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.
Shadorne - I recommend American Players Theatre in Spring Green Wisconsin. They play from original text on the hill in the forest (not Burnham Woods though but close).
My friend works for large recording studio. All analog (Apex) recorders were removed. He remembers good all times when they had to rewind (thousands of) tapes constantly (Few times a year each tape) otherwise it was copying itself from turn to turn (layer to layer) - I remember hearing this effect on some older LPs (in silence after loud passage). It was more of the ghost than soul of music.
Kijanki, if you are speaking of new recordings, just about all are digitally recorded in the first place. Almost no one does analog recording anymore - digital is so much cheaper, is far easier to edit, and can be done with much less equipment. However, if you are speaking of re-releases, as I think you were, many "audiophile" re-releases of older recordings made in analog are remastered from the original analog tapes, though there are of course digital ones as well.
Many of those who say that digital surpasses analog in sound quality are those who are listening only superficially, and are too caught up in surface noise (and yes, I include many people that call themselves audiophiles in that group). Those of us who truly listen to music with well-trained ears know better. Digital simply does not have the sheer dynamic range of analog, nor does it recreate the sense of the original recording space nearly as much, in terms of soundstaging, imaging, air, bloom, etc. Also, again because of the different type of distortion and the frequency at which this distortion occurs, it does not resolve instrumental or vocal timbres nearly as well - they don't have the body and breadth and complexity they do in analog. All of these things add up - digital simply does not sound as alive and real as analog does, and so it cannot catch the soul of music in the same way, as the original poster put it.
Is digital reproduction improving as resolution gets better? Yes. Is it more convenient? Yes. I am not arguing that it is "done wrong," as someone suggested. And I am not arguing that it is obviously the way of the future. But that doesn't mean that it is therefore better. It means that it is cheaper, more convenient, and sounds "good enough" for most. Audiophiles are an extremely small percentage of the market, lest anyone forget. Because of the inherent types of distortion, no matter how good it gets in the future, digitally reproduced sound will never rival a good, properly set-up analog rig (I do not argue that it certainly rivals bad or improperly set up rigs). This is easily heard by direct comparison of the same recording on the same system, and you would find very few professional musicians who disagree. Not one person I have ever done this type of demonstration for, professional or otherwise, has ever preferred the digital recording to the analog. It is not a question of having an open mind, Mapman, it is a question of having open ears. Those of us who have open ears are the ones keeping analog alive.
Learsfool - I was just responding to your statement that digital will never rival analog. Music is recorded in digital (recently in DDS) not for convenience but for the sound. Analog is delivered from digital tapes and since extra element in the chain cannot improve sound in fact destroys purity of the original digital information. Studio quality equipment will be available at home in 5 or 10 years but analog will never improve - nobody will design newer standard of the LP - not enough customers. I don't know how you define dynamic range but LP does not even come close to 24 bit digital recording with it's poor S/N.
Again you have to realize that analog reproduction (LP) in not an improvement of the digital master tape it was derived from. As I said analog already lost to digital and it will loose even more when Wide 4 channel DDS will be in every home. In my opinion CDs will eventually disappear replaced by 24bit/192kHz (or better) downloads. You might be even able one day to dial-in sound simulation of the LP player (adding rumble, crosstalk, hiss, bloom, wooly bass, pops, and coloration).
Kijanki, I've heard many times audiophiles/phonophiles proclaiming that LP has superior dynamics compared to CD. What is the absolute dynamic range of CD? 90dB? LP's have dynamic range of about 50dB (or less). But I think what those audiophiles who claim that LP has better dynamics than CD really mean is that LP has subjectively better dynamic contrasts than CD, especially in the critical midrange. Probably it has to do with the rise time of cartridges, which is "faster" than that of CD. Of course this is just speculation from a non-techie. What do you think?
Chris - you are probably right. It is impression and not absolute numbers. My Benchmark DAC plays bit games increasing resolution to 24-bit and noise floor to -140dB. Impressions can often be misleading. Sound with small amount of harmonic distortion is "lively" and "dynamic" while absolutely pure sound is clinical and sterile. Having very little exposure to high quality audio I look at it from the practical perspective. Digital Master tape feeding DAC driving my amp has to sound better than the same digital tape feeding DAC that drives micro lathe machine to create LP master then pressing LP then pickup/tonearm, RIAA preamp then my amp. Original master tape has to sound purest because is original and LP is derived from it with a loss of quality. Therefore argument that digital will never rival analog is hard to understand. Not liking CD media with its 44kHz carrier limitation is another story.
Herbert von Karajan said once that digital recording surpasses everything we know so far.
Kijanki, your last couple of posts are simply inaccurate. Analog was not made from some digital master tape, except in the last 20 years or so, and as I said before, some of it is still not. Digital recording technology did not even exist before the very late 70's, and I don't think it was commercially available until 79, though I don't know the exact date. And again, the amount of distortion, in either medium, is not small. And in the digital medium, it occurs at much more musically objectionable frequencies, which cannot be helped, no matter how much better the medium gets. I am not talking numbers here, I am talking in terms of the audible difference to the human auditory system, which is much more sophisticated than any machine yet invented. In respect to it's resolution of harmonic overtones produced by the voice and other acoustic instruments in particular, analog is much closer to the sound of these instruments. Which is why von Karajan later retracted that statement, which was made in the early days of digital when it was hoped that this harmonic distortion problem could be solved. When so-called sound engineers try to "prove" otherwise, you can be sure they are crunching numbers instead of using their ears. Those are the same engineers that maintain that there is no audible difference between two pieces of equipment with the exact same specs. Most audiophiles actually use their ears, and know otherwise. This is getting us into the classic subjectivist vs. objectivist debate. I repeat - no one I know who has ever heard the same recording on the same system has ever preferred the digital to the analog. There are many fine recordings one can use to test this - my brother's favorite is the Reiner/Chicago Symphony recording of the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra.
I would agree that analog is more mature today than digital (its been a round a lot longer). But it also ain't going anywhere new at this point. It is what it is and is ever going to be anything much more. That's jut the reality of things for better or for worse.
I've done specific a/b tests between vinyl and CD releases of the same title (a couple of reviews posted here on Agon as well). I've found subtle differences both ways that might affect preference either way in specific cases.
Each recording had limitations compared to the ideal in that I have never heard a perfect recording. I suppose any limitation short of lifelike can be considered distortion. Noise was not an issue in any case. Signal in all cases far exceeded any noise.
Granted these were pop/rock titles, which are less demanding. I agree that large scale classical works on CD may typically lag behind their vinyl brethren in regards to being completely satisfying.
But I don't associate "soul" with classical music in general. For titles more in the "soul" genre, CDs generally work fine.
I can't stand CD players, save for the few non-oversamplers out there. They sound beautiful and natural. On the other hand, I will never suffer those vinyl anxiety fits ever again.
"Those of us who have open ears are the ones keeping analog alive"
Assuming we're talking about vinyl specifically, actually I think it is those of use with large existing record collections and those shopping for used vinyl that is keeping the equipment manufacturers alive at least.
It is nice to see a few new pressings in some of the stores these days though.
Mapman - we're not talkin about comparing CD to vinyl. I just reacted to statement that digital will never rival analog. LPs are made from digital recording last 20 years - how it can be better than its origin? I has to go from digital to analog thru the DAC and in addition thru LP, pickup, RIAA preamp. How LP can improve sound of original master tape I don't know. LP is pretty much dead - (about 1 million record total sold last year) and nothing new on the horizon. How anybody can know for certain that LP will never be surpassed by digital? The word "denial" comes to mind. As I said we're not talking about 44kHz CDs.
Muralmanl - pretty much everything is changing to oversamling (for better or worse). Analog Devices dropped almost all non-oversampling DACs, Class D amps are the same thing as sigma-delta modulator, SACD is oversampled recording and DDS studios started using for recording is like 4 channel SACD. I got first CD recorded from DDS and sound is beyond believe.
Learsfool, lets just say that *you* prefer the distortion created by Lps. I have read in the audiophile press many articles and interviews by people with well trained ears who find listening to digital to be as enjoyable as listening to vinyl. Your personal tastes are absolutely valid but you are speaking for a small minority of a small minority.
In addition, there are many albums that just about everyone agrees sound better in digital than on Lp.
Many people don't have the cash or the time to put together and maintain a sophisticated analog rig that trumps digital at every turn. These people love music and the enjoyment they get from digital is valid too.
The high-end would be dead without digital. The numbers don't lie. We need to attract more people to our passion, not push them away.
Kijanki, you just can't compare the sampling circuits of OS CDP's and class D. I have both. Every digital filtered CDP tried in this system failed miserably, including modified state of the art SACD players. All suffered from the same tightening of the stage, truncated decay, and lack of natural sonics. My NOS DAC is frightfully better. All witnesses concurred. One fellow , who witnessed his Modright Sony SACD's pinned by my humble DAC, went right out and bought an AMC CD-77 with variable filtering on the fly.
Muralmanl - I'm not saying that oversampling is better. It's just a matter of taste. Class D like Icepower modulator is pretty much sigma-delta as much as I can understand Karsten Nielsen doctorate work.
" LPs are made from digital recording last 20 years - how it can be better than its origin"
One might play signal processing tricks to achieve a certain sound but your right, it can't be better in the sense that information lost cannot be regained.
However, I'm finding that the vinyl LPs that I would have most difficulty parting with are those produced for the most part in the 50s and sixties. There was a lot of attention paid to making good recordings in many cases in those days before, as with most things, economics watered everything down.
However, I would consider transferring say an early 60's vintage RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence recording to digital CD format even, and I would not expect to loose much if anything.
There is no doubt in my mind that digital can and will surpass older techniques increasingly over time. It already does in many cases when apples/apples comparing two products in each category. There are other cases where the reverse is true, so generalized statements regarding "which is better" is again meaningless to me. They both work well today when done right and also both can sound like crap when done wrong.
My opinion regarding the original question posed is:
Assuming the sound produced during playback is not exactly the same as what was played live (ie never 100% perfect).
The original signal was transformed to some extent during recording and playback. What happened to account for the difference? Was the original sound not distorted to some extent?
Tomcy6 - you are correct, there are a great many different perceptions out there in the audiophile world. My well-trained ears remark was meant to be much more specific to professional performing musicians. And yes, we are unfortunately most definitely a very tiny minority. However, I do not mean to imply that only professionals have or can have trained ears. I am actually trained in ear-training, and have helped many people in this respect. I just wish that alot more folks who call themselves audiophiles would actually use their ears, instead of quoting engineers and reciting specs and numbers. There is way too much love of technology in this hobby, and not nearly enough love for music, which is the reason the hobby exists.
The only other thing I would add is that your comment that most people can't afford a vinyl rig good enough to rival digital is sadly mistaken. It is very much the other way around. Digital has improved, yes, but only the very highest quality equipment, I would say at a minimum cost of at least $50,000, can even begin to be spoken of in the same conversation, sound-quality wise, as a properly set-up vinyl rig costing in the neighborhood of $2500. This will eventually change, of course, as music server technology is further developed (the direction digital is clearly headed in), but the sound quality of that technology is still far behind the best digital can offer. It will be a very long time yet before the sound quality catches up to the technology, and then another very long time before the price becomes affordable for most of us.
How is it that good digital pictures (better than analog/film many would say) can be had with the latest digital cameras for just a couple of hundred dollars but it still costs 10s of thousands to get digital audio right?
I know they are two different things technically, but economically, something just doesn't seem to add up here to me.
Seems simple enough. Obviously the entertainment industry, broadly speaking, has concentrated most of their research on video, not audio. They make much more money off of film than music. Any audiophile who is concerned with the progress of home theater systems knows this painfully well. The industry has always chosen formats much more suited to video, and audio has lagged far behind. In fact, they just did it again, as anyone who has been following all that mess knows.
Speaking of cameras, the same debate does still exist among professional photographers. Many like the convenience and speed of digital, and will take a digital camera on their first trip to a site and take literally hundreds of pictures, sorting through them later to figure out their perfect shot or shots. They will then take what they call their "real" camera on a subsequent trip to the site, and concentrate on the shot or shots they actually want to sell, and this is the one that is actually printed in your magazines, books, catalogues, brochures, what have you. I have a cousin who does that, and as recently as this summer was saying that that is still how all of the best professional photographers work. In this way, they get the best of both worlds, and save alot of time and precious film. Since digital video is so far ahead of digital audio though, this is much more of a real debate (amongst the pros, I mean). As I said before, very few professional performing musicians will argue that the best digital sound reproduction has surpassed analog. Unfortunately, we aren't the ones making the decisions in the industry. Profit rules - that's the American way.
Digital has improved, yes, but only the very highest quality equipment, I would say at a minimum cost of at least $50,000, can even begin to be spoken of in the same conversation, sound-quality wise, as a properly set-up vinyl rig
So which $50,000+ CD players have you heard and would recommend as a minimum to purchase? Can you rank the best ones between $50,000 and $250,000? How about in the $250,000 category and up to $1 million?
Or are you playing an Edward Lear game of absudity?
On the topic of both music and photography, and digital versus analog.
A great LP record (even from a digital master) is capable of delivering more information than a CD, and until digital is available in a format that's closer to the digital master, this will remain true.
The digital (or analog) master tape is not the issue here, the CD format is.
If any of you could hear a master digital tape (or hard drive) and compare that to CD or LP, you would realize how much we've been screwed. The problem with digital is when that great master is "moved" for public distribution.
The fact that we're discussing a 131 year old format in Audiogon forums along side modern digital is an absolute embarrassment to the state of digital delivery.
Moving that master digital signal from one place to another and from one sample rate to another does it so much harm it cannot be repaired. Then to make matters worse, our only choice is an outdated format that's too low a sample rate to replicate what was on the master.
However, when you convert that super high rez digital master to analog at the hard drive, it is a more effective way to preserve content. My comment would not be true if CD was EQUAL resolution as what was used to master THE LP. All this, allowing for the multiple errors in the mechanical process of CD and LP.
This is not something I made up, I know two of the most famous people in the recording business and this is what they say and how I got my info.
I originally said two things, so second, when the discussion about film and digital capture is brought up in music threads there is a huge factor that everyone forgets.
With music, the recording studio is the creator. THEY set the quality of format and then the record companies decide how much quality you are allowed to own.
With digital photography, the photographer is the creator and sets the quality of the format by choosing whatever capture engine (chip and camera) they are willing to pay for. They choose the lens, the processing engine and output quality. Perhaps most important, they can preserve their work in the highest possible bit rate, color, format and with NO compression at all.
Digital photography is limited only by what you are willing to pay and how much work you're willing to put in and every few months the format is improved. REAL improvement with better chips and higher resolution delivered to the end user.
So basically, the difference is that in photography you set the quality limit and in music you have no choice. With an LP you get a more true representation of the music regardless if the master was analog or digital.
With CD, you get a severely downsampled format that's only a shadow of what could be if the format had evolved this last 25 years.
Would you be happy with a computer based on 25 year old technology and zero upgrades? Before you say analog is even older. Remember analog is not a sample of the signal, it is the analog (or complete) signal and it's problems have be open to change and evolution for all 131 years.
Analog has evolved, it's better than it's ever been and although digital has evolved a great deal, it cannot escape the format that's required by law to conform to so it plays in ALL Red Book capable machines.
As for the future, I agree with the digital guys that digital is here to stay and also believe that digital could surpass analog. The problem is, the music business is run by marketing people that don't give a damn about what's the best quality, they want what's easy to package, has the fewest returns, costs the least to ship and offers the highest possible profit.
When you look at Apple, now surpassing even WalMart in music sales with MP3 downloads by the hundreds of millions of dollars, do you really think the guys in the music business care about audiophiles? We represent no market at all.
So basically we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Digital masters are superb and analog masters are superb. Which are better? Probably depends on the engineer and the equipment.
But from EITHER master, what is offered to the public is very limited. A direct conversion from digital to analog at the studio and an LP capable of delivering a good percentage of what was on the tape.
Or, a mixed down, degraded CD with sampling rate that should have been discarded years ago. If CD had been upgraded to match what's on the master tape, I would not be on this forum making these comments.
I hope I live long enough to see REAL PROGRESS with high rez digital. Until then, it's LP for me as the ultimate source (omitting my master analog tapes, but that's another discussion).
Albertporter - I agree. CD sampling rate of 44kHz is a joke but it has nothing to do with being analog or digital. Imagine fast internet downloads in true 24bits/192kHz (around the corner). Would analog made from this material still be better? Some people will always say so because they invested tens of thousand of dollars in the dead format and now are in denial. How great of the format it is if you cannot get most of the records you want and you have to settle for what they throw at you. Sure, there is a lot of used records (won't last forever) but what about new exciting artist/releases available only in digital. According to RIAA total amount of LPs sold in 2007 was 1 million — a joke.
I bet you'll find people who believe that analog TV was better than HDTV calling HDTV too sharp, too bright and lacking the soul.
As for golden ear music teachers — all that I've ever met had horrible audio systems.
I agree with your assessment that CD format is the limiting factor, not digital itself.
Still, technology details aside, many CDs do sound better to me than their lp equivalents in practice (and vice versa).
There is no practical winner in all cases. Just because a format has a particular capacity does not mean that it is always fully utilized to best effect. That is the case with both digital and analog recording products. There are good and bad products in any format.
Practically, what matters to me is what my copy of Seventh Sojourn or The Planets actually sounds like, not what the format it is encoded on is capable of doing.
The internet along with high bandwidth connections into the average home along with greater capacity storage devices is already starting to change things considerably, I think.
One thing that concerns me though is why should any company provide an audiophile affordable high quality digital sources similar to records when we're willing to shell out tens of thousands apparently in order to get it? That doesn't make sense to me and does worry me actually quite a bit.
Mapman - Good question. I don't think they know how to handle it yet. They shot themselfs in the foot keeping high prices and poor recording quality of CDs and sales are down (empty stores). They also loose a lot of money on stuff being illegally copied and are dramatically searching for the new, well copy protected format (SACD, HDCD). Latest, I heard, is CODE pushed by some artist (N. Young, Mellencamp). It is 24bit/96kHz 2 channel recording on DVD media at the price of standard CD. Latest Mellencamp's record was released on CODE (so I heard).
Albertporter - I agree. CD sampling rate of 44kHz is a joke but it has nothing to do with being analog or digital. Imagine fast internet downloads in true 24bits/192kHz (around the corner). Would analog made from this material still be better?
You're missing the point completely. Did you read what I wrote or just want to argue for digital? You appear to be a person without much experience that's angry someone would challenge your vision of the perfect sound forever BS they threw at us.
As for would 24bits/192kHz be better as a DIGITAL format, theoretically I would think so. There is no guarantee the record companies won't ruin that too, but I hope not. I'm ready to buy if they fix the problem.
Sure, there is a lot of used records (won't last forever) but what about new exciting artist/releases available only in digital. According to RIAA total amount of LPs sold in 2007 was 1 million — a joke.
What does that have to do with this topic?
When will digital (CD's) get the soul of music?
No one said CD's were not a sales success, McDonalds is an even bigger success but that does not mean they are the best quality.
I've had a lot of CD players, some retail for more than $20K, there are big differences in quality with the best ones but the player cannot make up for the lack of resolution on current CD format. Of course a really great turntable cannot make up for a crappy LP either.
However, taking the best of each hardware and the best of each software, the LP is the winner when it comes to available formats at best quality.
Mapman, you posted while I was composing my response.
I agree that digital could be great and said so in my original post. As for your experience with digital being better in some cases, I have yet to have that happen in my system. There have been hundreds of tests on my system over the years, sometimes involving manufacturers and even other reviewers.
However, I have had master digital files played here and also at a friends home and you have no idea what a digital master is capable of.
Source is everything! You cannot fix the problem downstream no matter how good the other equipment is.
"You're missing the point completely" - I'm not sure what point it is since you use a lot of words with just one conclusion that current CD format is not as good as LP. I never said it is, and there is no need to jump at me such unpleasant way. I merely reacted, if you read the tread, to statement that digital will never rival analog. I don't understand logic behind it - that's all. Many of my friends claimed the same at the beginning of digital photography and now all have digital cameras. I am not an angry person - just read my other post but it seems to me that with claimed experience and amount of dollars you "throw" at me you are a little arrogant. It might be better if you will not respond to my posts and I will do the same for you.
"As for your experience with digital being better in some cases, I have yet to have that happen in my system."
I've only a/b tested more pop/rock recordings where I can assert clearly that it has.
I was surprised when it happened though with "Days Of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues, though (see my reviews here).
I would expect many more cases favoring vinyl with large scale symphonic recordings in general, from my experience.
Other than that, well produced CDs work to my satisfaction in general, but I would prefer higher resolution with digital if done well in most all cases.
Since my comparison was made only between the commercial CD release and the artists personal copy of a digital master, there was no analog to judge by.
Part of why I was listening was because my friend was angry that the manufacturer had "ruined" his CD release. I explained that CD was not capable of what he heard on the master and he was very disappointed.
"Since my comparison was made only between the commercial CD release and the artists personal copy of a digital master, there was no analog to judge by."
Ok, I have no doubt that the vinyl would cut it, all other factors aside.
But did the digital master you heard get the "soul" of the music or no?
I'm praying that there is some hope here the answer is "yes".....but maybe I'm doomed.
Mapman, again I was composing my response when your post went up, sorry to be out of sync.
I have not compared that recording of the Moody Blues, I'm pretty sure I have the LP but not the CD. Then again, even if I wanted to conduct tests again, I would need to get a high end loaner digital playback system.
With my current Blue Ray player serving all my digital sources, I have no expectations it can serve as a comparison. I had a $16K D to A box here about 2 months ago and it was really nice. Still not analog but I would sure buy it if it were about one third that price.
Gotta crash, I've been up nearly 18 hours. I'll visit tomorrow with a clear head and see what gems have been posted.
"Music buyers voted down high resolution audio with their failure to buy enough SACD or DVD-A discs to encourage the record companies to continue with the business model."
Tvad, I'm more optimistic than you on this I believe.
Yes, those were not good business models.
I believe electronic delivery of music over the internet is the business model that will work as it does for other forms of electronic media and will continue to expand into higher resolution formats as well. Its already happening, I believe.
Its inevitable that upcoming generations of products like Roku Soundbridge ($129 currently) for example will expand to higher resolution and continue to be relatively cost effective hardware products to produce. You will pay accordingly for the high res content to go along with them though.
It'll be similar to how companies practically give away cell phones today do that they can lock you into their much higher revenue services.
Digital technology is the enabler of all this, not a hindrance. Viable business models are a different concern.
Hopefully its enough of a boutique/niche thing to take form and survive. As such , there will be a cost but hopefully enough willing to pay. It'll be a long time before it is ever mainstream for sure. I'm sure I will never be able to afford to replace my LP collection in my lifetime. I will look forward to it hopefully though for new stuff and better yet versions of the titles I truly cherish.
This is not a digital versus analog viewpoint on my part. It's about enjoying music. For instance, before I wouldn't listen to lp's made after 1982 in case digital was in the mix somewhere. Even drunk(not me!?), you could feel the relaxing nature of all analog versus analog with some digital. Finally I had to do something, as I had missed all music after 1982. I have a very fine digital setup(APL Denon 3910 and Oritek pre/dac{used at BAAS's recent events}-both with Lessloss pc's), and I hope to build my digital library. That being said, I wonder about the ability of the musician to translate his intent on digital. It seems that maybe analog makes it a song, and digital has sounds that don't seem to quite add up to a song-or you have to listen to it a lot before it becomes a song. Is this due to the lower resolution of redbook cd? Here is where I'm going to show my ignorance/laziness. Don't all these bits and extended frequency sampling still give you either a 1 or a 0?
"Music buyers voted down high resolution audio with their failure to buy enough SACD or DVD-A discs to encourage the record companies to continue with the business model."
Yes. And they buy their equipment at Best Buy and Walmart too.
Has that stopped people who care about good sound from shopping for the expensive toys we demand in our preferred high end audio boutiques, like this site and other sources?
Since high resolution digital masters are apparently already a fact of life and exist, I see no reason why over time someone will not find an effective way to make new money on the existing commodity by selling it to those in the target market willing to pay, just as they are willing to pay more than the masses now for their expensive vinyl and CD playback systems.
This is a great thread but I think people who prefer Analog are barking up the wrong tree when they try to "justify " their preference from a "technical" perspective.
you could feel the relaxing nature of all analog versus analog with some digital
Exactly. That is the crux of it. This is why analog tape recorders, tube amps with old ribbon microphones were preferred and are STILL preferred by many pros in the industry. It is all about the different "recorded" and "playback" sound, a style which some people prefer and is viewed as pleasing and less fatiguing.
I can assure you it is NOT due to a technological failure of digital!
If you examine the science of the CD format and its accuracy in signal reproduction then there is asbolutely NO DOUBT that it is extremely good (and far far superior to anything we had before). In fact CD format is so superior from a technical angle that you can compress it heavily (as with iTunes) and it still sells and many people are happy with MP3 type quality (a mere ghost of what is on a CD).
Before getting twisted off - please remember I am talking from a purely technical perspective. Digital uses the kind of technology used in our satellite communications, computing, internet and banking system. I mean we are talking stupendous accuracy compared to analog - you can make millions of copies of a copy of digital music perfectly (Analog is noticeably degraded after as little as four of five copies of a copy!) These are FACTS.
All I am saying is that Digital will NEVER get the "soul of music" as defined by people who like the type of sound produced by analog equipment. NEVER. NOT EVER. It won't and it can't.
So lets get over the squabbling in the sand box!
Lets stop trying to formulate a "technical" or "scientific" explanation for why many prefer the sound of Analog equipment! You simply can't mount a technical argument that "CD is a joke" and that analog Vinyl is superior "technically"! There is tons of information out there starting from wax cylilnders, to 78's (with the 12 equalization schemes) followed by the 33 1/3 LP and RIAA scheme and the common knowledge today that highest quality dance mixes for DJ's are generally limited to 6 to 7 minutes on a 12" 45 RPM (or else inner groove distortion will affect the highs). These facts and technical issues with analog vinyl are so well known - it is just plain silly to try to refute them and claim victory over CD's on pure technical grounds (it sounds right and digital sounds wrong, bad)! FWIW, I used to buy all the 12" 45 RPM single releases I could get my hands on when I was collecting 33 1/3 Vinyl and there was absolutely no question of their technical superiority for dynamics - all well supported by science too (just look at the edge of an LP and you see it is turning faster on the outside than the inside - I mean we are talking an absolute NO BRAINER - of course the inner groove quality is worse)! And don't get me wrong - I love the sound of Vinyl - it is excellent and I invested heavily in Japanese pressing etc to eek the most out of it.
The fact is Vinyl sounds better to some people - maybe it sounds better to absolutely everybody. Who knows. It is preferred. But why the need for a "pissing" contest every few weeks on Audiogon with the need to "prove" and float a "mirage" of Vinyl's technical merits over a CD that is then described as "a joke".
I am sorry but CD is far from "a joke" - it is probably the greatest technical advance in audio reproduction since Edison started messing around with wax cylinders to store music (along with the electrical amplifier and the speaker driver). The fact that SACD and DVD-Audio failed and that MP3 type files are the fastest growing source of shared music simply proves that too many people already find "CD" more than good enough!!!
We also need to distinguish what is produced on CD by the major labels (mostly hyper compressed crap for cars and boomboxes) from what high quality "audiophile" labels are doing with Vinyl. I agree that much of what is mastered for mass markets on CD is "a joke". I agree that much of what was produced before the mid 80's was much less compressed and better sounding - of course most of this good sound is only available on Vinyl - most modern CD remasters of old tapes are often ruined by modern zealous engineers/producers jacking up the dial on their compressors/limiters. That there is currently a serious problem with pop CD quality there is NO DOUBT, however this has nothing to do with the technical limitations of CD redbook format or "digital".
Can't we just accept that reproduced music on Vinyl is preferable to some (many?) ears rather than turn this into a "fault" with digital? Or a fault with peope who appreciate what CD's have done for music?
Some people love Salvador Dali's paintings - does that make Andy Warhol's art faulty? Does it make someone who likes Andy Warhol a stupid ignorant blind idiot who just doesn't "get it" becuase Andy Warhol is "a joke"?
Just a thought - but I see these analog vs digital arguments just going on forever and I just feel that there is actually nothing wrong with preferring Dali over Warhol...
How do we know that some here, especially those younger, do not in fact have fully functional human ears that can actually can discern things clearly even beyond 20000hz unlike most of us?
If they are over forty, that would be a huge exception though, so perhas there really is not much of a market.
I am over forty and know for a fact I cannot hear anything up there the way Iused to be able to back in college.
Maybe that's why CDs sound just fine in many cases to me and many others but not some.
Ironically, the higher resolution stuff may be technically superior, but most people will never be able to hear the difference. Those who can are probably younger and even less likely to be able to afford it.
Shadrone, Love your summary. It's been said before though. To no avial, unfortunately.
IMHO, the reality is that a lot of folks need to reinforce their personal observations/beliefs so they make a polorizing statement to find support from like believers. A human condition that defies any rational cure. After they have found their counterparts they form a gang and attack all others as non-believers.
It all starts with the title of the thread. If anyone thinks that any particular format has 'soul' they are listening to the wrong thing. Any 'soul' to be found is found in the music, and it can be heard live or over boom boxes by those who have an open mind and ears, those who are not just obsessed with the quality of sound reproduction.
Interestingly the self-proclaimed 'music lovers' who decry and avoid any one particular format because of its inability to convey the soul of music, have no real interest in music. It is just a vehicle for the sound. What they worship is the sound.
One of my favorite performances of Mussorgsky's Pictures is a 1956 recording of a live performance by Richter. I have it on both LP and CD. It is a terrible recording! In either format! But, IMHO, no better performance has ever been recorded. I suspect many audiophiles, in particular, but especially format freaks, would never 'hear' its greatness, or even listen to it, because of recording issues.
Its OK to focus on sound quality, after all it is the foundation of this hobby, but lets not get sanctimonious and pretentious about format preferences having 'soul' or being able to convey 'soul'. That is nothing more, or less, than a bumper crop of crap, being farmed by a bunch of past, present, or future merchants. IMHO of course.
If 'soul' is something to be discussed, why don't we just start a new thread about which religion best portrays or encoumpasses 'soul'. Now that would really be fun!
Really, what the h--k is everyone complaining about? We have more choices now than ever in the past regarding how we satisfy our personal music related urges and it will only get better from here. Maybe if just accept......
.....Nah!
But I do think there is a good future episode of South Park perhaps buried in this thread somewhere.
Newbee - I did say that 44kHz sampling, and not a CD, is a joke. I still enjoy the music on CD and practicallity of it. I remember seeing similar threads on SS amps lacking the soul compare to tube gear.
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.
