My digital has more soul than I can handle.
When is digital going to get the soul of music?
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.
835 responses Add your response
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. |
Muralman1, I think we have a misunderstanding; I am talking about digital not analog. Here is a description of the Reference Recordings HRx discs And here is the Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances HRx disc I have converted this to Linear PCM 176.4/24 DVD-A using HD-Audio Solo Ultra by Cirlinca so I can play it in my NWO-M. As nice as the CD is, the HRx/DVD-A is light years better. Both came from the same master tape. Best, Alex Peychev |
Muralman1, One of my all-time favorites and system test disc is the Reference Recordings "Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances". If you hear the difference between this excellent CD and the RR 176.4Khz/24bit HRx disc made from the original analog master, you will change your mind, forever! :-) Simply, half of the info is missing on the CD and there is no transport or DAC available to make up for it! Best, Alex Peychev |
Folks have been saying that digital is poor-sounding compared to their old vinyl. I'm wondering if the big problem isn't that digital sounds bad, per se, but maybe a a lot of the problem is that most recordings are mixed and mastered by engineers who don't care about the sounds of the end result, and only want to mix it really loud and get it out the door. I have also read that mastering of recordings has changed, for the worse, since the days of vinyl, before CD. I listen to rock, jazz, jazz/fusion a lot and I am finding that practically every CD in these genres that comes out these days are heavily compressed and in general sound like crap. So maybe a lot of the problem is in the mastering for CD? I am getting disheartened. So maybe CDs in my favorite genres sounds like crap that I'm almost thinking of getting out of the game. |
Sorry my mid fi digital rig has out performed some very expensive analog rigs iv'e heard lately . I'm wondering what a very hi end dig rig in a properly synergized system would do for music . A friend who has spent an amazing amount of time and money on his analog set up , not to mention building and voicing is entire system around that rig , recently purchased a mid fi Cd player and often comments on it not being close to analog . The cost is about one tenth the analog rig and little has been done to voice the set up . What can I say . |
12-20-10: Muralman1 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. |
I wish there was a CD player that allowed me to listen without being constantly reminded of it's flaws. Same here but its very difficult creating such beast. :-) That being said I have heard positive things about your players if you're the Alex Peychev that does all the digital work. Yep, same Alex Peychev. :-) Thank you for the nice words! 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 ! I respect Joe Harley, although I don't know him in person. I agree with him because my experience is similar. 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. Absolutely, clocking and data transfer are very important, but there is more. :-) 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. I don't blame you! With analog sources like yours it will be next to impossible not to find digital flaws. 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. 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. 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. Maybe you would consider auditioning my NWO-M digital player, and I'd be thrilled if Joe Harley can hear it too!! Best, Alex Peychev |
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! 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. |
Alex, -- "takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital" -- yes, I agree, it is simply easier to get pleasant sound from a TT than frequently the typical at home CD setup. But that is not the fault of the CD medium itself, but IS the fault of the CD playback mechanism. Simply put, it is injecting too much unpleasant distortion directly into the signal, AND adversely affecting the following amplifier stages. Subtle distortion, yes, but very unpleasant. So, again, I emphasise, it is at the actual moment that the digital recording is being played, running through the DAC when the damage is done. Let's consider those tests you did: 1) Vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 192/24: Recording 24 1) Same vinyl to top line AKM ADC encoded at 44.1/16: Recording 16 Now, from my point of view, Recording 16 is effectively the same quality as Recording 24, assuming the AKM device is top line as you say. Now let's play them back -- for argument's sake in a SACD player. Oh dear, Recording 24 is much better than Recording 16! You would say, just what I expected. But I would say, what's happening is that the mechanism in the SACD player is much better at its job of playing back Recording 24 than it is of Recording 16; in other words, at the point of playback more "nasty" distortion is being generated directly and indirectly by the SACD player when ACTUALLY PLAYING 44.1/16 material than when PLAYING 192/24 material, even if it is of the same original audio! So, in simple terms, the CD sound is lousy because the CD playback is not working properly, or at least not as well as the SACD playback ... Frank |
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! 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. |
Frank, The recording is usually done in the analog domain using high quality Pro tape machines, or direct-to-disc cutting lathe, or at high resolution digital PCM or DSD. So unless if you have a vinyl pressing from the master analog tape or high-res digital master (DSD or PCM 176.4/24 +), there is no way to experience anything that is even close to the original performance. What Albert tied to say is that, even though the original master recording is initially done in the digital domain, it will 99% sound best on vinyl compared to any uncompressed (WAV or AIFF) digital with less than 176.4/24 resolution. I do have recordings that were done on vinyl and also in SACD/DVD-A so I can compare. Not only that, I've experimented with my own digital recordings from my vinyl setup using the industry-standard top-line AKM Analog to Digital Converters. For the record, nothing that is WAV or AIFF and less than 176.4/24 or 192/24 compares to the vinyl on A-B test. The CDs I made from those tests are my “car copies”. So while I am sure you are immensely enjoying the convenience of your digital, it really takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital. CD can indeed sound very nice but nowhere near vinyl made from the original analog or digital master recording. Just my 2 cents as always! Best, Alex Peychev |
Learsfool, I'm pleased I did get the first bit right, that is, I was correct in understanding what you were saying. But, as to "how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back", I'm very sorry, another "thought" experiment, and bear with me please ... Recording a signal digitally and playing it back, for BOTH monitoring AND home playback purposes, is in essence two key processes: A->D, a conversion from an (microphone) analogue waveform to a digital representation (which from then on can be captured with zero distortion), and D->A, the digital representation converted back to an audio signal driving, say, headphones. Let's say, for argument, there was 10% distortion, loss of information, change of sound or whatever you want to call it in this overall process. Where was this 10% lost? Was it: 1) 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A, OR 2) 0% loss in the A->D and 10% in the D->A, OR 3) 5% loss in the A->D and 5% in the D->A, say Based on my experiences I would, as a very rough guess, say: 0.1% loss in the A->D and 9.9% in the D->A and it appears to me that you think it's 1), that is 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A That's where we differ, and that's why I believe digital CAN do the job ... Frank |
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 ... Frank |
LOL Kijanki, funny last comment on your latest post. It is not necessarily that I want to convert everyone to my beliefs, in fact there is more good vinyl for me if they don't! I am just trying to explain my own point of view. As always, it depends on what one's personal sonic priorities are. Those who place eliminating surface noise as their highest priority will of course always go the digital route. I have never been involved with an orchestral recording session that did not involve multiple mikes. Even for my orchestra's archival recordings, which are broadcast on the local classical station, they use at least eight. I am not sure why this came about, either; as you say it doesn't really make any sense. I think it may be a case of "because they can." It also gives the recording engineer MUCH more personal control over what the end result of his mixing sounds like (as well as being much easier to edit - any idiot can make a recording with a laptop now). They almost never listen to what the musicians have to say about it, even the conductors nowadays very rarely get involved in what the actual end product actually sounds like. It's a crying shame, really. Technology winning out over aesthetics yet again. Frank, your "thought experiment," unless I am mistaken somehow, is the exact experiment I was talking about having made several times, most recently about a year and a half ago. I am also not sure how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back... To put a finer point on this, I could agree that digital can decently capture the experience you mention (Beethoven 7 several rows back), this I am not denying; my argument is that an analog recording will capture it much better yet. Again, it depends on what your sonic priorities are. If one's priority is to recreate the timbre of the instrument, especially it's overtones, and the ambient noise of the room along with it, then yes, the analog recording was indeed markedly superior every time. Digital processing simply removes too many overtones from the very complex timbres of most acoustic instruments - something many designers are still trying to solve. Unfortunately, though in other aspects the technology has markedly improved, in this particular area (which is of course fundamental to musicians, who work very hard to get as close as possible to the exact sound they want) there has been very little, if any progress since the technology was invented. |
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 |
I'm sorry, Learsfool, like Kijanki, I'm going to have to do another round ... A "thought" experiment: a classic Mercury recording session happening in the 50's, with that very straightforward microphone setup, feed the signals to both a modern, high quality analogue tape machine, and a current digital recorder setup. You're saying that, in every case of analogue tape and digital recorder setup, that the digital will be markedly inferior to the analogue upon playback, at that recording location on the day -- am I correct in understanding you? If I am, then I would still beg to differ, because you still have not separated the process of recording from the process of playback! My experience is not yours of the quality of playback of digital, so my conclusion is that the recording has worked well enough, but the quality of playback varies quite markedly, and this includes the playback at the desk of the recording engineer! I have experienced very high quality analogue playback (and, conversely, highly excrutiating, blurred and harsh sound from very expensive vinyl setups), and have sat several rows back from the stage soaking up the vigour of Beethoven's 7th, and still have no difficulty saying that digital has no trouble, no trouble whatsoever capturing that experience ... Frank |
Learsfool, I'm pretty sure there are one mike digital recordings but agree that digital is promoting multi-microphone use. I'd like to know why they do it since one mike recording seems the most natural to me. They have to gain something by placing more microphones since it is more complicated. Is it an option to use deficient (cheaper) recording hall. Long, long time ago I had decent TT but did not take enough care of records, I admit. Over time I got overly sensitive to pops and clicks. Today I would be very careful and also buy better quality vinyl - but it is expensive and buying used wouldn't be an option to me. It adds cost of the media to my previous list of turn offs. I agree that with proper care I can get dozens or even hundreds of playbacks without clicks or pops but it also means that my favorite records will be gone first. I see often these threads stating that digital has no soul, no quality etc. while my home system, being half decent, already sounds very good to my ears and has plenty of soul. Analog lovers are a little bit like communists - won't rest until everyone else shares their believes. |
For me it is only issue of playback, since I cannot tell analog from digital master (other than hiss of tape). I believe it is better to allocate all resources into digital than building two systems (since LP selection is so limited). Again, LP playback might be perfect but it doesn't "sound" good to my ears: - clicks and pops - wear of the media - very limited selection - inability to listen to whole record at once - difficulty in changing tracks - no playlists - no way to make backup - no server - no wireless - no remote - constant cleaning - maintenance of the hardware - cost of supplies (including stylus) - wow and flutter - rumble - feedback |
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. |
Frank, Kijanki, some very good questions. I'll do my best to answer them briefly. I'll start with Frank's discussion of playback at the recording site. I have had to record myself, or have a professional record me, more times than I care to count. More than a few times, I have convinced the engineer (always when it was a personal friend) to experiment with me, using both an analog and a digital set-up. I assure you, there are clearly heard differences between what is heard in the hall live, what is on the analog recording, and what is on the digital recording. It's a fun experiment to do, listening to the differences in timbre, and to the sense of space, or as audiophiles would have it, soundstaging and imaging and bloom and other such terms. As far as orchestral recording goes, what I was thinking of was the difference between say recordings from the 50's and 60's, the so-called "golden age" of orchestral recording, and the way it is done digitally today. In the golden age, pretty much all of the best labels just hung a couple of mikes up out in the hall (or in the case of Mercury, high above the orchestra, usually about 15 to 20 feet, if I remember correctly). There was then very little done to the recording in the way of mixing, in the modern sense. Done in this way, the recording sounds about as close as it can get to what it actually sounds like to a live audience member sitting in the best seats in the hall. Today, in a typical orchestral recording session, there may be as many as twenty mikes onstage, as well as overhead. Almost never are any placed out in the hall anymore. These mikes are much closer to the instruments than they should be, and then all of these separate tracks have to be mixed, which is almost never done on site (with the reference to the live sound). The resulting mix is therefore more what the engineer thinks sounds good (often even the conductor is not involved anymore, except on site) rather than a re-creation of what the performance actually sounded like in the space it was recorded in. You lose much more of the sense of a real space on this type of recording. And this is not to even go into how many edits are done nowadays compared to in the past. Often, what you are listening to on a modern orchestra recording has no real resemblance to any single take that was actually done. This is one reason why many people complain that modern orchestras do not sound as "musical" somehow as the older ones did - the "life" they are missing has indeed been taken out by the process. The average symphonic recording nowadays has hundreds of edits on it. So to the playback - on a well-done recording, tape hiss is all but inaudible, and if one takes good care of their LP's, one can get dozens if not hundreds of plays from many of them without ever hearing a pop or crackle. Other times, these things are very audible; sometimes the pressing was bad and there is nothing one can do about it. Regardless, this is merely surface noise. I personally will put up with this if it means that I get a more accurate (meaning lifelike) representation/resolution of the sound of the instruments and voices I am listening to, and a better sense of the space that they are in (which, of course, very much affects their performance, which will change in subtle ways in a different venue on a tour, for example). Analog recording captures these things so much better than digital recording does - this is easily demonstrated on any decent system. There is no mistaking the difference between the best orchestral recordings of the golden age, and the ones done today that may have much less surface noise, but sound so much more characterless in comparison (speaking of the recording, of course, not the performance). |
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. Your ears, being in orchestra, plus experience with live instrument sounds, is better than mine (I'm sure), but how many people can tell just by listening if LP was recorded from analog or digital tape? I cannot do that, but even if I could detect small sound difference I would still prefer version without hiss of analog tape. Such hiss can be suppressed in CD playback by de-emphasis but as far as I know cannot be removed from LP playback. On the other hand - de-emphasis feature of CD players is almost never used since everything is recorded digital (no tape noise) these days. |
Learsfool, I would just take issue with a couple of your points, if I may ... "objection is ... the process of digital recording and processing, and what it does to the sound in the first place, long before anyone's playback": as the only way to know what 'has been done' is by monitoring via a playback of some form, how you can know when the sound has gone "astray". How you do know that the recording hasn't been "perfect", and that it isn't the playback at the recording location that is at fault. And before you say, of course the recording engineers are using high performance, professional equipment, remember my comment about a car capable of 100mph -- it's straightforward to make a car capable of staggering speeds, whether you to want to take a ride in it is another matter! "what is not present in a digital recording that is in an analog one" and "removes too much information": this type of comment is still made over and over again, and waves a big flag to me that says: digital distortion in the PLAYBACK! Vinyl has a distinctive, characteristic distortion of pops, crackles and whoosh, tape has one of high frequency hiss, and digital has one of sounding like information has been lost! Granted the latter type of distortion IS disturbing, of course it shouldn't be there, but getting rid of it is NOT solved easily. If it were, none of this type of discussion would take place. But it can be solved, many people have largely done it, there are comments by those who have transcribed good vinyl recordings to digital and then find it almost impossible to pick whether it is the LP or the digital copy playing. What the person has done, of course, is exactly equivalent to having a very high quality accoustic horn gramophone set up in the recording studio with a microphone stuck in front! And it worked ... Frank |
Kijanki, you are correct that I was speaking of the recording process, and not the playback; you are also correct that most audiophiles will be much more concerned about the playback. My objection is much more to the process of digital recording and processing, and what it does to the sound in the first place, long before anyone's playback system can get involved. Digital playback systems have indeed come a long way - I agree that SACD sounds better than CD, and I have heard a couple of 24/192 masters, which do sound pretty good. Mapman, you are certainly correct about younger people hearing high frequencies better. It is also an unfortunate fact that everyone in my profession is guaranteed to lose at least 20% of their hearing during the course of our careers, due to the sheer decibel levels onstage. I'm not anywhere near that mark yet, but I should be wearing earplugs more than I do. I try to resist temptation to play my system loudly at home, and I try to avoid any other noisy environment when not at work. Charles1dad, I didn't and wouldn't say that being a professional musician gave me any more authority on the technology; I was just explaining where I was coming from. That said, I do obviously have great familiarity with what acoustic instruments and voices sound like before they are recorded, and I am well qualified to judge whether a recording has captured this or no (even if I don't always completely understand the technical why of it). A performer's passion for the music should come through no matter how bad the recording and how bad the system it is played on; this is not what I was speaking of, nor was I speaking at all of enjoyment derived from listening to performances - for me, that goes without saying. For any musician, the performance always comes first - the recording is a very distant second, even among those musicians who also consider themselves audiophiles. If one is too busy listening to the recording or the system to enjoy the music, than priorities are most definitely in the wrong place, IMO. Frank, while I think I understand where you are coming from now, we will definitely have to agree to disagree that "distortion is distortion is..." For me, it is not a matter of what types of distortion digital has managed to eliminate; it is a matter of what is not present in a digital recording that is in an analog one. To say that digital throws the baby out with the bathwater would be grossly exaggerating the case; but I and many of my fellow musicians do believe that digital recording/processing simply removes too much information (especially timbral and spatial information) from the music somehow, and I know more than a few recording engineers and equipment designers who agree. |
Learsfool, thanks for the thoughtful response. Unfortunately, however, your guess was wrong -- I am particularly interested in achieving the results I mentioned in the very areas that concern you, "the human voice, or other acoustic instruments, such as a full symphony orchestra". I have experienced one of the world's most respected classical guitarists playing on a couch opposite me, my brother blowing on a saxophone full bore a few feet away, and a time listening to a big band in full cry, where I stepped around the typically hopeless PA setup, and stood right next to the front side of the low stage, only a few feet away from the trumpet and trombone, etc. The latter experience was magnificent, effortless and massive sound; as a test, I "shouted" at the top of my voice during a dense passage, but could not hear myself at all, while the sound from the instruments was effortlessly enveloping and flowing over me, fantastic stuff. This level of reproduction is my benchmark ... All those deficiencies you mention can be there in setups, but, and sorry, "distortion is distortion is ...". A very key point you make is "analog has more surface noise - but this type of distortion is not embedded in the music itself, and can be listened through". That is exactly the principle that I use for making digital playback (which is what I am using exclusively) work properly. Yes, the type is distortion is "different", but can, and I repeat, can be reduced to the point of being effectively, musically, inaudible. This is nothing to do with readings someone has got on a distortion meter, they are about as useful as saying a car has been measured as being capable of 100mph, for picking which vehicle is superior on the road! I have certainly been able to enjoy, on a digital setup, the famous climax of Beethoven's 9th with the impact I mentioned earlier, and at the other extreme, the earliest recordings of Melba, 1910's or so, and the ambience and realism of the piano accompaniment in the distance delicately and convincingly captured ... Frank |
Learsfool, It`s fine that you1re a professional musician I don`t think it gives you any more or less authority on the topic. I have several good friends who play music for a living and when listening to music together in various home systems with a digital source have expressed complete joy and emotional connection with the performances. These people have had exposure to good analog and enjoy that as well. These sources were the Well tempered table and a Linn LP12. I certainly agree with fast42 and niacin, a properly setup using high quaility digital sources can sound absolutely soulful,passionate,vital etc. We have at times listen to the same titles in both formats to compare, one is`nt consistently superior to the other. |
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. |
Learsfool, IMHO people object to digital playback and not the recording itself. Most of the LP material comes from digital masters but very few object to that. Perhaps the real problem is in the playback where in redbook CD (16/44.1) higher frequencies are represented by just few samples while resolution is only 1 part in 65k. Making 10 kHz sinewave in 4 points is very difficult while 20kHz in 2 points is practically impossible. AFAIK Nyquist requirement guarantees only preservation of the frequency (no aliasing) and not the amplitude. SACD is roughly equivalent to 20/96 and is already much better sounding than redbook CD. I've never heard 24/192 masters but few people who did said that sound is incredible. |
Hi Fas42 - I want to respond to a couple of points you make: "distortion is distortion is distortion," and "A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have." Am I correct in guessing that you listen to primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, electronically produced music? This would be the only context in which I personally can conceive of anyone making the two above statements. Certainly digital can come close to analog in that arena. But if we are talking about recording the human voice, or other acoustic instruments, such as a full symphony orchestra, then sadly, there are indeed very very bad digital recordings; in fact, the vast majority. To give just one, but to me the most damning example, digital processing simply removes too much timbral information, something that designers have always acknowledged and have never been able to fix, despite the great advances digital has indeed made. This is what most people mean when they talk about missing the "soul" in digital recordings. And I would vehemently disagree with the first of those quotes as well. It has always baffled me when some audiophiles make this statement. Analog recording has much more distortion in it than digital, you are certainly correct there. However, the distortions inherent in the digital recording medium take place at higher, and therefore MUCH more musically objectionable frequencies. I am no electrical engineer, and others have explained the reasons behind this much better than I; I am sure this thread has multiple examples. I am, however, a professional orchestral musician, and I can tell you that I have never heard a digital recording of an orchestra, as good as many of them are, that sounds remotely as close to real as even an average analog recording. Besides the timbral issues I mentioned earlier, there is also the relative lack of ambient information from the original recording space - almost all digital recordings are multi-miked and then remixed so that any sense of the music happening in a real space, so important for most classical music, is gone. Even worse, the worst digital recording engineers will add to the mix a very fake sounding reverb in order to try to get that concert hall sound back again. Yes, analog has more surface noise - but this type of distortion is not embedded in the music itself, and can be listened through. Many of the ways digital processing distorts musical realities cannot be listened through, as they are embedded in the recording itself. Digital has indeed come a very long way, but in mine and many other musician's opinions, a few of it's flaws can never quite be overcome. Please understand that I am in no way implying that digital is unlistenable or anything of the sort. There are many great performances that were only recorded digitally, and I am certainly not going to pass them up just because they were digitally recorded. I merely maintain that analog is a superior recording medium, if musical realism is the goal. |
Aplhifi, see again my earlier response. Yes, it it easier to "reproduce the soul" on vinyl, but only because it tolerates more sloppiness in the setup! You have to be more precise, more careful with digital, and a lot of the industry apparently still doesn't get "it". Slightly, very slightly askew digital can be intolerable, so if you want to enjoy "digital soul" you have to put more effort into it to get it just right ... Actually, a very simple analogy is (appropriately!) digital versus analogue TV. Most people would agree that with good reception digital is superior to analogue. But, with slight levels of poor reception, it becomes extremely irritating to watch the digital signal; yet poor analogue can still be enjoyed and followed even when it is severely ghosting, say. I know, in many ways a poor analogy, but what I am trying to say, is that in some ways the nature of digital is that the quality of it is either on, or off; great, or pretty awful. Frank |
Niacin, ... hear, hear! I would just make the comment that what you call synergy I have found to be that combination which minimises the level of unpleasant, low level or "micro", distortion. Many people, as you say, don't seem to realise that that is what you need to do, which is of course a great pity ... Frank |
I am amazed that people still hold the opinion that digital is such a poor performer. Superb CD machines have been extant for at least 12 years and I'm talking redbook, not the SACD or DVD-A variants. I'm not saying this is the case here but for many years internet forums have been awash with claims that vinyl still massively outperforms the CD and people often cite experience as proof. I find it hard to accept claims of "proof" when it's often pretty obvious that the claimant has never attained anything like a good digital set-up, yet still asserts that it's a rubbish medium. I have been living with my current system for around 8 years and it's CD redbook only. I had given up vinyl some 15 years previously and decided to try it one more time, once I had got a superb CD player, in part to see how it compared. I got myself an LP12 that a local enthusiast was selling (he also was going the CD only route) and pulled out my old vinyl collection. Whilst the detail was certainly "there", so were all the old faults that prompted me to jack it in the first place. The ability to play pops, hiss and crackles with great clarity reminded me why I hated vinyl so much. And how did the sound of my CD system sound alongside the LP12? Let's just say I never want to go back. The issues that people often cite as problematic with CD have not been evident since I attained a high end system, especially since the upgrade of my power amp. No harshness, no sterility, and certainly it has plenty of "soul". The one thing I would add, and it highlights something I have been harping on about for years and something most of you will also be acutely aware of, I'm sure - that of SYNERGY. My Meridian CD player had to go to the doctors a couple of years ago for a new laser and I was forced into using a backup player. I then understood what people were talking about when they complained of the sound of CD and also that of the ear-bleeder remaster. For the first time in years, I experienced listener fatigue. It's a Herculean task to assemble a system, the infinite combinations of kit and environment make it hard enough. Spending many hours of time and effort assembling what people think will be a system which eventually kill off their "upgrade-itis" will not necessarily result in satisfaction. No-one likes to admit failure, especially when spending a lot of money but the fact remains that sometimes this is what has happened. I have often encountered people on internet forums who cannot listen to a lot of their music for one reason or another - as it sounds harsh. Yet they proudly present their expensive and esoteric system for all to see, just to lap up the praise for the aesthetics. I'm sorry but that always sounds to be like a lack of synergy and consequently poor system matching. I am a canine psychologist and I always say to clients that "you do NOT need to put up with bad and anti=-social behaviour". The same applies to us audiophiles - we should not put up with sounds that displease, however much has been invested up to that point. I wish people, instead of stating "CD as a medium sucks", would just say "I have yet to hear it in a favourable setup". And before anyone gets defensive, I am not referring to anyone specifically, as I only read 10 or so responses to this thread. |
Just noticed this thread has been running since the beginning of '06, really shows how this topic of analogue versus digital is such a biggy, but unnecessarily so. I have only read the last page of comments, but what stuck out was the comment by Engelgrafik that "everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard", and the answer is as simple and as complex as that -- distortion is distortion is distortion. It is relative easy to get analogue to sound "good" because the heart of it is a mechanical process; digital's heart is very complex electronics, and so the task of eliminating "nasty" distortion is much, much harder. You have to work at it and work at it, but the end result will be worth it. My experience is that digital "done right" in a match race with analogue will most definitely be the winner, and by this I mean experiencing the "soul of music" will be able to be fully realised! But, and a big BUT, if one tiny, tiny thing is not working correctly in the digital setup then it can crash and burn, big time! An analogy is a performance vehicle versus a comfortable, sloppy springed family sedan. The latter will always be pleasant to drive even if out of tune, but the former will be a monster, and you will hate it if something is not working right. But get it right ... then you'll prefer the performance vehicle. A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have ... Frank |
I have three digital sources that are quite acceptable to me, although I still prefer vinyl. My Mac Powerbook Pro with SSD and playing Pure Music 1.65a in Memory mode with Entreq FW through my Weiss Dac202, the same source using Entreq USB through my H-Cat Dac, and my Exemplar Oppo 83 are these three sources. As yet, I have heard no better digital regardless of price. |
I'm going to say it will eventually get there but not with anything we have currently. Redbook CD will never get there in my opinion. It's too course to possibly trump vinyl. Higher resolution perhaps but it hasn't happened yet. I have hope because a fair amount of work is going on in this area. If only high-rez files would come along. They are, however, I'm sure they will never be mainstream. SACD is in the ICU because few are providing software for it. DVD-A is DOA... |
One of the closest I've heard, is the Exemplar/Oppo, by Exemplar, of course. This, while not analog is pretty remarkable sounding, and very tube-like, yet without the tubes. Lush midrange, great bass, imaging--very analog sounding for such a reasonably priced piece--$2500 US. Try to hear one, its worth it to hear this piece. Larry |
I love vinyl even though I think the reason why it seems to sound better is a combination of fluff, overdrive, gain, distortion, imperfections, etc. Digital doesn't really have that... everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard. However, when something analog distorts (I'm using the term loosely, not technically) it sounds a little fuzzy. More fuzz and you get warmer sounding perception. It's the same reason guitarists like me love tube amps. I bet if people used tube amps for their hi fi systems, they'd get more warmth. Some do, but it's expensive! In the guitar world, they're more affordable... usually just 2X as expensive as solid state. So a $200 ss amp will be about $400 if it's tube. There are more expensive ones that go for $1000, $2000, etc. Whereas in the audio world, the contrast in price in simply inaccessible... $20,000? Insanity! It is hard to find any tube guitar amp for more than $3000. |
my thoughts are that digital gets let down through the transfer stages of becoming a CD/SACD,etc. It (digital) has probably a more accurate reproduction of a master tape than a vinyl master/pressing. Why? As I record my LP's in a DSD format for convenience and availability, I find it hard to discern between the LP and the digital playback of it in DSD.(Korg DSD recorder). As I get into PCM, the quality starts to lessen and differentiations start appearing. Probably also less data space is required as we go down from DSD to 16/44.1. In easier terms I would say 45rpm presings better than 33rpm, etc. So digital can convey the soul, but I feel during the transfer chain we are not getting the best out of it and it starts to loose out. Hence we have all these formats such as High res downloads, SACD, Reel to Reel, XRCD,K2HD,etc. Redbook certainly does not have enough space for the amount of music record companies want to put on it. Record companies are also tactful for the fact that if they eventually do let out a quality so close to the master tape -then the game's over for them- as they will never be able to sell another version of a 're-mastered' 'higher ultimate quality' ,etc. again. After all how often have the Beatles, Sonny Rollins, Miles Davis, Rolling Stones have been re-released and we know we haven't seen the last of it or a special edition. So my final view is that vinyl and digital both have different presentations and if you can get lost into either of them more easily, you will feel the soul. Easier on vinyl though. Cheers, Neville |
