When is digital going to get the soul of music?

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?

digital is a wrong way for reproducing music, compared with analogic.
Even if it's superior physically, in some fields.
It cuts the time into instants and reconstructed it after, more or less closer to reality.

Neil Young, for instance, has never accepted digital, calling it a crime for music !

I have been positively surprised by the JPS cable "Digital AC" made for CD/SACD/DVD outfits, which makes sound the digital gear closer to the analogic true sound.

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?

Sure, that the best CD/SACD players are much better than 10 years ago, and often sound very good.

Now, besides theory I just spoke a little in my former message - I can't develop more in english, not to say that I am not a technician - I just can say :

- I have a very good CD/SACD player, Accuphase DP-85, considered among the few best ones (16'000 euros in Europe)
- as analogic outfit, a Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 tonearm and Lyre Titan as cartridge.

Well, my top sounding LP's sound better than my top sounding CD's or SACD's.

Richer, fuller, warmer - just more musical, if I can say that.
Ok, more dynamics in CD's.
I enjoy a lot my CD's, no problem, but when I want to listen to the best sound, I put my LP's.

MMAk,

No, use with two channel CD's

Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices.

Neil Young is a hippy with marginal talent, when the greatest orchestra conductors in the world have no issue with digital why should we?

Mmak,

If I had Cerwin Vega D9's and told you that digital was perfect...would'nt you consider comments a bit influenced by the quality of my speakers? Your DCM's are of the same ilk and you need to get much better speakers because you are just wasting your time trying to quantify analog versus digital when you're speakers are flawed and have difficulty with digital playback as a matter of their character.

Also I disagree 100% with your statement that music is too relax too. Music is a prime mover for me and I thrive on the tension early REM songs (using a recently mentioned example of a band with poor thin recording quality as an aesthetic to their music) like "fall on me" which is a protest song and it should get your attention!

There's music for every emotion and that tension is what makes it compelling and interesting. If you're trying to relax to music like REM, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

>>Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices<<

That is your opinion only and readers should take it as such. You do not speak for those of us who know better.

Audiofeel,

"You do not speak for those of us who know better."

The people in your cult calls the leader "Better"?

....that's kinda cool

Nice of you to say that digital is better than analogic.
But at my home, it's the opposite !
And for many other people too.

Do you really have a high end analogic gear ?

If you only compare datas, you don't go far in music...

Ahh well the Analog Blues do go on....it ain't completely dead but it's always pining for the fjords....the good 'ol days of vinyl...would anyone be interested in a slug?

Adhoc,

"And for many other people too."

No for a precious few. 2000-3000 is not many people, and the number is shrinking everyday.

What's funny is I probably have more records than you do, analog's been around for my entire life and I think I understand it very well.

What is really high end analogic gear? How much do I have to spend in your opinion to get good sound from a used record? Tell me I'm interested in what you think it takes.

BTW; how many records do you own?

I can't for the life of me understand how you can pronounce digital superior to analog based on your gear. Go figure.

Audiofeel,

Did it ever occur to you that I might own other equipment? I think it's a bad mark on your character to disparage a system you have never heard or anything like it for that matter. What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours. Go figure, I would think I would have to whip out the Meridian to get a clear victory but that doesn't seem to be the case

Tubes and whizzer cones seem to have found an obstacle with my little surround system when it comes to playing music.

well I'm not worried about it.

I think the major problem is that certain formats don't allow for enough dynamic range (16 bit isn't enough for more than piano alone according to experts such as F. Alton Everest). The other problem with having the bits too low is you lose more of the sounds created by heterodyne. Even if you can't hear certain frequencies, some combine to create a third frequency which you can hear.

Jkalman,

excellent point, keep in mind redbook CD has a non linear application of bits, which favors compressed popular SONY music formats. It is why I make sure to state 24 bit digital.

24 bits suffers none of the ills of redbook. many digital processing units of higher quality now process above 40 bits. So sine wave capable digital is.

We need to move away from redbook Cd as the "digital" source, but when the people most concerned about sound quality in the home want to champion $5K+ analog systems and that vocal minority is in key media positions professing hanging on to LP's and buying used collections of mistreated vinyl as a gateway to musical glory.....the hobby will not move forward.

the heel dragging needs to stop, I'm tired of no serious R&D on multichannel systems and software, because audiophiles think two channels and LP's are superior.

Armed with a Meridian processor and some good speakers, I could put any of these two channel systems in the shed for good. Subjectivity? That's what they all say before they get the lesson.

You can always tell when someone is clueless about surround and high quality digital....they say it wasn't any good, then you ask them "why they didin't make it sound the way they wanted?" They don't even know what that means and you get dismissed. I guess if you're not changing power cords or adding Shakti stones, they don't undertsand.

well that's been my experience till now...good point jk

>>What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours.<<

I'm afraid my speculative friend you have no idea what my system is comprised of so to say yours has been picked over it twice (by whom, where, etc.) is simply ridiculous and disingenuous. You really should not make such assertions without empirical data; to do so is a bad mark on your character.

No more soup for you here. Private email me if you choose to continue.

D-Edwards,

2'000 - 3'000 "analogic" people ? Where ?

I must say that like everyone, I enjoy all the practical advantages of digital gear, simple clic, etc
I just say that I enjoy more analogic sound than digital, owing very good gear in both fields : so, I still listen to analogic and buy LP's - less than CD's and SACD's, that's true (choice and practical advantages).

I have around 1'000 LP's and 1'000 CD's & SACD's.

One thing is sure : it takes pretty much money to have a very good analogic gear : turntable, tonearm and cartridge.
But, as I said, for me, I spent as much money in my CD/SACD player (Accuphase DP85 I love) as in my analogic stuff Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 and Lyra Titan (if I except, my analogic preamplifier, a Lamm LP2, I must say).

I believe that you can have a very good analogic sound with 7'000$ (turntable, tonearm, cartridge, for new stuff.
Less - possibly much less - if you find good used stuff.
Of course, if you spend more money you will have something even better : but over a certain level, price, the improvement is much less obvious than the the increase of the bill...

Something else : there is a beauty in turntable, tonearm, cartridge similar to the one of a great mechanical watch compared with a quartz one. Some people are sensitive to that, but it's probably true that most people who own both analogic and digital gear are older than those who were born at the digital era.
There may be a nostalgic feeling towards the "original" sound, the analogic sound we have been used to as children and teenagers !
Eventually, I understand perfectly well people who prefer digital, its dynamics, for instance.
I just say that I prefer analogic simply because it sounds closer to reality to my ears.

Adhoc;

We believe much of the same things except we are on opposite side of the line. I believe in and recognize the romance and nostalgia as you point out and please note I have had 10K records and still have atleast 2500.

I have had turntables from VPI, SOTA, Well Tempered, Linn and Roksan.

And preamps from AR, EAR, MOTIF, Audible Illusions

The thing is records are history, they are not coming back and when it comes to 24bit digital they aren't even close to the same quality.

I still (although rarely) get paid to setup turntables, I am still considered an analog expert by some people. Funny I know. But I know more about analog than I do digital right now, I bet you can you the same thing?

I know you "prefer" analog, but that doesn't make it better. I know why you prefer analog and it has to do with your system. A Subaru STi can mop up any Ferrari on a gravel dirt road, if you design a car for a particular enviroment it will outperform a superior car out of its element.

Analog and Digital are so different in what they demand from a system design to be their "best" you will almost never reach an equality between the two. I have tried for over a decade to get a balance and its difficult. My success with playing music in surround put an end to my struggles with analog as digital with surround is just too much for the LP to withstand.

We have to let go of the LP, so the hobby can move forward. $7,000+ turntables are never going to be supported widely, so we have to accept that if you have analog keep it enjoy it, but stop saying its better, because it isn't even close to what we can get from digital.

Let me use this analogy, sometime this year Brett Favre will stop being the Packers QB, its because he isn't getting any better and no matter how good he is now and how good he was, the Packers need to develop a new QB to attempt to solidify their future.

We have to support a digital format to fuel its development, the LP's best days are over. In four years we will put it in the Hall of Fame.

Digital is so much more than just a format, it get into room eq and other capabilites that will take audio to the next level.

Those who love analog sure love to bash digital....
I have yet to come across a thread which started the other way round....when will Analog get the soul of music, what is wrong with analog, for example?

I understand perfectly all that tweaking, cleaning, mechanical beauty stuff and the need to bash digital, after all Digital is about Digit (numbers) and Analog is about Alan (behavior)

There I go again with my digital bad habits, I can't help the jitter messing up some of the bits, even as I write. And what is missed can't be filled in by our ears/brains, at least not by us less retentive folks.

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.

Well, as I said, I am very pleased with my digital outfit, the CD/SACD Accuphase DP-85.
I am not an anti-digital and pro-analog.
I still buy LP's when I find something interesting, but I more often buy CD's.
(I won't even mention all the practical plus of the digital over the analog).

Maybe I am just half deaf or with terribly decadent tastes but, with a great system, both digital and analog (100'000$), I prefer my best recorded LP's to my best recorded CD or SACD.

That's all !

All you have to do is here is one live musial event of a particular genre (Jazz, Rock or classical), make a lot mental notes, come home put one LP of same genre and style (of course the same exact music is even better), listen carefully. Then while memory still fresh, put on a CD of same LP and listen. Be honest. Admit which is more CLOSER to the live event you just attended. Well I have done this many times this year. LPs come ahead every single time. Sure CDs can sound SPECTACULAR, but NOT like the live event. Don't take my word for it, Do it deligently and many times as possible. IMHO of course. I do listen to CDs but only when I don't want WASTE my LPs ;-)

Yes, Nilthepill : That's what I said !

Nil and Adhoc...I'll have to agree on this with you. When you listen to an LP (analog) on the same 2CH system and configuration as a CD (digital) 2Ch system, chances are you will come closer to live with the LP (analog). And I even know why. Because the "playing field" is uneven.

Digital is not optimal in 2Ch. Sad but true. This is why so many hate digital, because they can't grasp that it isn't optimal in this setup. It's horrible in 2CH.

However to level off the playing field, digital needs to be played in the configuration it was optimally designed for...MC. Otherwise your be chasing your tail each time. Let digital do what it does best and was designed to do, MC. Now things are more even!

When you factor this into play, LP's are a thing of the past! As for soul, digital has DSP's to take the edge off, amoungst other things.

Ah yes, don't we all love TRUE BELIEVERS?

Yes Guido, we do! About as much as we love glaring into the LED eyes of the system were "dating"...after 2.5 bottles of Cognac of course. Only thing is, digital won't result in a hangover or chaffing in the morning.

(The dating idea was yours, remember?) ;)

Hey next rounds on me, everybody! Drink til your liver hurls. :)

Cdwallace, I'll drink to that!

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.

"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?"

Mmak...thanks for the kind words. To be perfectly candid, technologically speaking of course, age is not a pertinant factor. Your 1992 analog system, more than likely, employed the same ideaology and application as the original 1960's version when it was created. I'm not certain of course, because I don't know what you system consisted of.

Granted, there may have been improvements through the years, but for the most part, depending on the components used, it's probably a duplicate of the original. Digital used this and things similar, as a "springboard", allowing it to capitolize on the shortcomings of analog. It took the same principals that produced the good qualities in analog, formed its own "signature", and carried the audio torch further, where and when analog could not. IMO, I don't think analog shortcomings is what made digital so good. Digital is an entity all in itself, just as analog; allowing for its own "evolution", just as analog. Your systems age or incomplete setup, as you say, has no bearing in this instance.

"Most people didn't dial in their analog, or went with direct-drive."

I beg to differ on this. You have a point, but its not what you perceive. Far too many people have "dialed in" thier analog systems, and have learned to accentuate and even manipulate analog to the creation it is today. All be it, these systems also sounded very good. This is why I say that analog has improved since its creation until now. This is where the evolution part comes into play. People have managed to bring out the best in analog. Some may have, as you say, went onto direct drive. Nevertheless, many have gotten analog as good as it gets.

"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?"

This is a very true statement, but somewhat incomplete. Yes, dolby has played an important role in making 5.1 what it is. Be it from a technology/format standpoint and even from an industry/marketing point of view. However, Dolby did not make MC what it is. There many variation of MC surround, to include versions and configutations of 5.1 (ITU and others), 5.0, 10.2, ambiosonics, and even others. Like Bose, Dolby was able to take advantage of an opportunity, as well as capitolize (Dolby) on its own legitimate advances in technology. Dolby played a major role in the advancement of MC, but Dolby didn't make it what it is.

"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."

This is a common practical misconseption. A properly setup high end 2CH system still has room for correction. As does a MC system. This does not and should not imply that there is "something wrong" with the format, though. The correction merely implys room for improvement. A high end 2CH system in an empty bare room can be "corrected" in the performance by the addition of room acoustic treatments and such. Does this mean that 2CH is errored? No, but this situation showed room for improvement, which, in this case, would produce noticable results.

Digital is what it is, just as 2CH analog. However, same rules applied, just as room acoustics helped in the previous scenario, surround improves digital which produces noticable results. Granted, room acoustic correction can help any system, 2Ch or MC. I only used that to help further my point. No format is perfect, but when setup and configured to its optimum, it brings the format much closer to perfection. Surround does this for digital.

"I have read that the harshness of highs can go away with surround versus two-channel with cd."

Mmak, this is only the beginning. Surround, done correctly, can produce remarkable results for digital. One Dobly created "format" comes to mind as well, Dolby PL. This isn't the only one, and there are others that were not Dolby created or inspired, which can redirect and/or eliminate digital "shortcomings" as well.

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.

Mmak - Don't get me wrong. I'm by no means the expert or pretend to be either. I've had a mentor (D_Edwards) to walk me through a lot of what I and others have mentioned before regarding 2CH and MC. Infact, truth be known, you can't get MC any where near "right" unless you follow the same steps for perfecting 2CH first. Thats another story in itself, that many just don't believe. Why...who knows.

Anyway, there isn't a lot left to reveal. There are no "secrets", just facts at are readily avialable to everyone. Its all there for people to see and try for themselves. Its just a matter of being openminded and willing enough to give it a try. This is what us "MC guys" are saying when it comes to this thread.

MMak this next statement isn't directed at you...directly :)

If there are any other specific questions or statements, wheteher its from MMak or anyone else, fire away. However, if it doesn't sound like the concensus, don't call it hogwash or start with name callings. If you don't agree, great. Just don't get gun shy when we ask one came to thier objective conclusion.

MMak - I and others will be more than glad to help where ever we can. Post more questions or shoot me an email.

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.

Mmak, I will say this...as fair warning. If you hear what you've read about surround, then the system is not setup correctly! I can say that with the upmost confidence because I've heard systems (my own, others, and those it audio hobbyshops) that sounded horrible until they were setup properly.

I've read about $200k systems that were surpposed to sounded "musical" and everything but actually sounded the complete opposite. If you want music, then we need to talk further. Be careful what you read because it may cause you to miss out.

As for Dolby...if you let that sidetrack you, you'll never find what you're looking for. Dolby is just a "name" if you will. Similar to the bose "name", but different in far too many ways. Dolby doesn't correct (per se), but Dolby "redirects"...places things in its proper place and perspective, as far as surround is concern. It takes the information that was condenced does to 2 channels (CD's etc.) and "uncondenses" the info and spreads it out across 5; processing the info to keep it in line with the correct placement of the 2 channel info. I hope that makes sense.

The goals has nothing to do with Dolby, its about helping you out where possible.

Let up know how it goes.

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.

Mmak - you lost me!

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?

OK...who might those people be that helped you out tremendously? You should thank them.

i have heard digital convey soul;audio aero capitole classic se in an appropriate well setup system.

Vulcanaudio, I have too! Through Zanden digital combo!!

This is definitely yesterday's news folks. . . lots of CDPs out there that are fully emotionally involving.

there is no emotion in a machine. an emotion is a reaction from a human being. music conveys the emotion, but the reciver expresses it or feels it.

it is not the function of a "machine" to convey emotion.
sound quality is not necessary to experience an emotion.

a simple medium, such as a table radio will suffice, as will a personal stereo which can be purchased from a mass merchandiser.

as poor sounding as a recording may be, it is still possible to receive that which music is communicating. while you may not like the sound, the message can be communicated in spite of the sound.

MRT, I conveyed your thoughts to my TEAC X-01 Limited this morning. . . and I would like to let you know that she immediately started to throw hissy fits. . . she's rather emotional sometimes, no matter how much I threaten to put her on a strict regime of Brian Eno.

I haven't followed the entire thread, but I'm inclined to agree with Nilthepill- almost - but then, I first refused to believe my ears, I listened again - in my system no less - to a well set up Goldmund Reference I, a Clearaudio Insider and a WAVAC phono. I hadn't listened to vinyl for five years, but now through this rig and listening to big orchestral classical gear my truly unwilling answer is: "NEVER" at least not with that kind of music.

Mrtennis, Yes I do see your point... and I have been moved by music from a table radio, because the musical message was so strong. However, if audiophilia goes together with love for music, you would expect from your rig, that it would move you emotionally with the right kind of music. After all, that is what you set it up for, to listen deeper into the essence of a musical piece. Exceptional systems will reveal information which a simple system really cannot and the deeper you are enabled to listen into the interweave of a complex musical message, the more you may become enthralled by it. This is a simple truth I'm afraid, though elite in a way of course, which may make it unsavoury to many. However, the sad truth is, if you're used to guzzle cheap wine, you wouldn't know what a good bottle of Bordeaux can do to you. You may get drunk on both, but the way to there is oh how different.
Cheers, D,

To the Shadorne and the "Amen" guys who think all CD players sound the same: aren't you in the wrong hobby? If you think, as Shadorne does, that all cables, amplifiers, preamps, and CD players sound the same (or have negligible differences) why waste your time pursuing or discussing audio any further? There's nothing left to talk about.

Shadorne, just for the record, I don't bash digital. In fact I like it and can get drawn into the music with a well recorded cd. The Zanden combo is magnificent and what it does to redbook is simply amazing and also the DCS combo with SACD gear can be highly satisfying. USB dacs, like the Spoiler are pointing a way into the future. However, as Nilthepill so rightly points out, analog is closer to the real thing. If you are familiar with that, there is no way around it. Anyone is free to prefer whatever he or she likes. That is entirely another matter. Therefore I tend to consider all the bickering about what is "better" futile, boring and besides the point. I you like big dynamic swings, black silence between notes and an etched out presence of voices and instruments within the soundstage you MUST prefer digital. If you wish to "feel" the presence of the hall, where the music was recorded, consider "blackness" as unnatural, rather have the silence between notes "breathe" as the sound softly decays in minute reverberations, you will prefer LPs or prerecorded tapes, because it comes closer to what you might hear in your favourite concert hall. As most things in life, it is a matter of taste, where everybody is free to prefer what is pleasing. Anyway, even the best rig, be it analog or digital falls sadly short of the live event. Neither digital nor analog provide sufficient "air", that is space where the sound , emanating from every instrument, seems to float and spread in space, to come even close, except that analog sometimes seems to mimic that just a tad better.

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.

I can't stand the hiss and pop of LPs. True great analog may be the one and only original open reel tapes. LP is a CD equivalent to the Master tapes.

With proper DAC, output stage design and implementation, digital will win over LP if you consider ALL aspects of listening music: black background, dynamic range, details, etc. LP may edge out in a few areas, but OVERALL digital will win.

I can't stand the hiss and pop of LPs.

First, the "hiss" is not from LP's but from the original analog master tapes. LP's don't create hiss. Second, this kind of comment about not being able to tolerate the "pop" and noise of LP's is usually stated by people who have little or no experience with high end or state of the art turntables, which are extremely quiet.

With proper DAC, output stage design and implementation, digital will win over LP if you consider ALL aspects of listening music: black background, dynamic range, details, etc. LP may edge out in a few areas, but OVERALL digital will win.

If only this were true I couldn't be happier. LP's are a pain in the a**, but they are so superior sonically that we are forced to deal with it. They don't just edge out digital in a few areas, they are vastly better in nearly every area.

It's both funny and bizzare to those of us who listen to high end examples of both, when people claim that digital is better. It really isn't even close.

Davemitchell is right to my mind and ears: If a LP is properly cleaned and well treated, there will be no clicks and pops on a properly set up TT and quite often, Abe, there is a hell of a lot of hiss on prerecorded open reel tapes. I know, I own and listen to a lot of them. Abe is right about dynamic range of digital, but wrong to my ears about "details" and if you are familiar with live music and take that as reference, "black background" to my ears is completely unnatural ( just as a noisy one of course ). Rather the background in a good concert hall is full of tiny reverberant clues, it "breaths" so to speak and I would expect that as well from a good recording of classical big orchestral music. Even the great Zanden or the DCS gear will not pick that up, a good analog recording of a classical piece will. The proof lies in the listening.
In fact I am wondering, if by the means of clever advertising and constant repetition of it, one of the central failures of digital, the lack of rendering of all the necesary ambient clues in a recording have not been turned into the so called advantage of "black background". There is simply no such thing in a live event as every regular concert goer knows.