When is digital going to get the soul of music?

On the topic of both music and photography, and digital versus analog.

A great LP record (even from a digital master) is capable of delivering more information than a CD, and until digital is available in a format that's closer to the digital master, this will remain true.

The digital (or analog) master tape is not the issue here, the CD format is.

If any of you could hear a master digital tape (or hard drive) and compare that to CD or LP, you would realize how much we've been screwed. The problem with digital is when that great master is "moved" for public distribution.

The fact that we're discussing a 131 year old format in Audiogon forums along side modern digital is an absolute embarrassment to the state of digital delivery.

Moving that master digital signal from one place to another and from one sample rate to another does it so much harm it cannot be repaired. Then to make matters worse, our only choice is an outdated format that's too low a sample rate to replicate what was on the master.

However, when you convert that super high rez digital master to analog at the hard drive, it is a more effective way to preserve content. My comment would not be true if CD was EQUAL resolution as what was used to master THE LP. All this, allowing for the multiple errors in the mechanical process of CD and LP.

This is not something I made up, I know two of the most famous people in the recording business and this is what they say and how I got my info.

I originally said two things, so second, when the discussion about film and digital capture is brought up in music threads there is a huge factor that everyone forgets.

With music, the recording studio is the creator. THEY set the quality of format and then the record companies decide how much quality you are allowed to own.

With digital photography, the photographer is the creator and sets the quality of the format by choosing whatever capture engine (chip and camera) they are willing to pay for. They choose the lens, the processing engine and output quality. Perhaps most important, they can preserve their work in the highest possible bit rate, color, format and with NO compression at all.

Digital photography is limited only by what you are willing to pay and how much work you're willing to put in and every few months the format is improved. REAL improvement with better chips and higher resolution delivered to the end user.

So basically, the difference is that in photography you set the quality limit and in music you have no choice. With an LP you get a more true representation of the music regardless if the master was analog or digital.

With CD, you get a severely downsampled format that's only a shadow of what could be if the format had evolved this last 25 years.

Would you be happy with a computer based on 25 year old technology and zero upgrades? Before you say analog is even older. Remember analog is not a sample of the signal, it is the analog (or complete) signal and it's problems have be open to change and evolution for all 131 years.

Analog has evolved, it's better than it's ever been and although digital has evolved a great deal, it cannot escape the format that's required by law to conform to so it plays in ALL Red Book capable machines.

As for the future, I agree with the digital guys that digital is here to stay and also believe that digital could surpass analog. The problem is, the music business is run by marketing people that don't give a damn about what's the best quality, they want what's easy to package, has the fewest returns, costs the least to ship and offers the highest possible profit.

When you look at Apple, now surpassing even WalMart in music sales with MP3 downloads by the hundreds of millions of dollars, do you really think the guys in the music business care about audiophiles? We represent no market at all.

So basically we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Digital masters are superb and analog masters are superb. Which are better? Probably depends on the engineer and the equipment.

But from EITHER master, what is offered to the public is very limited. A direct conversion from digital to analog at the studio and an LP capable of delivering a good percentage of what was on the tape.

Or, a mixed down, degraded CD with sampling rate that should have been discarded years ago. If CD had been upgraded to match what's on the master tape, I would not be on this forum making these comments.

I hope I live long enough to see REAL PROGRESS with high rez digital. Until then, it's LP for me as the ultimate source (omitting my master analog tapes, but that's another discussion).

Mapman, you posted while I was composing my response.

I agree that digital could be great and said so in my original post. As for your experience with digital being better in some cases, I have yet to have that happen in my system. There have been hundreds of tests on my system over the years, sometimes involving manufacturers and even other reviewers.

However, I have had master digital files played here and also at a friends home and you have no idea what a digital master is capable of.

Source is everything! You cannot fix the problem downstream no matter how good the other equipment is.

Mapman, again I was composing my response when your post went up, sorry to be out of sync.

I have not compared that recording of the Moody Blues, I'm pretty sure I have the LP but not the CD. Then again, even if I wanted to conduct tests again, I would need to get a high end loaner digital playback system.

With my current Blue Ray player serving all my digital sources, I have no expectations it can serve as a comparison. I had a $16K D to A box here about 2 months ago and it was really nice. Still not analog but I would sure buy it if it were about one third that price.

Gotta crash, I've been up nearly 18 hours. I'll visit tomorrow with a clear head and see what gems have been posted.

Did it get the "soul" of the music?

Since my comparison was made only between the commercial CD release and the artists personal copy of a digital master, there was no analog to judge by.

Part of why I was listening was because my friend was angry that the manufacturer had "ruined" his CD release. I explained that CD was not capable of what he heard on the master and he was very disappointed.

An absolutely excellent post Learsfool.

I was not aware that digital had these inherent flaws. I always thought that given sufficient sampling rate, it would eventually sound like analog.

I have quite a few LP's pressed from digital masters and some of them do very well, sounding as much like analog masters as not.

I'm saying this, assuming Alison Krauss, "live" (2002) and Radiohead, "Kid A" would be samples of digital masters. I cannot imagine either would be analog considering when they were recorded.

I have some recordings, ECM in particular that sound digital, even though they are LP's. The one's that come to mind are older stuff from the 1980's.

This is why I made the claim that a great digital master converted to analog at the studio and pressed as an LP can be wonderful.

Tomcy6, no reason we can't listen to a broken AM radio, our iPod, car radio, satellite music, Labtec computer speaker and Panasonic bedside FM.

What's wrong with having all these mediocre sources and a couple of excellent ones as well?

I own all these listed above, as well as an old Cathedral Radio that sits on my roll top desk. If you think any of those get you closer to the emotion and passion of music than a really excellent high end system, then you have not listened to the right high end system.

If it's not worth it to you, no need to be defensive. Audiogon is a high end site and you can expect some of us are pretty happy with the energy we've put into our systems and the rewards we reap from the work.

Muralman1,

Audiogon member Logenn owned the same Audio Note unit as you, it's a great sounding DAC. This is a musical DAC not hard sounding like many. In some ways you've chosen the same path I'm discussing but with better resolution than the cheap entry level CD players I mentioned.

I think you would be surprised at the acceptable level the new Pioneer Elite Blue Ray does with common CD's. Sure your rig is better but neither is up there with LP and my player was $435.00.

That's were I differ, I either want it to be as perfect as possible or not spend much money. If there was a digital that was equal to my LP rig I would pay whatever the asking price is.

No DCS or Meitner in my system recently. I did hear the old DCS from a few years ago but assume they are much better now.

Doing show coverage, I've heard all the hot models multiple times at various venues but I guess that really does not count.

I've have had the Levinson two piece system, the Lindemann, Audio Note, Wadia, Theta and recently the Stahl-Tek in my system in the last three or so years.

My good friend Louis, who is part of my audio group has owned several digital players recently. A CEC transport with two different Audio Note DAC's, one single ended and one balanced. The Stibbert, Cary and another one that I can't recall right now.

His system is very familiar to me, he has same preamp and phono, Walker table, a Garrard 301 with Triplanar and a Technics SP 10 MK3 with SME 312S (same as me). Also a Dynavector XV1S, Air Tight PC-1, Schroeder reference and Allaerts cartridge.

So, by comparing all these tables, arms and cartridges against my own and against the players in my system and the ones he's previously owned, I get a good idea about performance.

I agree there is better sound with these more expensive players and DAC's. I guess my problem is spending $15K or 20K (or whatever) to get sound that's not as pleasing as my LP rig. I've said it before and I'm not kidding. If I could find a digital player that was equal to my vinyl rig I would buy it, assuming I could afford it.

I should confess here and now, I just ordered a new Air Tight cartridge that's coming into the market. Valin has one already and Jacob at Absolute Sound and I are both getting one of the five that arrive in the USA next week.

This new Air Tight is called the Supreme and according to all my reliable sources this will be one of the finest phono cartridges ever. The importer says it's a good 30% better than my PC-1, which I cannot imagine, since the PC-1 killed my Koetsu Jade Platinum Signature.

I think Hoover uprights suck.

May all his pieces go back together and pass for analog :^).

Some of those CD's could be digital versions of RCA "Shaded Dogs."

digital arrived last night around 1am at the bus station in Tucson, and was promptly picked up by the soul of music.

Digital was lucky that night, that bus station can be a rough place.

One weekend when my digital came in late it was chopped into tiny bits, just ones and pieces so small you could call them zeros.

I'll drink to that..

Learsfool, My friend who works for very large recording studio said that they got rid of very expensive analog tape recorders more than 10 years ago and everything since is done digital.

And many sites such as Apple have no intention of offering LP or master tape dubs because they make millions selling MP3.

Lets not confuse commercial interests with quality.

I have friends in the recording business and all of them say analog is still the best. There are high resolution files that pretty much equal analog but we mortals here at Audiogon have NO access to them.

Audiogon is about audiophiles and love of music. I understand the desire to make CD the best it can be, there are thousands of titles on CD that may never be on any other format. BUT as for best reproduction regardless of format, analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital.

I've explained that in other posts but can repeat here if you wish.

It's so close to Christmas I think it's time to spin some serious holiday music:

Jingle

One of the few holiday CDs I'll play on my system.

Well said Albert! Thank God for Reference Recordings HRx! This is probably as good as a mortal can get. :-) I am in total disbelief listening to these converted to LPCM DVD-A on my NWO-M! Amazing!

I guess what is not realized on this thread is that the best analog is what the best sound comes from, and if you can get digital to sound close enough, you already have a winner. IMO, of course.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev

Having good digital is important for anyone who wants to hear those artists that don't release on LP.

I wish there was a CD player that allowed me to listen without being constantly reminded of it's flaws.

That being said I have heard positive things about your players if you're the Alex Peychev that does all the digital work.

My friend Joe Harley who's behind the Blue Note Jazz Vinyl Reissues at Music Matters was also responsible for the JVC HRCD project. Joe and I have been friends for 30+ years, he has an incredible ear !

Joe told me that the best digital, sitting on the drive in the studio was enough to make analog guys like he and I appreciate what digital can do. He then explained that every time It’s moved or transferred, reclocked or down sampled it takes a huge hit.

I think there is a lot going on with digital clock speed, error rate and bit problems that really screw with the sound. Eventually this problem will be solved but I'm not going to wait.

When digital gets where it should be and for a price I can justify, I'll jump on board. I have digital right now but it's an Oppo.

Oppo is "OK" at best, but priced like a used interconnect here at Audiogon :^). So, the fact it has flaws is acceptable for price paid.

The problem is many players that cost $15K, 20K $45K and more beats the stuffings out of the Oppo but still gets creamed by my Studer and turntable. With that much invested in digital I'd be pissed.

Hope I live long enough for it to be fixed. I think the technology is there but like I've posted here at Audiogon a dozen times, as long as Apple is making hundreds of millions selling MP3, the guys capable of issuing (true) high resolution digital are not even looking.

I can very much sympathise with your "battle", as in many ways I have gone through similar myself: the difference being that in my case I was able to reach a positive, rather than negative outcome, with what would be considered pretty ordinary equipment, playing very ordinary CD's; others have seemingly achieved similar results. I will just repeat what I have said elsewhere that I have experienced very expensive, highly tweaked, at home vinyl setups that have sounded a) stunning, and b) excrutiatingly harsh and unpleasant, so I certainly am aware how there can be two ends of the scale, irrespective of the time and money spent.

The answer, to repeat myself, is system engineering, and yes, in digital it can be much harder to get it right, compared to vinyl, but superb results on that "nasty" 44.1k digital CAN be achieved.

Finally, a "thought" experiment. I would suggest that your own system, in top form, be modified by the addition of a black box completely hard wired in, with a bypass switch. This would be engineered so well that it would be 100% transparent with the bypass engaged (unlike how all these DBT setups most surely are typically set up,) to yourself and anyone else you care to have listen. In the black box is a "done right" 44.1 analogue to digital converter feeding a 44.1 digital to analogue converter, engineered CORRECTLY with current technology, and, you can guess what's coming, I would seriously suggest that the people listening would find it close to impossible to pick when the extra circuitry was part of the mix ...

I appreciate your passion, I felt that way at one time a good many years ago.

As time passes you realize it's a delusion that you can make a difference and then get down to the business of making music the best you can with what really works and what is available instead of just wishing.

I am friends with a good many people in the business, have completed advertising photography for dozens and dozens of high end brands, both analog and digital.

The short answer is, only long term listening can reveal what is really right and what is not. Digital can be "good" but never the level of analog master tape or LP at its limit.

Over the years we have had duplicate copies of both CD and LP and compared with many brands and quality levels. If you get LP reproduction poor enough and digital good enough then digital can make a good showing.

If you have analog at the best it can be and digital the best it can be then analog wins unless there is an extraordinary (bad or good) copy on both sides. I can't cling to the <20% times when digital makes a "decent" showing for an investment of $25K +.

Over the last few years I've worked hard to accumulate master tapes. I had my Studer rebuild two years ago by the (previous) head guy at Studer USA. You have no idea what this machine can do, it will scare the hell out of you sometimes and set your head straight as to what is possible.

My turntable when it's maxed out at 100% can get maybe 80% (+) of what the tape is doing. The CD is not worth comparing at that point, believe me.

Also, read this (partial) post of mine on this same thread nearly three years ago. It's still very much true and why I sometime come off as angry.

I've had at least a hundred thousand dollars worth of digital through my system, most on loan or product that was a perspective item for review. I also bought a lot.

When a promise is made over and over and disappointment follows there are a couple of reactions a person can have. Sadness that it's not what you were expecting, and later (after the same things happen fifty times), anger that you were taken advantage of.

I've had this enough times to be angry, I've given up on digital other than for background or breaking in components. Happy for others that have made it work, perhaps we hear differently or it's a system thing.

Nilthepill, I appreciate your comments.

My list of digital trials would be long, it goes back more than 25 years. The last serious attempt was a couple of years ago, a very expensive one box player sent to me by the importer.

It was not to my liking although a reviewer friend of mine bought one and it's still his digital reference.

I'm looking for a player that has resolution like analog but without the jitter and unpleasant high frequencies.

It seems to me that players fall on either side of a line. Either they throw away dynamics, detail, and resolution but coax out a sweet tonal balance with much of the warmth of analog.

Or, they get resolution, drive and dynamics but the upper mid and high frequencies drive me from the room.

Albertporter - I agree. CD sampling rate of 44kHz is a joke but it has nothing to do with being analog or digital. Imagine fast internet downloads in true 24bits/192kHz (around the corner). Would analog made from this material still be better?

You're missing the point completely. Did you read what I wrote or just want to argue for digital? You appear to be a person without much experience that's angry someone would challenge your vision of the perfect sound forever BS they threw at us.

As for would 24bits/192kHz be better as a DIGITAL format, theoretically I would think so. There is no guarantee the record companies won't ruin that too, but I hope not. I'm ready to buy if they fix the problem.

Sure, there is a lot of used records (won't last forever) but what about new exciting artist/releases available only in digital.
According to RIAA total amount of LPs sold in 2007 was 1 million — a joke.

What does that have to do with this topic?

When will digital (CD's) get the soul of music?

No one said CD's were not a sales success, McDonalds is an even bigger success but that does not mean they are the best quality.

I've had a lot of CD players, some retail for more than $20K, there are big differences in quality with the best ones but the player cannot make up for the lack of resolution on current CD format. Of course a really great turntable cannot make up for a crappy LP either.

However, taking the best of each hardware and the best of each software, the LP is the winner when it comes to available formats at best quality.

09-12-08: Kijanki
Albertporter -

"You're missing the point completely" - I'm not sure what point it is since you use a lot of words with just one conclusion that current CD format is not as good as LP. I never said it is, and there is no need to jump at me such unpleasant way. I merely reacted, if you read the tread, to statement that digital will never rival analog. I don't understand logic behind it - that's all. Many of my friends claimed the same at the beginning of digital photography and now all have digital cameras. I am not an angry person - just read my other post but it seems to me that with claimed experience and amount of dollars you "throw" at me you are a little arrogant. It might be better if you will not respond to my posts and I will do the same for you.

The reason I responded the way I did is because of your comments:

And the LPs are made from digital master - that's funny...

Yes, some LP's are made from digital masters, just as some CD's are made from analog masters. Again, the master is not the issue, it's a failure of the music business to deliver a high quality product.

And mostly this:

Albertporter - I agree. CD sampling rate of 44kHz is a joke but it has nothing to do with being analog or digital. Imagine fast internet downloads in true 24bits/192kHz (around the corner). Would analog made from this material still be better?

Sorry if I took it wrong, but it appears from that comment that you believe "converting" to analog is what this is all about. I have no interest in the format, only the quality. My reason for being angry is not at Audiogon members but the 20 year plus promise that "just around the corner" the "perfect sound forever" format will deliver as promised.

I've had at least a hundred thousand dollars worth of digital through my system, most on loan or product that was a perspective item for review. I also bought a lot.

When a promise is made over and over and disappointment follows there are a couple of reactions a person can have. Sadness that it's not what you were expecting, and later (after the same things happen fifty times), anger that you were taken advantage of.

I've had this enough times to be angry, I've given up on digital other than for background or breaking in components. Happy for others that have made it work, perhaps we hear differently or it's a system thing.

Maybe lack of better digital media is related to quite large number of audiophiles claiming that they will never buy digital or the greed of the companies selling SACDs for over $30 or the lack of the will from government to push for the standard. (We have in US many different cellular companies and two different non-compatible standards while whole Europe has one unified standard/billing and much better coverage).

I agree with your comments, except I wouldn't object to $30.00 or even $50.00 for a perfect digital copy of the master file.

Perhaps that's the amount of money required to make it worthwhile for the music people. I'm already paying that much for the new Music Matters Blue Note LP's, so why not new artists as super digital files?

I've bought a few SACD's and contrary to many, my experience is quality is all over the place. Some are better than CD and some are worse, not much confidence instilled for the extra money they cost. I had hope for the format until I realized it was just another "huge-tiny, digital step."

I refer to it as the "huge-tiny, digital step," because of all the fanfare around each new software and equipment introduction, generally a minor improvement if any. Much like some of the overpriced audio gadgets that we spring for in other places in our systems.

I don't object paying for tweaks that work, I have stuff in my system (footers for instance) that cost $10.00 and I believe they are better than those that cost ten or twenty time more.

Then again, I have a phono cartridge (Air Tight PC-1) that's retail price was just increased to $6000.00, yet I believe it's worth every penny.

Still, it frustrates me that many of the new artists are CD only when other high quality choices could be available. Sure, many are on LP and that fixes it for those of us that are vinyl fans but what about fixing the problem so we don't need vinyl at all? I would gladly switch and enjoy storing the smaller software and convenience of remote control if they would just get the quality right.

Did they consider they could then get money from ALL of us?

I agree with all the comments about tuning for source. Admittedly my system is driven by LP, but open reel tape seems to fare very well with the same tweaks.

There was a time when I put all my effort into making digital right and at one time I had my system where digital and analog were very close. One day a friend who had not visited in a long time, a guy with excellent ears, listened with me and pointed out the fact that I had managed to "down grade" the analog source to make the digital warm and friendly enough to enjoy.

After that, I returned to my quest to make the music as dynamic, transparent, resolved and emotionally involving as possible and when that formula is applied, analog excels and CD falls.

These comments apply to my system for the last (approx.). 20 years, with multiple analog rigs and multiple digital rigs.

Oddly enough, the comments by Mapman about Denon digital hit home. I've found it's easier to live with a Pioneer Elite, Denon or Sony CD player and let it fall where it may. These lower end machines error on the side of softer and warmer, making it possible to press the resolution of analog to the max without the digital driving me crazy.

When I go for super high end digital, I fall on either side of a line. Tune to throw away resolution so it's less offensive, or press for resolution that tries to approach analog and wind up with uncomfortable sounding music.

Again, maybe it's an equipment thing, but this formula has held true for dozens of analog and digital front ends, as well as four preamps, five amps and two very different speaker systems.

This has turned out to be a wonderfully informative thread for me. I may need to read this several times to fully absorb.

Mmakshak, regarding:

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 hope that's just humor and Audiogon is not editing your posts.

Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!

Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.

Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup
2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc
3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp
4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp

and you're saying that is superior to:

1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.

Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...

I pasted this without even reading it, I know where you're going and it's wrong.

WE CANNOT GET HIGH RESOLUTION FILES. The guys that record music have the good stuff, they sell us the crappy MP3 and CD.

If you convert the ultra high resolution files at the studio (source) to analog it gets a lot of what was on the hard drive.

When the hard drive is down sampled over and over to produce what is available to us at Best Buy, it's much less resolution than the best analog.

It's really that simple.

12-20-10: Muralman1
Albertporter,

My system won't like any cable with more than a whisper of dielectric. :-)

My Audio Note with important diode change, and 47 Lab Flatfish feeding it will change your mind.

That would be nice, wish we lived close enough to each other to listen together.

I heard one of the upper level Audio Note DACs some years ago at the home of one of the members of my audio group. I admit It was prettier than most of what's out there.

We got very different results with each transport and cable. I thought the best was with the CEC belt drive.

(Alex) Sure, but in my experience there are also recordings available on high-res digital media that, for some reason, sound better than the analog release, so I guess good digital is not a bad thing to have around.

I don't disagree that digital is good to have around. I have a player but it's really only impressive on Blue Ray.

I'm frequently frustrated to find an artist I really love (an excellent example HERE ) and find there is no LP release.

Buying and playing on poor performing digital only makes me angry, most of my CDs get transferred to my iPod and play in the car where the sound is so bad you don't notice :^).

(Alex again)Maybe you would consider auditioning my NWO-M digital player, and I'd be thrilled if Joe Harley can hear it too!!

I would be pleased to hear what you have. Joe lives in California, so unfortunately I only see him at shows. When I was younger I traveled to visit friends out there pretty often.

Many fond memories of good times with Steve McCormack, Richard Vandersteen, Joe Harley, Mike Elliott (Counterpoint) and many others out there but we have all gotten older and life more complicated.