of postings when I posted. If none of these work, how about the male tendency to not listen, in order to get what we want to say in? I could try Guidocorona's humor distracting me, if you like. That part about the high frequency cut off intrigues me, as I believe allowing the super-high frequencies in was why I got so high listening to cd's at APL. I also want to point out that the true experts on digital(at least here) are those that have heard those digital master tapes. So therefore, what about analog being more relaxing than digital(I think Albertporter said something about this.)? What about dither being what we hear in the deep backgroung? And does it take more "plays" to understand the whole song on digital versus on analog?

Kijanki, thanks for the info, and Albertporter, it was a feeble attempt at humor. I went to the live versus recorded event hosted by BAAS on Saturday. It was held at Cookie's studio(She formerly worked for Windham Hill.). A wonderful musician played acoustic guitar. Unfortunately, we didn't compare digital versus analog recording as I had hoped for. Cookie records to 2-inch analog tape. 5 microphones were used, and it was pointed out that using just 2 microphones has some problems(room, other instruments, etc.). The highs were the area that really stood out, as far as losses are concerned. The complexity of the highs was lost even on the best speaker we had in reproducing the highs( A Lowther cone with a ribbon tweeter. I still don't care for most ribbon tweeters, even after this demonstration.). It was also pointed out that many people in the recording chain may change the sound of the final product. It has me wondering if this is why Linn says it's the beat(foot tapping) we should look for when evaluating audio equipment. For those that are looking for the absolute sound, I would suggest that you only use perfectionist recordings, or ones where you were there, to determine the "absolute sound". After you've done this, let the chips fall where they may. In other words, don't try to optimize your system based on other recordings, because those other recordings may be wrong. I don't know if this technique will work, but theoretically that is what should be done.

What I didn't think was possible(I kept quiet, and was happily listening to[my much improved]analog.)has happened! I will have to verify this in my own system, and it is a prototype. I heard Ori's(Oritek Audio) battery-powered(and not just any battery)Pre/Dac. In fact, I was just discussing if digital was ever going to become music with him, when he used this. The main thing was that you could listen into(and all the way back)the music. The music was whole(like analog)-and not just individual sounds. I could actually live with this! Digital usually makes me tense(and that is my main objection to it). This Pre/Dac wasn't. We switched to analog(upon Ori's insistence), and this was the main difference: Analog was cloudier. Analog's voices maybe were a little more realistic. Separation was interesting. I would say that digital still slightly draws the music to the new sound a little unnaturally(I think this could be taken into account somehow in the recording process). I'm not sure if analog's separation was quite right, either. Analog was slightly(and I mean slightly)more relaxing. Anyway, bottom line, I think an analog-lover could live with this. Nothing I've heard(and I haven't heard everythig, but everyone "oohs" and "ahhs" over slight differences in digital, while it retains the same unlistenable characteristic)to date has made digital into music-until now. To give you an idea, I have heard the Berkeley DAC(modified). While it is closer to analog in sound, it does not cross the threshold into music(for me). I was a little sceptical when Ori asked me to hear his battery powered Pre/Dac, but I should have known better(the preamp section of his pre/dac is world class, his modified Stereo 70 is a poor man's Lamm). I just had no hope for digital as music until now.