When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Digital filtering is the digital audio equivalent of makeup I suppose.

Tvad, admit it...you really like this thread, don't you?

I'm open for suggestions about how one recording medium can be more or less soulful than another?

I've heard many good and bad recordings with "soul" on both vinyl and CD.

I think the answer may lie more in the field of psychology rather than technology.

I can see where one might associate vinyl with some great soul music of the past. Recordings were also mixed much differently back in the 60's. My CD of "What's Going On" by Marvin Gaye is loaded with soul I would say.

I've also heard some very well recorded CDs with "soul" in recent years. Two artists that come to mind are Herbie Hancock and Liquid Soul.

There is nothing inherently problematic or wrong with digital today, even in the cases of CD and broadband internet. There are increasingly more cases everyday where it is done right rather than wrong at a cost most can afford.

Also, digital processing options add tremendous flexibility regarding the nature of the resulting sound, based on personal preference.

Analog sounds great too when done right but the medium is inherently limited as a whole compared to digital which is why its future is limited and digital's is not.

" I suggest that everyone keep an open mind on digital and get ready for high-res digital downloads"

Hard to do when someone is convinced the medium is inherently flawed, which it isn't......

Personally, I'm ready to move forward and lay my fond memories of analog systems of the past to rest. In this case, truly the best is yet to come.

I just need a nice sized flat panel monitor so I can easily read about what I'm listening too, just like in the good old days of 33 1/3 lps. Only now, I will learn more as well because I am not limited to the space available with album packaging for content (let's not even talk about CD packaging though, the small size and packaging truly is the pits from a graphics design perspective).

Learsfool,

How is it that good digital pictures (better than analog/film many would say) can be had with the latest digital cameras for just a couple of hundred dollars but it still costs 10s of thousands to get digital audio right?

I know they are two different things technically, but economically, something just doesn't seem to add up here to me.

"Those of us who have open ears are the ones keeping analog alive"

Assuming we're talking about vinyl specifically, actually I think it is those of use with large existing record collections and those shopping for used vinyl that is keeping the equipment manufacturers alive at least.

It is nice to see a few new pressings in some of the stores these days though.

If it ain't real, it's distorted.

Choose your poison.....

...and don't introduce too much noise along the way.....

Yes, absolutely.

Assuming the sound produced during playback is not exactly the same as what was played live (ie never 100% perfect).

The original signal was transformed to some extent during recording and playback. What happened to account for the difference? Was the original sound not distorted to some extent?

Albert,

I agree with your assessment that CD format is the limiting factor, not digital itself.

Still, technology details aside, many CDs do sound better to me than their lp equivalents in practice (and vice versa).

There is no practical winner in all cases. Just because a format has a particular capacity does not mean that it is always fully utilized to best effect. That is the case with both digital and analog recording products. There are good and bad products in any format.

Practically, what matters to me is what my copy of Seventh Sojourn or The Planets actually sounds like, not what the format it is encoded on is capable of doing.

The internet along with high bandwidth connections into the average home along with greater capacity storage devices is already starting to change things considerably, I think.

One thing that concerns me though is why should any company provide an audiophile affordable high quality digital sources similar to records when we're willing to shell out
tens of thousands apparently in order to get it? That doesn't make sense to me and does worry me actually quite a bit.

Shadorne,

How do we know that some here, especially those younger, do not in fact have fully functional human ears that can actually can discern things clearly even beyond 20000hz unlike most of us?

If they are over forty, that would be a huge exception though, so perhas there really is not much of a market.

I am over forty and know for a fact I cannot hear anything up there the way Iused to be able to back in college.

Maybe that's why CDs sound just fine in many cases to me and many others but not some.

Ironically, the higher resolution stuff may be technically superior, but most people will never be able to hear the difference. Those who can are probably younger and even less likely to be able to afford it.

Really, what the h--k is everyone complaining about? We have more choices now than ever in the past regarding how we satisfy our personal music related urges and it will only get better from here. Maybe if just accept......

.....Nah!

But I do think there is a good future episode of South Park perhaps buried in this thread somewhere.

"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. "

Oh yes I do......

Did it get the "soul" of the music?

"As for your experience with digital being better in some cases, I have yet to have that happen in my system."

I've only a/b tested more pop/rock recordings where I can assert clearly that it has.

I was surprised when it happened though with "Days Of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues, though (see my reviews here).

I would expect many more cases favoring vinyl with large scale symphonic recordings in general, from my experience.

Other than that, well produced CDs work to my satisfaction in general, but I would prefer higher resolution with digital if done well in most all cases.

W

"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."

Ok, I have no doubt that the vinyl would cut it, all other factors aside.

But did the digital master you heard get the "soul" of the music or no?

I'm praying that there is some hope here the answer is "yes".....but maybe I'm doomed.

Tvad,

Hopefully its enough of a boutique/niche thing to take form and survive. As such , there will be a cost but hopefully enough willing to pay. It'll be a long time before it is ever mainstream for sure. I'm sure I will never be able to afford to replace my LP collection in my lifetime. I will look forward to it hopefully though for new stuff and better yet versions of the titles I truly cherish.

"Music buyers voted down high resolution audio with their failure to buy enough SACD or DVD-A discs to encourage the record companies to continue with the business model."

Tvad, I'm more optimistic than you on this I believe.

Yes, those were not good business models.

I believe electronic delivery of music over the internet is the business model that will work as it does for other forms of electronic media and will continue to expand into higher resolution formats as well. Its already happening, I believe.

Its inevitable that upcoming generations of products like Roku Soundbridge ($129 currently) for example will expand to higher resolution and continue to be relatively cost effective hardware products to produce. You will pay accordingly for the high res content to go along with them though.

It'll be similar to how companies practically give away cell phones today do that they can lock you into their much higher revenue services.

Digital technology is the enabler of all this, not a hindrance. Viable business models are a different concern.

"Music buyers voted down high resolution audio with their failure to buy enough SACD or DVD-A discs to encourage the record companies to continue with the business model."

Yes. And they buy their equipment at Best Buy and Walmart too.

Has that stopped people who care about good sound from shopping for the expensive toys we demand in our preferred high end audio boutiques, like this site and other sources?

Since high resolution digital masters are apparently already a fact of life and exist, I see no reason why over time someone will not find an effective way to make new money on the existing commodity by selling it to those in the target market willing to pay, just as they are willing to pay more than the masses now for their expensive vinyl and CD playback systems.

I do believe that the highest frequencies that can be heard are the hardest to get right regardless of the technical approach used (digital versus analog). This is because small errors in reproduction are more significant in relation to the high frequency harmonics at that range, so people who can hear in that range are more likely to notice the distortion if present.

When I have an audible issue with a particular CD recording in terms of noise or distortion, its usually in the upper range of frequencies that I can actually hear.

The only artifact I hear regularly that bothers me is slight tonal variations in long passages in orchestral CDs that should not vary much in pitch but in fact do sound sometimes like an audible high frequency warble that impacts the purity of the sound of the instrument. Passages by string sections in orchestral works are the common culprit. Even this does not occur in all CD recordings, the better ones are usually pretty good, but I so suspect they might be improved yet with a different player or DAC that is clearly designed to reduce jitter. I am looking into that.

OTher than this, I believe most other aspects of digital sound that people tend to not like is more due to personal taste than technical issues, which is fine, because that's what its all about. Chose your high quality tubes or SS and speakers here as needed to get the sound you like.

Newbee,

I'm talking about digital sources in general.

Warble was not a good choice of words. MAybe graininess would be better.

Its only on some recordings , not all, so its not an inherent issue with equipment or format.

I tend to agree with Shadorne's view that in most cases these issues are due to the imperfect process that goes into making recordings in many cases. In cases where attention is paid, the sound is fine in either medium with good quality equipment. No playback system at any cost can correct problems when they exist in the recording.

It makes sense to me that people typically tune their system around the source material they use.

Those with large vinyl collections tune their systems primarily around this. Introducing a second source that inherently sounds different may now become a problem, especially for those with highly tuned ears: how do you get that second or third source that is now inherently different to sound equally as good?

I think the answer in many cases is you can't, at least not to the extent that you have for your primary source, whatever that is.

So those who own mostly CD tune to that. Those who own vinyl tune to that. Others like, me who are source agnostic, will try to get the sources to sound as good and as similar as possible and tune in each source as best as possible, but they will never sound exactly the same or equivalent when playing the same music for many reasons. I'm sure there are audiophiles out there that could never live with the fact that not all their sources sound equally good to them, because the fact is they will always sound different.

So one of my theories is that the preference people have for whatever is mainly because that is what serves them best, which is the way it should be.

But one person with a bias towards one medium telling another with a bias towards something different that theirs will never sound as good does not carry much weight.

Each has tuned their system the best they can within their means for their source material and different sources will always sound different. Which is better? It really doesn't matter. Neither is perfect and both deliver good but not perfect sound.

Both my vinyl and CD sources are Denon. This is not by chance. My hope is to make both sound equally good but also as similar as possible so that I can live with both without resorting to tone controls and such. But I have to say that getting two distinct sources for two distinct source media is not an easy task. Many audiophiles will chose to punt, I would guess.

I have 5 sources to deal with on my system (in order of general priority):

1) CD
2) vinyl LP
3) Internet radio (Roku Soundbridge)
4) Fm Radio/tuner
5) Cassette

99% of my listening these days is with the first 3. I hardly ever listen to FM anymore and I only use the cassette for old cassettes I recorded years ago and still like but haven't replaced on vinyl or CD.

Even my $129 pure digital Roku Soundbridge sounds very satidfactory to me in more cases than not. I accept the sound quality of internet radio for what it is, which ain't half bad these days...better than FM for sure, and the variety of music to listen to is unlimited.

Tvad,

On a serious note, I have read where HDTV created a serious problem for Hollywood in that it was increasingly difficult for otherwise attractive stars to look good in high definition.

The solution: more makeup (analog, not digital make-up I believe).

This is obvious these days on TV to most anyone.

I suppose this is the video equivalent of digital remastering in audio.

Albert,

Have you ever heard the better DCS gear?

I heard a Puccini recently in a limited audition and have to say I was impressed with how vinyl like the resulting sound was.

Of course if the reference standard for you is the ultimate real vinyl sound, then I would expect that nothing else can approach it in all practicality because it isn't really vinyl no matter how similar it sounds, but in the brief audition I did, I think I would have had difficulty identifying the Puccini sound as CD.

I thought it ironic though that the Puccinni was most expensive CD playback system I had ever heard and sure enough, hey, it sounded pretty much like a good vinyl recording.

This was on a very high end VAC/VTL tube system with top of the line Nordost cabling. The speakers were Magico Minis.

Kijanki,

I've implemented oversampling and dithering algorithms in software for both commercial and federal imaging applications. Less familiar with application in audio, but I suspect it is analogous.

I suspect it can make digital sound smoother and more acceptable maybe to an analogue lover, but I know that it cannot add detail that was lost upstream, as you have correctly pointed out before.

That is one of the reasons I hesitate to spend a lot on a CD player, I believe a lot of it is valid trickery played to achieve a particular sound.

It's the best you can do if that is the sound you want, but I would agree with Albert that it will never completely equal or surpass the detail possible with analog source, at least technically on paper.

Despite the clear technical limitations, I still find that most well recorded CDs meet my listening needs on my system (which I have tuned considerably as well) just fine, even though I know some more bits of real information in that stream could certainly never hurt.

I am of the long time opinion that the value in many high end CD players is providing a certain sound that someone is looking for, but it is not required just to get the best sound possible off off a CD in terms of information content.

As a result, I still live happily with my oversampling Denon player/recorder, whose sound matches my Denon phono cartridge quite well.

Kijanki,

I'm not an electrical engineer, but what you are describing does make sense to me based on my experience. It is a very sophisticated approach from the description.

I would expect that it helps deliver some of the distinctive "smoothness" I heard with this particular unit. Other aspects of the d/a conversion performed may account for the good resolution I believe I heard in conjunction.

It was a short but enjoyable audition with just a couple different source recordings. I would like to a/b compare it against various other designs to tell for sure how different it was. The technology applied is very unique and sophisticated for certain.

Tvad,

Its only been going on for 2 and a half years and hundreds of posts. You'd think with all the collective brainpower thrown at it that the winner would be clear by now. The resolution (no pun intended) must be close at hand.

Then we can talk about tubes versus SS a bit also.....

Shadorne,

I'd quality my statement you quoted by stating that both analog and digital are capable of great things and each have their issues to address t get it right.

Sound is inherently analog, but the recoding and playback process for both analog and digital each face distinct and different challenges that must be met to reproduce this accurately.

Each introduces their own distinct artifacts to the sound that will lead different people with different listening preferences to prefer either depending.

I do think that the vinyl playback process is harder to do really well but is very good when done right.

There have always been a lot of really crappy record players out there and still are, right?

I believe digital payback can be achieved more cost effectively by the average Joe today than vinyl. The issues are more subtle but less severe when things are not going well overall.

Although I think players like the DCS do sound very good, but I do not think it should cost $20000 + up to achieve these results. This is out of line with most other applications of digital that have been around for a while today from what I can see, so that raises a red flag for me.

Still, if you can afford it and you want no compromise sound delivered by a no compromise approach, it may well be worth the entry price.

"I guess I object to dismissing digital as something that will never ever sound good on "trumped up technical" grounds as without merit - that is all."

Agreed.

Also agree regarding the digital aspect of how the ear works, though I had not thought of that in the context of this particular debate before. Good point.

There is a wonderful IMAX film out in IMAX theatures on how the human body works that does a wonderful job of demonstrating this exact point regarding how we hear.

I cannot quote any statistics or measurements offhand to to support this, but it is also usually the case though that mans practical attempts still at this point in time to match the capabilities of organisms in nature in regards to how they register and process things in a binary manner cannot compare in regards to level of sophistication. Maybe some day.... or maybe never.

"Producing music by interpolation of 1's and 0's is not a perfect thing. Winding a diamond stylus mechanically along a soft groove is not a perfect system either."

That is for sure and a big part of why the two sound inherently different.

By the way, I'm fine with CD format but am not a fan of CGI generated effects in movies for the most part. I prefer Dynavision.

Det,

I'd agree the best large scale orchestral recordings are still on vinyl.

However, results do vary significantly from title to title in both formats. Sometimes vinyl sounds better, sometimes digital.

My goal is still to tune both formats to my same personal reference standard for how I want things to sound overall.

Results will still surely vary from format to format and title to title though.

" but you will never know what both formats are really capable of unless you treat both sources as complete separate entities with entirely different tweaks"

Exactly!

"I just hope no one starts invoking pop quantum mechanics as the next obvious facile mantra that just explains-it-all"

See "Machina Dynamica" for applications of that theory.

1-16-10: a date which will live in infamy.......

Kijanki,

I think your analysis is spot on!

THis evidences itself as lesser detail and resolution at higher frequencies. This will offend some more than others. Those with younger highly trained ears are likely more susceptible in general since ability to hear high frequencies is typically far superior when young and declines with age.

Data volumes and available bandwidth of many home digital systems and associated higher costs is still a major barrier for large scale application of high res digital.

It will continue get better over time.

Source material may still be limited, but it is possible for one to implement high res digital in their home systems today if really desired, but the cost will be high and overall utility to users will be lower in most every aspect save perhaps the one that matters most to audiophiles: sound quality.

mp3 and other compressed formats are not a conspiracy against good sound as many expound, but more of a practical compromise that helps enable greater value to the masses overall. Sound quality is just one thing that most factor into their buying decisions.

"When is digital going to get the soul of music?"

For me in my house, its got it today.

Not to say it is perfect (nothing is), but close enough most of the time which cuts it for me.

"plastic surgery; cut all her credit/debit cards."

I like that!

Not the kind of PS that most wives might find appealing though.....

These days its up to the listener to derive "the soul" from whatever they chose to listen to, not the format.

Some will work to achieve it. Others will not. Some will prefer to whine and complain or maybe buy into conspiracy theories no matter. To each their own! Whatever turns you on.

"When Jesus comes back for the second time..."

Maybe, but he'll have higher priorities I'm sure.

...unless digital is maybe the thing that creates a lot of the unrest in the world maybe? You, know, the "digital edge"?

They say the lord works in strange ways, after all.

On the otherhand, unrest has been around since way before digital, so maaybe not.

CDs/digital is exhilarating for me these days. Is that a strong enough adjective? Bad digital is fixable and should be made old news by one who cares. The only question is how good can it get from here and what else might still be around that can beat it case by case if/when it matters. Its very good, but still not "perfect". Few things are.

There are so many great jazz, blues and similar genre recordings originally issued on various forms of vinyl, including 78s, that are gloriously compiled remastered and released on CD these days that sound absolutely glorious. It seems to be the rule these days rather than the exception. Too many I have encountered and now enjoy for the first time to mention. Lots of "soul" in there!!!!!!!

No doubt large scale orchestral works is an area that when you look at the state of the overall big picture, vinyl probably still rules. part is sound quality and part is all those fantastic classical recordings available at the Goodwill store for a pittance compared to what it would cost anywhere on CD.

Has nothing to do with getting the soul though.

Yeah, I was going to scratch the nothing to do with soul comment but it was too late. I was thinking classical and soul as two distinct beasts, but not really the case.

"I think digital has the potential now to be the equal of master tapes"

I have not heard it yet, but I agree the potential is there.

Had to revisit this classic thread to announce that it has happened.

I've done some tweaks to my system since last visiting this thread which succeeded in getting me thinking and I believe my system has now achieved the lofty goal lamented in the subject of this thread.

I my case, it took adding tube DAC and switching to an ARC tube pre-amp to do it but I think my digital now got "soul".

Or at least the music that plays on it that should have soul seems to have it spades now.

What other spiritual traits should I be checking my digital for now?

"I've always had a hard time optimally tuning for more than one source, let alone different formats. But its fun trying!"

That is exactly what I try to do with my system, ie tune each source to sound as similar as possible using a variety of reference recordings in each format.

My results currently are still not perfect, but very good nonetheless, and the best I've had on my systems ever by a good margin.

Common noise factors associated with imperfect vinyl is typically the only way I can really tell for sure whehter digital or vinyl is playing. Otherwise it is hard to tell from recording to recording. If I do not hear any background noise, it is hard to tell. That makes me very happy!

I like vinyl and digital.

I would agree that analog is more mature today than digital (its been a round a lot longer). But it also ain't going anywhere new at this point. It is what it is and is ever going to be anything much more. That's jut the reality of things for better or for worse.

I've done specific a/b tests between vinyl and CD releases of the same title (a couple of reviews posted here on Agon as well). I've found subtle differences both ways that might affect preference either way in specific cases.

Each recording had limitations compared to the ideal in that I have never heard a perfect recording. I suppose any limitation short of lifelike can be considered distortion. Noise was not an issue in any case. Signal in all cases far exceeded any noise.

Granted these were pop/rock titles, which are less demanding. I agree that large scale classical works on CD may typically lag behind their vinyl brethren in regards to being completely satisfying.

But I don't associate "soul" with classical music in general. For titles more in the "soul" genre, CDs generally work fine.

" LPs are made from digital recording last 20 years - how it can be better than its origin"

One might play signal processing tricks to achieve a certain sound but your right, it can't be better in the sense that information lost cannot be regained.

However, I'm finding that the vinyl LPs that I would have most difficulty parting with are those produced for the most part in the 50s and sixties. There was a lot of attention paid to making good recordings in many cases in those days before, as with most things, economics watered everything down.

However, I would consider transferring say an early 60's vintage RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence recording to digital CD format even, and I would not expect to loose much if anything.

There is no doubt in my mind that digital can and will surpass older techniques increasingly over time. It already does in many cases when apples/apples comparing two products in each category. There are other cases where the reverse is true, so generalized statements regarding "which is better" is again meaningless to me. They both work well today when done right and also both can sound like crap when done wrong.

My opinion regarding the original question posed is:

It already does in more cases than not.

"What a shame that all mechanical hair movement in the cochlea is converted to nerve impulses in order to be sent to the brain (i.e. an analog to digital conversion, with individual nerves either firing or not)."

It is very high resolution digital in there at least. Thank you God!

They show this in the IMAX film about the human body...a must see for any audiophile!