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.
Detlof, agree that it is hellish task to get both formats right in same system. I did though using same same make preamp and phono. Same (but different than the electronics) make TT, Tone arm and cartridge. Then I changed the bearing in my TT to Magnetic and my old cartridge died and I got another of same cartridge, practically new and sound changed in certain freq range. From midbass to low mids it is hard to tell difference- I constantly mistake one for the other, Highs are now extended and a bass a bit tighter in my TT set up. I use same make cabling and power conditioning all around to minimize unknowns.
With all that said, In my system the digital has 'slightly' more soul. It is not perfect, (but nothing is) but next to the real thing. May be when my new cartridge gets broken in, things will be different. I doubt it though.
Guidocorona makes an extremely salient argument for the re-orientation of most audiophiles. In the end, whatever brings one closer to the music is the right technology:O)
" but you will never know what both formats are really capable of unless you treat both sources as complete separate entities with entirely different tweaks"
As a second thought, to get both formats right in one and the same system is a hellish task. I've tried it for years. You can get somewhere, yes, and learn a lot along the way, but you will never know what both formats are really capable of unless you treat both sources as complete separate entities with entirely different tweaks and AC-management. In my system the preamp is happy with both, as well as the amps and the speakers.
Newbee, Mapman, sorry to -in a sense- to disagree with both of you. If you are crazy enough to try and drive both formats to the limit of what is possibly today, not even in terms of money, but that also, however certainly in terms of tweaking, you will find that both formats have advantages over one another. Old vinyl still reigns supreme in terms of classic orchestra, digital in other fields. None is "better", both are different and you can count yourself lucky, if you can get the best of both worlds. Wished you could come over to the Alps so I could show you what I mean.
"I've always had a hard time optimally tuning for more than one source, let alone different formats. But its fun trying!"
That is exactly what I try to do with my system, ie tune each source to sound as similar as possible using a variety of reference recordings in each format.
My results currently are still not perfect, but very good nonetheless, and the best I've had on my systems ever by a good margin.
Common noise factors associated with imperfect vinyl is typically the only way I can really tell for sure whehter digital or vinyl is playing. Otherwise it is hard to tell from recording to recording. If I do not hear any background noise, it is hard to tell. That makes me very happy!
Hey guys, how can you make such broad statements about the effect of format choices, like digital v vinyl. IMHO you can tune your system to enhance either format so there is NO fatigue. It only gets tough when you try to tune your system to enhance both. In my experience anyway - I've always had a hard time optimally tuning for more than one source, let alone different formats. But its fun trying! :-)
Chris, Basically I am complete agreement. Digital however has improved in the last decade and these days you can set up a system, I would say in the way Pscanli has suggested above, which will give you the same micro and macro dynamics as vinyl/analogue would, *IF* you stick to voices and small groups, string quartets, Jazz-combos etc. I still cannot bear digital with big symphonic music. There is still too much missing, which a good analog/vinyl rig will give us plenty of.
I think what is being called "soul" (or musicality) has much to do in fact with PRaT. With vinyl/analog you have a proper sense of "timing". A kind of "timing" that allows you to relax between the notes. It sounds strange but this is what (above all else) gives reproduced sound "musicality". It is not the ability to reveal micro information burried in the music or to deliver abundant macro dynamics. It is the way of reproducing sound without any stress and with the right "flow". With some digital gear you have the feeling of "uneasyness" that can be very tiring. I think many of you have experienced the feeling of relaxation that immediately appears after you've switched source from CD --> vinyl during a listening sesseion.
I think todays decent CD player are very good; however, they'll all only sound like "real music" when they have adaquate AC conditioning and isolation.
Tbg, I suppose "soul" is, when there is no trace of listener's fatigue and when the music really gets under your skin AND you forget about your system and nothing but music is left. And yes, finally, says the old vinyl man, digital has come a long way indeed. Especially if you listen to it the way you suggest!!
Had to revisit this classic thread to announce that it has happened.
I've done some tweaks to my system since last visiting this thread which succeeded in getting me thinking and I believe my system has now achieved the lofty goal lamented in the subject of this thread.
I my case, it took adding tube DAC and switching to an ARC tube pre-amp to do it but I think my digital now got "soul".
Or at least the music that plays on it that should have soul seems to have it spades now.
What other spiritual traits should I be checking my digital for now?
I want to point out that if it weren't for digital, many advancements in audio would have taken much longer to arrive at, or may not have arrived at all. I'm thinking of power line distortion, power cords(?), line-stages of preamps, speakers, etc.
On a serious note, I have read where HDTV created a serious problem for Hollywood in that it was increasingly difficult for otherwise attractive stars to look good in high definition.
The solution: more makeup (analog, not digital make-up I believe).
This is obvious these days on TV to most anyone.
I suppose this is the video equivalent of digital remastering in audio.
Very late to this thread....but my experience is with my tube DAC.....soul or something is present. No brightness edge.....just rich highly transparent involving tunes. With my XM radio.....they play vinyl....so who needs records.
Its only been going on for 2 and a half years and hundreds of posts. You'd think with all the collective brainpower thrown at it that the winner would be clear by now. The resolution (no pun intended) must be close at hand.
Then we can talk about tubes versus SS a bit also.....
It's very strange that audio is so difficult to reproduce in digital. We are able to make beautiful real like HDTV but not the perfect audio. I suspect that in the future audio DACs will become so complicated (sound processors) only designers will be able to understand principles of operation. Maybe it is time to stop asking. Computer users stopped asking questions long time ago.
"Producing music by interpolation of 1's and 0's is not a perfect thing. Winding a diamond stylus mechanically along a soft groove is not a perfect system either."
That is for sure and a big part of why the two sound inherently different.
By the way, I'm fine with CD format but am not a fan of CGI generated effects in movies for the most part. I prefer Dynavision.
My ribbon speaker cable is .003" thick. What travels through them has to be very very small. The powerful deep bass licks make that hard to visualize. I have read the music signal travels near the speed of light and is comprised of properties pertaining to both wave and particle.
Now, the 1,s and 0,s can be moved about, or preserved accurately enough by engineers. It is when they start fooling with the signal that ruins things. At least that has been my experience listening to my system.
We can agree the signal is not a neat sine wave, or square wave. We have seen our best, poor as that being, measure of what a music wave may look like. I think that look is a far cry from the true three dimensional complexity music waves are really comprised of.
I just wonder how on earth engineers think they can cull distortion from the body of the speed of light music without affecting the subtleties of the music itself? How is distortion plied away from that complex bundle of pulses without disrupting it's flow? Quantum Physics says no way. My system proves it.
Producing music by interpolation of 1's and 0's is not a perfect thing. Winding a diamond stylus mechanically along a soft groove is not a perfect system either. I don't care how limber the cartridge is, a high magnification should prove the marriage is microscopically a clumsy and dirty affair. Despite deficiencies, both really can be immensely pleasing to the ear.
It has been said time and time again, industry does not care about our angels on a pinhead discussion. We audiophiles are too tiny a minority for them to do the things that try to satisfy our cravings. No matter. The deeper I peer into 16 bit, the more amazed I am just what subtleties those bits encompass.
Shadorne, Interesting point you make about the masking effects in our hearing. I will only worry me, I suppose, when the masking effects our rigs have vis a vis the real thing will be no more. Doubt though, that this will ever happen.
"I guess I object to dismissing digital as something that will never ever sound good on "trumped up technical" grounds as without merit - that is all."
Agreed.
Also agree regarding the digital aspect of how the ear works, though I had not thought of that in the context of this particular debate before. Good point.
There is a wonderful IMAX film out in IMAX theatures on how the human body works that does a wonderful job of demonstrating this exact point regarding how we hear.
I cannot quote any statistics or measurements offhand to to support this, but it is also usually the case though that mans practical attempts still at this point in time to match the capabilities of organisms in nature in regards to how they register and process things in a binary manner cannot compare in regards to level of sophistication. Maybe some day.... or maybe never.
Sound is inherently analog, but the recoding and playback process for both analog and digital each face distinct and different challenges that must be met to reproduce this accurately.
Exactly. And for that reason it makes sense to say you prefer the sound of one or the other (as they are quite different and have quite different qualities). I much prefer your more measured response in this last post - pros and cons of each if you like. To me this is a better way to judge the two. I guess I object to dismissing digital as something that will never ever sound good on "trumped up technical" grounds as without merit - that is all. Digital is progress on pure technical measures - but that it sounds worse of less preferable to many ears is undeniable - IMHO, there is no need to prove it is "bad" from a technical angle - leave that to lab intruments and technicians.
BTW - Our ear and hearng system is a copmbination of analog AND digital!! I bet you did not know that - if you research it you will be surprised to find this fact. Hairs in the ear trigger bundles of nerves sening impulses to the brain. These nerves have a finite recorvery time before they can be reactivated - in essence there is a whole level of detail in music that we CANNOT hear precisely because of the digital or "sampled" way in which our hearing works. (One of the effects of this behaviour is called "masking" - we can't hear certain sounds when they are masked by others (no matter that our analog ear membrane may actually sense the air vibarations and hairs may move in the inner ear) - it is the basis for MP3 and other compression algorithms)
I'd quality my statement you quoted by stating that both analog and digital are capable of great things and each have their issues to address t get it right.
Sound is inherently analog, but the recoding and playback process for both analog and digital each face distinct and different challenges that must be met to reproduce this accurately.
Each introduces their own distinct artifacts to the sound that will lead different people with different listening preferences to prefer either depending.
I do think that the vinyl playback process is harder to do really well but is very good when done right.
There have always been a lot of really crappy record players out there and still are, right?
I believe digital payback can be achieved more cost effectively by the average Joe today than vinyl. The issues are more subtle but less severe when things are not going well overall.
Although I think players like the DCS do sound very good, but I do not think it should cost $20000 + up to achieve these results. This is out of line with most other applications of digital that have been around for a while today from what I can see, so that raises a red flag for me.
Still, if you can afford it and you want no compromise sound delivered by a no compromise approach, it may well be worth the entry price.
The generalizations of 1 bit versus multi-bit are kind of correct - but they make it sound awful - remember most of these DACS are achieving very low distortion levels (way way way lower than your speakers) - even the old multi-bits (and dynamic range way way beyond Vinyl, which is limited to about 60 db SPL on a good day with an ideal setup).
Initially, high clock speeds were difficult to achieve - so the resitor network DAC's were popular. These have been mostly replaced by delta sigma one bit DAC designs which became possible with higher clock speeds. (eventually higher speeds led to the concept of DSD and SACD technology being possible - essentially SACD is like a one bit DAC in a mathematical sense) The bleeding edge is now pushing the limits of clock speeds/circuit design and there is once again interest in a resitor network type DAC solutions (or a combination of both by a reduced rsitor network AND a high delta sigma clock speed) to improve S/N ratios above 110 db SPL (bear in mind that 110 db SPL S/N is stupendous already)
The ring DAC does sound like a form of variation on the latest DAC designs (astounding 120 db SPL S/N ratios are now becoming possible). AKM makes chips like this but they don't call them "ring DAC's", but they do use a "random" selection from a resistor network in order to solve the issues of non-linearities in resitor network DAC designs.
One thing to bear in mind is that digital technology is so extremely accurate that it is pushing the limits of both clock speeds and circuit design. The nice thing is that designers are now able to use clever mathematics to overcome even the limitations of both analog resitor network accuracy AND clock speeds to create extremely linear devices through a "random selection" which eliminates 'systematic errors' from real world devices by employing mathematical solutions.
It's the best you can do if that is the sound you want, but I would agree with Albert that it will never completely equal or surpass the detail possible with analog source, at least technically on paper.
On purely "technical grounds" or "on paper" - the CD is extremely good - far superior - perhaps it just doesn't sound as pleasant or as detailed.
FWIW - Dither is used to reduce/randomise "quantization errors" - it is especialy important when taking a 20 or 24 bit master and converting it to 16 bit. It is most important for the least significant bits where quantization error becomes important. Quantization error is due to the fact that the least significant bit (LSB) is only known to an accuracy of half of the LSB (the maximum digital resolution). When these errors are correlated with an input signal you can get some unwanted harmonics which dither eliminates by "randomizing" this resolution error to become white noise (raises the noise floor slightly rather than create an unwanted harmonic which might be audible).
For sure - if a studio makes some errors in the mixing and mastering they can create these unwanted harmonics and it can get onto your CD. A possible explanation for bad CD sound is that "sound engineers" are anything but "engineers" (most often they have a musical background rather than math and science) - it is very rare that they have a degree in time series analysis and signal processing. They may not fully understand what they are doing and generally learn by trial and error (sound engineers often start out in the tape room as a "gopher" and eventually work their way up to the mixing console).
Kijanki, thanks for the info, and Albertporter, it was a feeble attempt at humor. I went to the live versus recorded event hosted by BAAS on Saturday. It was held at Cookie's studio(She formerly worked for Windham Hill.). A wonderful musician played acoustic guitar. Unfortunately, we didn't compare digital versus analog recording as I had hoped for. Cookie records to 2-inch analog tape. 5 microphones were used, and it was pointed out that using just 2 microphones has some problems(room, other instruments, etc.). The highs were the area that really stood out, as far as losses are concerned. The complexity of the highs was lost even on the best speaker we had in reproducing the highs( A Lowther cone with a ribbon tweeter. I still don't care for most ribbon tweeters, even after this demonstration.). It was also pointed out that many people in the recording chain may change the sound of the final product. It has me wondering if this is why Linn says it's the beat(foot tapping) we should look for when evaluating audio equipment. For those that are looking for the absolute sound, I would suggest that you only use perfectionist recordings, or ones where you were there, to determine the "absolute sound". After you've done this, let the chips fall where they may. In other words, don't try to optimize your system based on other recordings, because those other recordings may be wrong. I don't know if this technique will work, but theoretically that is what should be done.
I'm not an electrical engineer, but what you are describing does make sense to me based on my experience. It is a very sophisticated approach from the description.
I would expect that it helps deliver some of the distinctive "smoothness" I heard with this particular unit. Other aspects of the d/a conversion performed may account for the good resolution I believe I heard in conjunction.
It was a short but enjoyable audition with just a couple different source recordings. I would like to a/b compare it against various other designs to tell for sure how different it was. The technology applied is very unique and sophisticated for certain.
Mapman - I looked into DCs Ring Dacs to see how they get more detail thru dithering and found out that they don't. Addition of noise in not intentional - it's just byproduct of their scheme. If I understand it correctly now, they use number of current sources at lower bits and rotate them constantly to even out bit-weight. Extra resolution they try to preserve comes from digital oversampling filter. I found this description of differences between Multibit, Onebit and Ring Dacs :
"Multi-bit Nonlinearity — In multi-bit DACs there is a resistor associated with a current source for each bit. Each resistor is half the value of the one before it. So the ratio goes something like this 1 : 0.5 : 0.25 : 0.125 : 0.0625 etc. By the time we divide by two 24 times, the theoretically correct value of the last resistor is 0.000000119209289550781 of the first. Because it is physically impossible to achieve this type of accuracy, all multi-bit DACs suffer from some non-linearity (they distort the signal). This distortion becomes greater as you move from more significant bits to less significant (loud stuff to background detail). Typically, somewhere around the 20th bit the ability to resolve any additional detail is lost.
One-Bit Noise — In Bitstream (1-bit) DACs the resistor matching problem is eliminated and linearity is very good. However, the signal to noise ratio is terrible (6dB). A technique called oversampling is used to improve the signal to noise ratio to acceptable levels. However, the high oversampling frequencies result in narrow pulse widths. Timing errors now become significant, jitter increases, and the end result is thesame. The signal is distorted and the resolution of low level detail is degraded.
dCS Elgar Ring DAC — The dCS Ring DAC uses a patented 5-bit unitary weighted design (i.e., all the resistor values are the same). Oversampling frequencies are low (i.e., it’s less vulnerable to clock frequency errors). But, even this design isn’t perfect. Small variations in resistor value could still have an adverse effect on performance. Even with the carefully matched resistors used in the Elgar their resistance can change with age or temperature. To address this the Ring DAC, instead of using one resistor per bit, uses a large array of resistors. By using a proprietary algorithm (or is it Elgar-ithm) to continuously vary the number and positions of the selected resistors from sample to sample, as though around a circle (hence the name "Ring DAC"), the inevitable slight variations in the values of the resistors are randomly distributed throughout the quantizing range. This effectively turns any tolerance errors into random white noise, which is far more benign than the distortion that would otherwise have occurred. Finally, sophisticated noise shaping is used to move the bulk of the random noise into the high frequency spectrum above 100 kHz, where it is easily removed with analog filtering."
So, previous description I read (from Arcam if I remember correctly) was claiming extra resolution by random switching of current sources and dithering (adding noise). Now I found that they only try to preserve resolution coming from low order oversampler by rotating resistors in multibit converter (that follows) to keep necessary linearity - that would make more sense.
This has turned out to be a wonderfully informative thread for me. I may need to read this several times to fully absorb.
Mmakshak, regarding:
Tvad, I've got a conspiracy theory and/or an excuse that leaves me totally blameless for not reading Albertporter's posts. The conspiracy theory(which might just be an error in processing by Audiogon) is that Audiogon has decided to review my posts before they are posted. The excuse is that I'm getting old, and missed a complete page of postings when I posted. If none of these work, how about the male tendency to not listen, in order to get what we want to say in?
I hope that's just humor and Audiogon is not editing your posts.
Mmakshak - Dithering is a postprocessing technique that came, as Mapman pointed out, from imaging. It ads noise on sub-LSB level just before filtering. Master tapes are recorded in 24bit and it is not needed there.
Mapman - Trickery is used mostly to fix deficiencies of the format (resolution and sampling rate). Benchmark is using equivalent of 1 million times oversampling again with a trickery but many people prefer NOS DACs' sound. Too much of the tech info, I'm afraid, but I just mentioned ring-dacs since you enjoyed the sound.
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.
