I have to ask this(actually, I thought I mentioned this in another thread.). It's been at least 25 years of digital. The equivalent in vinyl is 1975. I am currently listening to a pre-1975 album. It conveys the soul of music. Although digital may be more detailed, and even gives more detail than analog does(in a way), when will it convey the soul of music. This has escaped digital, as far as I can tell.
Albertporter and others who have had frustrating experience with digital, I am not sure which $$$$$ digital you have tried but, i tell you, if you ever have a chance give it a try on the Zanden digital combo. It would be even more rewarding and eye opening experience if you have a luxury to audition the combo in an all Zanden system... I have a good fortune to have an all Zanden system at home for now, oh may be 4 years and the Zanden actually beats analog more times than not. And my analog (uses Zanden Phono pre also) is also optimized. On excellent recordings it is * hard* to tell the difference. I love my Zanden digital especially there is more software choices available in CD than Vinyl. It delivers jaw dropping life like performance every time i put on *modern* ( read: new releases) Jazz or rock or classical CDs. Better the recordings, better the performance. I have practically the whole CD catalogue from RR and Mapleshade and it even excels the already stellar performance I get from *regular* jazz/classical labels. It is truly the digital with tons of soul- all with the humble 16/44.1 CD format. It features no oversampling and true phase coherent design.
I am not here to say mine is better than yours -or brag, just to prove form personal experience that the digital * has* got soul, you just have to find the right source- like many have found in theirs. Sure analog tape could be better and Vinyl too ( at times, yes even in my set up it does exceed digital at times for certain genre) but what good is having finite number of master tapes copies whereas there is much more choices with Vinyl material and even more with CDs.
So yes, I have found a soul in digital.
It was not not an easy journey though, both in terms of $$ and time. I, too, went through (audition and bought) number of digital units prior to this- one notable being the Metronome digital combo. Peace!!
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.
Frank - I see that I have missed quite a few posts on here today! This is a very busy season for me, as you can imagine. Anyway, Albert and Aplhifi have certainly gone much farther than I ever could towards answering the question you last put to me - all I can say is "yeah, what they said!" :) Seriously, though, one of the reasons I love this site is that I can read such posts by Albert or Atmasphere, who are both excellent at describing the technical reasons in layman's terms for things that I know I can hear, but don't have the technical knowledge to explain to someone else why I am hearing it. I realize that's a terrible sentence I just wrote, but it's late, and there is a reason I am a musician, not a writer, LOL!
"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."
When I run my mhdt Paradisea with the NOS Tung Sol tube in my current rig, I would say it does extremely well in regards to delivering dynamics, detail and resolution with a touch of sweet tonal balance and nothing offensive in the highs.
With the stock RCA tube, more towards the first camp.
I also use an mhdt Constantine and it falls a notch or two more towards the second camp.
I've used these in several system configurations and can also say the specific results can vary greatly depending on what the rest of the system is.
Currently, these DACs are proving themselves to be amazing overachievers especially for the cost.
ALbert, if you are ever in Baltimore DC metro area with some time I'd be happy to give an audition if you are interested.
Indeed it is very hard to get details, dynamics and warmth but like with right tubes and system *synergy* (here we ago again- components, cabling and matched speakers) it is possible to get both, may be not to the fullest as experienced in real life but what I perceive is best possible today in audio reproduction.
If recordings is bad or compressed no digital (or vinyl for that matter) system in the world can make that hight freq nastiness go away and make it sound sweeter- not even mine ;-)
Boy that Kanye's new album is real good- musically, but recordings is horribly compressed. On the other hand say albums by Arcade fire or Deerhunter or The walkmen or Dave Holland's hands or Wynton Marsallis's Vitoria suite- all a pleasure to listen to.
For me *System Synergy* = Combination of components, and accessories, and tweaking, that intentionally or by lucky coincidence minimises the level of "nasty", "micro" distortion, the bane of virtually all hifi gear.
If recordings is bad or compressed no digital (or vinyl for that matter) system in the world can make that hight freq nastiness go away and make it sound sweeter
Since I have experienced many times the complete opposite to that, I disagree 100%.
Since there is a bit of a groove happening here, I'll throw in my bit too: seasons greetings to all those who agree and disagree with me ...
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year Wesołych Świąt i szczęśliwego Nowego Roku Kellemes karácsonyi ünnepeket és Boldog újévet! Noeliniz Ve Yeni Yiliniz Kutlu Olsun ! Nollaig chridheil agus Bliadhna mhath ur! Pozdrevlyayu s prazdnikom Rozhdestva i s Novim Godom ! Boas Festas e um feliz Ano Novo Fröhliche Weihnachten und ein glückliches Neues Jahr Prieci'gus Ziemsve'tkus un Laimi'gu Jauno Gadu! Linksmu Kaledu ir laimingu Nauju metu Shinnen omedeto. Kurisumasu Omedeto ! E gueti Wïnâchte & E glecklichs Nej Johr Edo bri'cho o rish d'shato brich'to Tezze Iliniz Yashi Olsun ! Winshuyu sa Svyatkami i z Novym godam ! Nedeleg laouen na bloav ezh mat ! Chestita Koleda i Shtastliva Nova Godina Zorionak eta Urte Berri On ! Sretan Bozic! Prejeme Vam Vesele Vanoce a Stastny novy rok Glædelig Jul og godt nytår Rõõmsaid Jõulupühi ja Head uut aastat Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année! Kala Christougenna Ki'eftihismenos O Kenourios Chronos Gilotsavt Krist'es Shobas & Gilosavt akhal ts'els Feliz Navidad y Próspero Año Nuevo Mo'adim Lesimkha. Shanah Tova ! Nollaig Shona Dhuit ! Srekan Bozik I Nova Godina Bon Pasco i Feliz Aña Nobo Wilujeng Natal Sareng Warsa Enggal ! Nadolig LLawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda Craciun fericit si un An Nou fericit Geseende Kerfees en 'n gelukkige nuwe jaa Gëzuar Krishlindjet Vitin e Ri Juullimi Ukiortaassamilu Pilluarit Schéi Krëschtdeeg an e Schéint Néi Joer Krist Yesu Ko Shuva Janma Utsav Ko Upalaxhma Hardik Shuva & Naya Barsa Ko harkik Shuvakamana E ku odun, e hu iye' dun Christmas Shubhakaankshalu & Nootana Samvatchara Subhakanshalu Noflike Krystdagen en in protte Lok en Seine yn it Nije Jier Gleðileg Jól og Farsaelt Komandi ár Nathar Puthu Varuda Valthukkal God Jul och Gott Nytt År Vesele bozicne praznike in srecno novo leto Hyvää Joulua - 0nnellista uutta vuotta Bon Nadal e Bo Ani Novo Bon Natale e Bon capu d' annu Selamat Hari Natal & Selamat Tahun Baru Sung Tan Chuk Ha Bonn e Erez Ane Zul saryn bolon shine ony mend devshuulye Sretan Bozic. Vesela Nova Godine Subha nath thalak Vewa. Subha Aluth Awrudhak Vewa Vesele Vianoce a stastny novy rok Veseloho Vam Rizdva i Shchastlyvoho Novoho Roku Buon Natale e Felice Anno Nuovo Hoesenestotse & Aa'e Emona'e Gajan Kristnaskon & Bonan Novjaron Mele Kalikimaka & Hauoli Makahiki Hou Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar!
Tvad, actually the answer IS all 3. What makes it even more bizarre is that you can pick up the total system of someone who says answer 1, plunk it down, absolutely perfectly transported and setup identically in every way, matching room treatments, etc, in the home of someone who says answer 2, and the answer for this new setup CAN still be 2, even for the original owner if he were to visit the new location of his former system.
Why, because the house itself and every part of its environment is part of the system also! This is what can make this whole process of getting things right so very, very hard ...
Frank - you're right about the house. Unfortunately it is the most expensive part of any audio system. With much less than perfect room, varying quality of the recordings, synergy of all components and taste/preference of the listener, discussing if best digital is as good as best analog (on even Tuesdays) is strictly academic, at least to me.
One thing I know - wise man told me once "Don't have a cow, man" so I sold my TT.
Kijanki, when I said house I did not mean just the listening room, that's why I specifically said "every part of its environment" -- gee, I think the factory down the road just finished for the day; hmmm, I wonder if Cathy has her computer on in her bedroom; man, another one of those steamy, humid days -- see what I mean. Frankly, when a system is REALLY working properly, the listening room is totally irrelevant: if you had a real string quartet playing in that room, would it "not work" because you didn't have the right room bits sorted out ... ?
As regards synergy, see my comment earlier.
Finally, I have as much respect for vinyl as digital: I have heard stunning LP playback, and truly appalling sound coming from a quarter of a million dollars worth of such gear, supposedly optimised and tweaked!
One thing I know - wise man told me once "Don't have a cow, man" so I sold my TT.
Good move! I wish you could hear what Dynavector XV-1s can do with specially designed/tuned phonostage for it. Boy, I just love those Alnico magnets. :-)
My listening room was built more than a 100 years ago. Showing good foresight, they built my listening room with perfection in mind. The room is big and high, and with a symmetrical speaker wall.
So, without giving further ado, the correct answer is.......
"gee, I think the factory down the road just finished for the day; hmmm, I wonder if Cathy has her computer on in her bedroom; man, another one of those steamy, humid days"
Frank, agree 100% on your 12/21/10 post: "Tvad, actually the answer IS all 3. What makes it even more bizarre is that you can pick up the total system of someone who says answer 1, plunk it down, absolutely perfectly transported and setup identically in every way, matching room treatments, etc, in the home of someone who says answer 2, and the answer for this new setup CAN still be 2, even for the original owner if he were to visit the new location of his former system."
for many reasons talked in latter posts. To give you example: even plugging my mono amps from its current resident outlets (nothing fancy, just stock) to *different* similar outlets or even the recently installed 20 amp dedicated line w/ Oyaide outlets can change answer from my current 1 to 3 or even 2. Go figure that one out. I really can't, other than may be luck?
Alex, I'm sure there are many great TTs but in my small world it often resembles discussion about performance of Rolls-Royce vs. Bentley. For the money I could spend on decent TT I upgraded speakers from average to great but could also upgrade main amp or DAC. LP music selection is very poor especially with less popular genres (World Music, Indian Classical) therefore my main system will always be digital. I will include TT as soon as I get best speakers and amp money can buy and will still have money to spend. Perhaps for all this to happen I would have to win the Lotto or kill my wife.
I would like to describe my experiences the last several days. I am not bragging about my system, but I think I have the best sound that I have had in nearly 50 years at this. My digital uses an Apple Powerbook Pro running Pure Music on Hog and memory modes and my dacs are the Weiss Dac202 or the H-Cat dac. My vinyl is a Bergman Sindre with the Ortofon A-90 cartridge tracking at 2.00 grams and a H-Cat phono stage. I know few here know the H-Cat stuff, but I find it very resolving.
Last night I compared Frank Sinatra and Count Basie at the Sands using the original vinyl release and the server with the source disc being a SHM release to the hard drive.
I heard a very different music performance. The vinyl is very pleasing with Sinatra sounding very real and smooth. The audience and band are present but somewhat vaguely located in the background. It was very listenable. The digital on the H-Cat dac was very fast and dynamic with the audience quite precisely located and at some points in the performance there was an edge to his voice that might be mike overload or a true edge in his 50 year old voice. This was present with both dacs. Generally, the digital performance sounded more like being there, but at others it sounded strained and discontinuous. This also was true using the Weiss 202 which had 24 bits rather than the 16 of the H-Cat. The Weiss gives a somewhat more distant perspective but otherwise had the same limitations.
I guess that my conclusion is that I can live with either, that both have strong points, that higher definition of backgrounds is better in digital as well as dynamics, that digital sounds piecy, as though it is a puzzle put together. Perhaps, were I to have this recording in 192/24 HD, it might be better. I don't expect ever to have HD resolution on all of my music, however.
So what will I listen to? Well, I have only about a 10-20% overlap in my music, so it will somewhat depend on what music I want to listen too. There is no question that digital on a server is the most convenient, but I will never give up on vinyl for listenability and wholeness.
Last night I compared Frank Sinatra and Count Basie at the Sands using the original vinyl release and the server with the source disc being a SHM release to the hard drive.
While I am sure that Sinatra/Basie at the Sands is a good sounding recording, I'd suggest evaluating Analog vs. Digital using something like this: Bassface Trio Plays Gershwin
Tbg, yes, classic Sinatra recordings are an excellent test for a system in good form: the orchestra should sound massive and deep, with tremendous bite and clarity in all the brass, while Sinatra's voice is superbly smooth, low key and controlled, riding easily upon that wall of rich sound. What happens what digital is "done right" ...
Tape Project tapes on my Ampex or vinyl on my SME 30 sound better to me than anything I've heard on any digital gear I have tried or any digital gear that I have heard.
I'm trying a MacBook pro with a Weiss DAC 1 right now and it's very, very good. It delivers the best that digital can offer however, it's still a shadow of the best analog.
The problem, in my opinion, lies not in the player but rather in the medium itself.
Based on that, and in answer to the question, it is my belief that digital can't get to the soul of music the way analog does.
My CD-based system got it. Each step was an improvement towards reproducing the soul of the music. Long, arduous journey, wading through lots of audio BS. For my system, it turned out to be tubes everywhere, even in the CDP. NOS tubes. And the most transparent cables I could get my hands on, which did no harm in other areas. My goal was always transparency, but with soul. If a new piece was more transparent than the old, but my system lost some of its soul, out it went. I always figured if I had to settle, I'd settle for soul over transparency. Fortunately, I did not have to settle. I have transparency WITH soul - and am thrilled.
Yeah, I'm with Rockadanny. I finally got what I consider superb headphone sound with my EMM SE separates and a Ray Samuels B52 amp with highly upgraded tubes and Stealth Indra ICs. With SACD or, say, the Beatles 2009 box, it's off the charts in quality to me (after a long line of annoying false starts with glare/piercing highs/muddy bass or hyped up detail). But tubes were the real breakthrough, especially great vintage/NOS ones. Tubes forever...
I'd like to mention that 192kHz applies to incoming signal while DACs have much lower THD distortions around 100kHz. For that reason Benchmark decided to ouput data to DAC at around 110kHz.
As a part time recording engineer whose focus is live, on locations recordings, I'd say digital gets the soul very well indeed!
Go buy Frank Vignola Trio (Standards Live) or Felipe Salles (Timeline) an example of shows that I recorded and were released by the artist. I think they capture the live event well.
For the Frank show I was unaware that he was going to release it until it was pressed. Certainly there are things I would have edited out between songs but, hey, it was a live event and that is how it was.
Of course these were recorded in high rez format but sre only available as CD's. I listen to the 24/96. The CD's are very close to the high rez. and you are hardly missing anything.
I have hundreds of other shows that I've done by artists such as Spyro Gyra, David Bromberg, Bill Evans, Arlo Guthrie, Marty Ehrlich, Ivo Papasov, Duke Robillard and others that capture the events nicely. As a matter of fact, I'm just finishing a Kenny Neal show that "takes you there". You can sit back and listen until your spouse divorces you for abandonment, it is that engaging.
Also, I have an large LP collection and enjoy listening to it too........but, IMO, analog's best is done through tape not LP.
May be it has. I was on the threshold of purchasing an EAR tube or Modwright Sony 5400 player and happened to hear a PS Audio DAC/bridge setup through reference full range speakers. I am a vinyl lover (Rega Planar 9/EAR phono preamp) and was very favorably impressed. I read the website and learned that part of the reason for the excellent sound is error free reading of the disc, which generally doesn't happen even with expensive CD players. Furthermore, it uses a Wolfson DAC, which is the same manufacturer as in the EAR acute CD player I was considering. I have been reluctant to consider computer audio because of a learning curve and the amount of time involved. I now believe that it may be worthwhile. Opinions?
Hello my old friends, I've been away from the 'gon and this thread for about three years (but not from music) and see that not much has changed in the way of mostly valid arguments defending the one medium from the other. I have not bothered to read my old diatribes which seem ages ago, but my ears have probably not changed, nor has my gear. Digital is still the Zanden chain or the "Spoiler" USB DAC, analog is WAVAC and a heavily modified Goldmund REF and I still cannot stand big orchestral classical music via digital. There is too much missing on ambience and air, but love small combos, Jazz and voices and here I prefer digital mostly over analog. Not to forget old R2Rs properly dished out by my Studer A810. Here many prerecorded classical tapes will clobber digital any day - to my old ears at least. Cheers to you all and happy listening, Detlof
Never. The technology is not there to accurately transfer the analog sound wave to digital w/o loss of info. Ever listen to cymbal strikes on a good analog rig versus a great digital rig ? All cymbals mostly sound alike on a digital rig...not so with analog. An experienced drummer probably can tell if a cymbal strike was on a Paste or zildjian cymbal. Good luck trying to descern that on digital playback.
03-01-11: Tompoodie May be it has. I was on the threshold of purchasing an EAR tube or Modwright Sony 5400 player and happened to hear a PS Audio DAC/bridge setup through reference full range speakers. I am a vinyl lover (Rega Planar 9/EAR phono preamp) and was very favorably impressed. I read the website and learned that part of the reason for the excellent sound is error free reading of the disc, which generally doesn't happen even with expensive CD players. Furthermore, it uses a Wolfson DAC, which is the same manufacturer as in the EAR acute CD player I was considering. I have been reluctant to consider computer audio because of a learning curve and the amount of time involved. I now believe that it may be worthwhile. Opinions?
If you don't want to deal with the computer server detail using the bridge, by the PWT with the PWD as I did. Burn hi-rez 24 bit files to DVD and play them back just like a redbook CD. I am very impressed with the rig. I still will grab a vinyl LP if given the choice when playing back a musical selection.
Learsfool -- nice thought-provoking post. Do you think what you said applies to high-end SACD also? I notice that with good SACD, I can just breathe deep and relax and take in the music in a way I can't with redbook. So I think I am hearing what you say is a basic fault with digital, but that problem really seems to vanish with SACD for me. Have you heard a lot of SACD and what do you think or feel?
Hi Rgs92 - I do not own an SACD player, so my experience with them is limited - a couple of friends of mine have one, but they live pretty far away and like me, mostly listen to vinyl anyway. Certainly the quality of SACD is higher than redbook, and there are some very good sounding ones out there. But if we are comparing them to the "golden age" of analog recording, they just don't measure up. Also, isn't it true now that there are not very many SACD recordings being made anymore? For me, the cost of them is prohibitive.
(All cymbals mostly sound alike on a digital rig...not so with analog).
You must have a very poor performing system. Not only should you be able to tell what type of cymbal was use but also what brand of microphone was used to record it. I never have a problem doing so and neither do any of the folks I hang with.
Raymonda, I agree with your reply to Rockitman regarding cymbal reproduction with digital. It must be a matter of one`s system. I`ve own both a Linn LP12 TT and a Well Tempered Classic TT(better TT than the Linn). Neither of these TTs were superior to my current digital components at all. In terms of nuance, resolution of individual instruments and voice, really being able to distinguish subtle differences of inner detail. The Yamamoto DAC/PS Audio PWT is extraordinary at producing natural pure sound with uncanny realism. Digital sources , when done right can sound stunningly good.
I own the Perfect wav system. Cymbals are lacking in digital when compared to analog. You must listen to a good analog rig to even making a comparison. Prior to analog I had no problems with cymbal timbre, attack and decay on my digital front end (I didn't know any better). Even hi-rez sources at 24/96 or higher native sampling rates still don't stack up to the natural sound of cymbals reproduced via a vinyl record. I suspect those that are challenging my assertion don't have high end analog rigs in their systems. To even suggest cymbal production from 16 Bit redbook sources (along with the rest of the music) even compares to good analog is laughable.
04-19-11: Raymonda (All cymbals mostly sound alike on a digital rig...not so with analog).
You must have a very poor performing system. Not only should you be able to tell what type of cymbal was use but also what brand of microphone was used to record it. I never have a problem doing so and neither do any of the folks I hang with.
Sure thing. Here's my poor system...LOL at you...
Pass Labs XA 100.5 Class monoblocks Wilson Audio W/P 8's Mark levinson 380S pre-amp PS Audio Perfect Wav Dac and Transport Clearaudio Innovation Wood Compact Turnatble Clearaudio Universal Arm w/ VTA lift Shelter Harmony cart Clearaudio Balance Plus Phono stage with ACCU DC power supply. Siltech LS-180 Speaker Wire, MC 4-80 Interconnnect XLR PSAudio AC-10 and AC 12 power cords PS Audio Power Plant Premier Power regenerator.
Some time back, I touted the Exemplar player, a converted Oppo. I own the Dennon/Exemplar, his former best--which I think by most standards is still excellent 'digigal'. As I think about what I get with this player and digital overall, I can't say that it compares with:
Sota Vacuum Table Koetsu Rosewood Cartridge Zeta Arm
The first time I heard this combination, with Ella singing, I melted...it was/still is an incredible sound to represent music. We aren't there yet with any digital I've heard.
(Sure thing. Here's my poor system...LOL at you...)
I said poor performing system not poor system. I also did not indicate that digital was better. Actually, in most cases I agree that analog is better, just that your statement that all cymbals sound the same with your digital front end means that something must be wrong with your digital front end. As a part time Recording Engineer, that uses a high rez multi track system on locations to record up to 50 concerts a year, and having been in the field for almost 30 years, with the first 10 being analog.....I can tell you that if you can not hear a difference in cymbals then either your hardware or software is compromised.
Now the arguement to which is better is another story for another time.
Rocketitman, If cymbals sound better with analog in your system ,good for you and be happy. I and apparently others get wonderful music reproduction with our digital sources and are happy and content. You prefer analog that`s great, just stop trying to convince others about what they hear in their individual systems. It`s foolish, trust your ears and we will continue to trust ours. Best Regards,
Folks, when I said... cymbals sound the same, I meant to really say that with analog, on my system...I am getting much more enjoyment from the cymbals having much better timbre with a more natural attack and decay than achieved with digital...After all, digital is only an aproximation of the natural analog sound wave. To me, it's like the analog sound wave was passed through a very fine filter, stripping the music (instruments) of it's natural space, air,textures and nuances. The soundstage is much deeper and wider with analog. Digital just doesn't do the cymbals justice like analog. Heck, I was a analog naysayer up until early last fall when I decided to plunge into analog head first. I haven't looked back. That said, enjoy the music. Cheers !
I agree with your statement and when I have the time to really relax and enjoy music and not wear my engineer hat I usually take a spin down the vinyl highway.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
