When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Learsfool, I will defer to your obvously superior knowledge.

My concern was that many audiophiles tend to overanalyze music to begin with. If you add to that a trained ear and the fact that most albums are poorly recorded, it just seems that it might be harder to focus on the music and not on the problems with the recording and playback system. I guess that we just have to learn to enjoy rather than critique.

Kijanki,

I've implemented oversampling and dithering algorithms in software for both commercial and federal imaging applications. Less familiar with application in audio, but I suspect it is analogous.

I suspect it can make digital sound smoother and more acceptable maybe to an analogue lover, but I know that it cannot add detail that was lost upstream, as you have correctly pointed out before.

That is one of the reasons I hesitate to spend a lot on a CD player, I believe a lot of it is valid trickery played to achieve a particular sound.

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.

Despite the clear technical limitations, I still find that most well recorded CDs meet my listening needs on my system (which I have tuned considerably as well) just fine, even though I know some more bits of real information in that stream could certainly never hurt.

I am of the long time opinion that the value in many high end CD players is providing a certain sound that someone is looking for, but it is not required just to get the best sound possible off off a CD in terms of information content.

As a result, I still live happily with my oversampling Denon player/recorder, whose sound matches my Denon phono cartridge quite well.

Albertporter, There is nothing soft sounding about my system. It can whack an attack, sear a violin, and bloom a sax. AN, or any other NOS player is the perfect mate to Class D, and I might add SET systems.

You should hear the convincing live volume Grand here.

Kijanki, that end to the sound I was describing about cd's might be dither, and if it is, I'm not sure that digital will ever fully satisfy me. Although, if I like the song(like Paula Cole's, "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone" on the 1998 Grammy Nominee's cd), I don't object-or even hear-the end to the sound. Alberporter, do they add this dither to the digital master tapes? Could that be why it takes more "plays" to understand the song on cd, compared to understanding the song on analog? 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 could try Guidocorona's humor distracting me, if you like. That part about the high frequency cut off intrigues me, as I believe allowing the super-high frequencies in was why I got so high listening to cd's at APL. I also want to point out that the true experts on digital(at least here) are those that have heard those digital master tapes. So therefore, what about analog being more relaxing than digital(I think Albertporter said something about this.)? What about dither being what we hear in the deep backgroung? And does it take more "plays" to understand the whole song on digital versus on analog?

Mapman - Puccini is an oversampling player. It uses Ring-DACs - same DACs DCS sold license to ARCAM (FMJ-23). Arcam stopped making it because of DAC manufacturing yield problems (and stopped making FMJ23). Ring DAC possesses additional 4 current sources generating randomly 16 different sub LSB levels - basically noise. Adding noise to signal increases its resolution (dithering). Just a little bit tech info.

No DCS or Meitner in my system recently. I did hear the old DCS from a few years ago but assume they are much better now.

Doing show coverage, I've heard all the hot models multiple times at various venues but I guess that really does not count.

I've have had the Levinson two piece system, the Lindemann, Audio Note, Wadia, Theta and recently the Stahl-Tek in my system in the last three or so years.

My good friend Louis, who is part of my audio group has owned several digital players recently. A CEC transport with two different Audio Note DAC's, one single ended and one balanced. The Stibbert, Cary and another one that I can't recall right now.

His system is very familiar to me, he has same preamp and phono, Walker table, a Garrard 301 with Triplanar and a Technics SP 10 MK3 with SME 312S (same as me). Also a Dynavector XV1S, Air Tight PC-1, Schroeder reference and Allaerts cartridge.

So, by comparing all these tables, arms and cartridges against my own and against the players in my system and the ones he's previously owned, I get a good idea about performance.

I agree there is better sound with these more expensive players and DAC's. I guess my problem is spending $15K or 20K (or whatever) to get sound that's not as pleasing as my LP rig. I've said it before and I'm not kidding. If I could find a digital player that was equal to my vinyl rig I would buy it, assuming I could afford it.

I should confess here and now, I just ordered a new Air Tight cartridge that's coming into the market. Valin has one already and Jacob at Absolute Sound and I are both getting one of the five that arrive in the USA next week.

This new Air Tight is called the Supreme and according to all my reliable sources this will be one of the finest phono cartridges ever. The importer says it's a good 30% better than my PC-1, which I cannot imagine, since the PC-1 killed my Koetsu Jade Platinum Signature.

Albert,

Have you ever heard the better DCS gear?

I heard a Puccini recently in a limited audition and have to say I was impressed with how vinyl like the resulting sound was.

Of course if the reference standard for you is the ultimate real vinyl sound, then I would expect that nothing else can approach it in all practicality because it isn't really vinyl no matter how similar it sounds, but in the brief audition I did, I think I would have had difficulty identifying the Puccini sound as CD.

I thought it ironic though that the Puccinni was most expensive CD playback system I had ever heard and sure enough, hey, it sounded pretty much like a good vinyl recording.

This was on a very high end VAC/VTL tube system with top of the line Nordost cabling. The speakers were Magico Minis.

Tomcy6, let me quote part of your last post - "Sophisticated musicians, not rock, hiphop, etc., must train their ears to be able to play proper pitch, tone, etc. To other people, this practice will interfere with your finding the soul of the music." I have a serious disagreement with the second sentence here. As I stated a couple of times earlier in this thread, ear training always increases people's involvement with and enjoyment of music. The more you can hear of the details, the more you can appreciate and enjoy them. I have helped laymen (for lack of a better term) as well as music students with ear training, and in every case they were and are still very appreciative, saying that it opened up new worlds for them in their listening. This is not just for classical music - understanding harmony enhances the enjoyment of all types of music. One can be much more appreciative, for instance, of a great jazz artist's live or recorded improvisations if you have more understanding of what he is doing. The more you understand of rhythm, the better you can appreciate a great drummer in a rock band. I helped one lady in particular who now cannot help harmonizing along with her favorite country singers when listening to the radio in her car. Music is the universal language, and the more you can speak it, the more it will communicate to you.

Muralman1,

Audiogon member Logenn owned the same Audio Note unit as you, it's a great sounding DAC. This is a musical DAC not hard sounding like many. In some ways you've chosen the same path I'm discussing but with better resolution than the cheap entry level CD players I mentioned.

I think you would be surprised at the acceptable level the new Pioneer Elite Blue Ray does with common CD's. Sure your rig is better but neither is up there with LP and my player was $435.00.

That's were I differ, I either want it to be as perfect as possible or not spend much money. If there was a digital that was equal to my LP rig I would pay whatever the asking price is.

Tomcy6, no reason we can't listen to a broken AM radio, our iPod, car radio, satellite music, Labtec computer speaker and Panasonic bedside FM.

What's wrong with having all these mediocre sources and a couple of excellent ones as well?

I own all these listed above, as well as an old Cathedral Radio that sits on my roll top desk. If you think any of those get you closer to the emotion and passion of music than a really excellent high end system, then you have not listened to the right high end system.

If it's not worth it to you, no need to be defensive. Audiogon is a high end site and you can expect some of us are pretty happy with the energy we've put into our systems and the rewards we reap from the work.

Alberporter, I would not listen to the Denon, unless it was an APL, and then only briefly. As for Sony, or Pioneer Elite, no thank you.

In my system NOS digital reigns supreme, and I would not change it for all the vinyl rigs in the world.

Here, oversampling just ruins the signal, and makes music sound unlistenable. There should be no surprise. There is no way a device can cull distortion from a stream of complex waves without leaving damaged signal waves behind. Most systems are too dull to reveal this phenomenon.

Relating capturing the soul of the music to sound quality is only relevant to audiophiles.

Young ears, for instance, are, in general, oblivious to the digital artifacts that some audiophiles find so offensive, unless the young person in question has trained his ears to hear these artifacts and judge them to be objectionable.

Sophisticated musicians, not rock, hiphop, etc., must train their ears to be able to play proper pitch, tone, etc. To other people, this practice will interfere with your finding the soul of the music.

Most people my age can probably recall being lost in the music coming out of a cheap AM radio with a cracked speaker, blissfully singing along, dancing, or playing air guitar. Distortion measurements were probably in the 25 - 50% range, but man, did that music sound good.

I have no doubt that the golden eared, analog only, perfectionists' systems sound better than mine, way better. But I don't want to have to buy a system like that, tweak it constantly, hunt down audiophile recordings (old or new), wash them a couple of times and turn off the refrigerator and A/C to enjoy my music. If you enjoy doing all that though, it's fine with me.

I want to be able to listen past digital grunge, or analog grunge for that matter, and feel the joy or sadness or anger or whatever, expressed in the music. I need a much better system now to be able to do that than I used to, but I don't want to make it harder than it has to be because I have trained myself to be a human distortion detector.

So no offense to the Lp fans, but it is possible to get to the soul of the music by listening to cds. In many cases it may be easier.

I agree with all the comments about tuning for source. Admittedly my system is driven by LP, but open reel tape seems to fare very well with the same tweaks.

There was a time when I put all my effort into making digital right and at one time I had my system where digital and analog were very close. One day a friend who had not visited in a long time, a guy with excellent ears, listened with me and pointed out the fact that I had managed to "down grade" the analog source to make the digital warm and friendly enough to enjoy.

After that, I returned to my quest to make the music as dynamic, transparent, resolved and emotionally involving as possible and when that formula is applied, analog excels and CD falls.

These comments apply to my system for the last (approx.). 20 years, with multiple analog rigs and multiple digital rigs.

Oddly enough, the comments by Mapman about Denon digital hit home. I've found it's easier to live with a Pioneer Elite, Denon or Sony CD player and let it fall where it may. These lower end machines error on the side of softer and warmer, making it possible to press the resolution of analog to the max without the digital driving me crazy.

When I go for super high end digital, I fall on either side of a line. Tune to throw away resolution so it's less offensive, or press for resolution that tries to approach analog and wind up with uncomfortable sounding music.

Again, maybe it's an equipment thing, but this formula has held true for dozens of analog and digital front ends, as well as four preamps, five amps and two very different speaker systems.

I have 5 sources to deal with on my system (in order of general priority):

1) CD
2) vinyl LP
3) Internet radio (Roku Soundbridge)
4) Fm Radio/tuner
5) Cassette

99% of my listening these days is with the first 3. I hardly ever listen to FM anymore and I only use the cassette for old cassettes I recorded years ago and still like but haven't replaced on vinyl or CD.

Even my $129 pure digital Roku Soundbridge sounds very satidfactory to me in more cases than not. I accept the sound quality of internet radio for what it is, which ain't half bad these days...better than FM for sure, and the variety of music to listen to is unlimited.

Mapman,
to my mind and ears it is very much like you say. I've tuned the LP part of my system to LP, the digital part to digital, using software which I know well in the process. Ty my ears both sound good, however different, which does not bother me in the least as long I get drawn into the music and can forget my rig.

Mapman, Good observations about fine tuning your system to two different formats. Very difficult. Hell, I've had a hard time just trying to tune one system to accomodate two different digital systems, let alone vinyl. Everything compromises something else, IMHO.

It makes sense to me that people typically tune their system around the source material they use.

Those with large vinyl collections tune their systems primarily around this. Introducing a second source that inherently sounds different may now become a problem, especially for those with highly tuned ears: how do you get that second or third source that is now inherently different to sound equally as good?

I think the answer in many cases is you can't, at least not to the extent that you have for your primary source, whatever that is.

So those who own mostly CD tune to that. Those who own vinyl tune to that. Others like, me who are source agnostic, will try to get the sources to sound as good and as similar as possible and tune in each source as best as possible, but they will never sound exactly the same or equivalent when playing the same music for many reasons. I'm sure there are audiophiles out there that could never live with the fact that not all their sources sound equally good to them, because the fact is they will always sound different.

So one of my theories is that the preference people have for whatever is mainly because that is what serves them best, which is the way it should be.

But one person with a bias towards one medium telling another with a bias towards something different that theirs will never sound as good does not carry much weight.

Each has tuned their system the best they can within their means for their source material and different sources will always sound different. Which is better? It really doesn't matter. Neither is perfect and both deliver good but not perfect sound.

Both my vinyl and CD sources are Denon. This is not by chance. My hope is to make both sound equally good but also as similar as possible so that I can live with both without resorting to tone controls and such. But I have to say that getting two distinct sources for two distinct source media is not an easy task. Many audiophiles will chose to punt, I would guess.

Would that be high quality NOS analog lipstick, or some of that new compressed digital stuff with fizzies and sparkles? I's just concerned about the 'soul' of the poor pig, you understand Grant?

Newbee,

I'm talking about digital sources in general.

Warble was not a good choice of words. MAybe graininess would be better.

Its only on some recordings , not all, so its not an inherent issue with equipment or format.

I tend to agree with Shadorne's view that in most cases these issues are due to the imperfect process that goes into making recordings in many cases. In cases where attention is paid, the sound is fine in either medium with good quality equipment. No playback system at any cost can correct problems when they exist in the recording.

I agree with your comments, except I wouldn't object to $30.00 or even $50.00 for a perfect digital copy of the master file.

Unfortunately, the "master tapes" are not always that great. Lets face it, you can only use up so much studio time and session musicians or a band may have just a week with the studio rented (often at night if they can't afford it). With classical it is even worse - you may only have a couple of days to get everything you need and live is the absolute worst - you maybe get as much as three inadequate recordings in a venue to work with.

The reality is that if the band is serious about audiophile quality sound then you generally get it - INXS, Pink Floyd, Bryan Ferry, Roxy Music, Mark Knopfler, The Eagles, Tom Petty, Toto and many others pay great attention to sound quality coming out on their studio releases (and hire the best of the best). However, those who take such care - re-dub things and if necessary and spend extra money to go back to the studio or go to several studios and do extra takes - these musicians are in a great minority. Unless you have such stubborn musicians that stand up to the producer and push for a great recording then a great recording is often simply a one off stroke of luck!!

Poor master tapes can be cleaned up - but you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse!

Mapman, Out of curiosity, this 'pitch warble' you are hearing, is this from an analog source remastered to digital or was it a digital recording in the first place? One of my few dis-satisfactions with vinyl was related to constant pitch, even with TT's that had excellent wow and flutter spec's. I assume it might have been sourced to the recording processs as well as playback. Interestingly, amoungst my complaints about digital, maintaining pitch is not one of them.

I do believe that the highest frequencies that can be heard are the hardest to get right regardless of the technical approach used (digital versus analog). This is because small errors in reproduction are more significant in relation to the high frequency harmonics at that range, so people who can hear in that range are more likely to notice the distortion if present.

When I have an audible issue with a particular CD recording in terms of noise or distortion, its usually in the upper range of frequencies that I can actually hear.

The only artifact I hear regularly that bothers me is slight tonal variations in long passages in orchestral CDs that should not vary much in pitch but in fact do sound sometimes like an audible high frequency warble that impacts the purity of the sound of the instrument. Passages by string sections in orchestral works are the common culprit. Even this does not occur in all CD recordings, the better ones are usually pretty good, but I so suspect they might be improved yet with a different player or DAC that is clearly designed to reduce jitter. I am looking into that.

OTher than this, I believe most other aspects of digital sound that people tend to not like is more due to personal taste than technical issues, which is fine, because that's what its all about. Chose your high quality tubes or SS and speakers here as needed to get the sound you like.

An absolutely excellent post Learsfool.

I was not aware that digital had these inherent flaws. I always thought that given sufficient sampling rate, it would eventually sound like analog.

I have quite a few LP's pressed from digital masters and some of them do very well, sounding as much like analog masters as not.

I'm saying this, assuming Alison Krauss, "live" (2002) and Radiohead, "Kid A" would be samples of digital masters. I cannot imagine either would be analog considering when they were recorded.

I have some recordings, ECM in particular that sound digital, even though they are LP's. The one's that come to mind are older stuff from the 1980's.

This is why I made the claim that a great digital master converted to analog at the studio and pressed as an LP can be wonderful.

Learsfool - everything depends on the quality of processing. It does not remove high or any other frequencies (it can be easily proved) but suffers on details of conversion. It might be, I hope, one day possible, to get perfect quality of digital master at home. It is getting better and better. Jitter you mentioned is just noise in time domain and now is effectively removed in some DACs. There is also another type of jitter - one in A/D processing and that one cannot be removed. A lot of older recording were transfered to digital media for storage with poor A/D clock and jitter stays forever unless analog recording still exists somewhere.

I probably don't have as good ears as yours because top quality gear and great SACD recording would make me very happy. One compromise I agree on is practicality of digital media while the other is my limited budget. I don't want to invest now a lot of money in analog - it's just to late for me and my priorities are quite different now than 20 years ago. I have long way to go in audio from where I am now and when I get "there" technology will improve greatly, I'm sure.

Kijanki, as you no doubt are aware, every digital processer is totally different, so it is impossible to generalize about all of the different designs. I see, re-reading my post, that that was not worded very well, and was too broad a generalization. Many designers do in fact cut off many of these supposedly inaudible frequencies, however, considering them extraneous. And even in the very best products, the processing itself has unintended effects that they have yet to figure out. Many believe that it is not ultimately possible to take sound, turn it into ones and zeros, change it back again, and have it come out the same. Without turning this into a very boring technical discussion, two common examples are harmonic overtones being removed, and the disappearance of the sense of the surrounding air. Digital processing, again very generally speaking, tends to take away, or at any rate cloud the differences between the timbres of individual instruments (especially acoustic instruments), and also tends to blur the soundstage, making it harder to determine exactly where the instruments are located in the original space. This accounts for why many people find digital sound sterile or fake. The very best digital is getting better at presenting a three-dimensional space, but it is incredibly difficult for digital to do this, and they are still working on it. Analog does all of these things with ease. And I am a little surprised no one has mentioned the jitter factor, which is a huge degradation in sound quality, and which even the very best products you mentioned with 24 bit/96kHz sampling have failed to eliminate entirely. I think I've said enough on the subject, I hope that was more clear.

Albertporter - you are probably right - I would pay more than $30 if for many recordings but not for some of the popular music - classical and jazz hits last longer. It takes marketing campain and often break-even prices to establish and popularize standard. Do you remember Iomega computer Zip drives? It never became standard because Iomega didn't want to lower media price and sued everybody who made compatible media.

Would recent digital masters in DSD improve SACD? (pretty much the same format). I remember Stereophile's very positive reviews of SACD.

I don't remember claimed equivalent of 2.8MHz bitstream but I thing it was something around 20bit/90kHz (with quantization noise pushed outside of audible range). Wouldn't CODE with 24bit/96kHz be better? Most of people have DVD players and my Benchmark accepts 24bit/192kHz.

Learsfool - could you clarify how do you know that digital processing cuts frequencies around 20kHz? I run test frequencies at different levels from standard CD and 20kHz is present at about 0dB (in relation to 1kHz level).

Maybe lack of better digital media is related to quite large number of audiophiles claiming that they will never buy digital or the greed of the companies selling SACDs for over $30 or the lack of the will from government to push for the standard. (We have in US many different cellular companies and two different non-compatible standards while whole Europe has one unified standard/billing and much better coverage).

I agree with your comments, except I wouldn't object to $30.00 or even $50.00 for a perfect digital copy of the master file.

Perhaps that's the amount of money required to make it worthwhile for the music people. I'm already paying that much for the new Music Matters Blue Note LP's, so why not new artists as super digital files?

I've bought a few SACD's and contrary to many, my experience is quality is all over the place. Some are better than CD and some are worse, not much confidence instilled for the extra money they cost. I had hope for the format until I realized it was just another "huge-tiny, digital step."

I refer to it as the "huge-tiny, digital step," because of all the fanfare around each new software and equipment introduction, generally a minor improvement if any. Much like some of the overpriced audio gadgets that we spring for in other places in our systems.

I don't object paying for tweaks that work, I have stuff in my system (footers for instance) that cost $10.00 and I believe they are better than those that cost ten or twenty time more.

Then again, I have a phono cartridge (Air Tight PC-1) that's retail price was just increased to $6000.00, yet I believe it's worth every penny.

Still, it frustrates me that many of the new artists are CD only when other high quality choices could be available. Sure, many are on LP and that fixes it for those of us that are vinyl fans but what about fixing the problem so we don't need vinyl at all? I would gladly switch and enjoy storing the smaller software and convenience of remote control if they would just get the quality right.

Did they consider they could then get money from ALL of us?

Tvad, Shadorne, Albertporter, you guys have made my arguments much clearer than I did, and I appreciate it. Once again, I am glad that I decided to become a professional musician instead of writer. You guys both make great points, Newbee as well.

Oh, and by the way, Kijanki, just to clarify, I am not the sort of "music teacher" you so disparage. I play full time in a major professional orchestra, and am blessed to play almost every day in one of the great concert halls this country has to offer. I do teach on the side, both privately and at a major university. I have also been interested in high end audio ever since my college days, and know a little about recording, though more from the acoustical rather than technical standpoint.

Speaking of ears again, Mapman brings up an interesting point about the human ear hearing above 20000Hz. Recent research has actually proven that the brain IS sensitive to these extremely high frequencies, it just doesn't process them the same way, so we don't "hear" the actual pitch of those tones. One of the very biggest differences between digital and analog, and why digital sounds like it has something missing to many of us, is that digital processing deliberately cuts out these supposedly inaudible frequencies. Engineers have claimed so far that we won't miss what we can't hear, but it has finally been proven that this is simply not the case - the human ear is most definitely more sensitive to sound than any machine yet invented. So I continue to urge everyone to use their ears and not rely on some engineer's specs - the better your ears become, the more enjoyment you will receive from your music, no matter what type it is, or what form it shows up in, or what type of equipment you are using.

Albertporter - I'm sorry for my sharp response and my words toward you. We both feel the same dissapointment.

Maybe lack of better digital media is related to quite large number of audiophiles claiming that they will never buy digital or the greed of the companies selling SACDs for over $30 or the lack of the will from government to push for the standard. (We have in US many different cellular companies and two different non-compatible standards while whole Europe has one unified standard/billing and much better coverage).

My experience is very limited and more oriented toward electronics than audio but I enjoy good sound and practicallity of digital media. Better, smoother digital format is around the corner, I'd like to think, but the same time I'm buying a lot of standard CDs I will be stucked with.

I know, we should concentrate more on music than audio, but when I listen to thin sounding Julian Bream CD with hiss of analog recording in the background I don't enjoy it as much as I should especially after listening to beautiful recent Telearc DSD recording of David Russell with completely black and quiet background and full round reverberating sound.

Holy XXXX guys. . . what happened all of a sudden. . . Everyone feelin' hurricane Ike approaching mayhaps? G. (grins!)

We have more choices now than ever...

This may be part of the contributing problem to the debate. When there was only vinyl, the recording/engineering/pressing of the album was either good or bad, and it was usually pretty obvious. Now, we have many choices of sources to go along with our dizzying choices of amps, pre-amps, speakers, DACs, etc ad-nauseum. Add to that the fact that we listen to music everywhere (home, car, work, outside, in bed, etc) and in every way (two channel, multi-channel, iPods with ear buds, computer audio with headphones, boom boxes, car stereos, hotel lobbies, etc) it's near impossible to produce music in manner that suits all venues equally.

There are a lot of modern pop and rock albums that I really like that are hard to tolerate on my $20,000 hi-fi but sound great on the stock system in my car. Just the opposite is true for some of my favorite jazz albums - too much ambient noise in the car to really enjoy it.

Yes, the soul of music is the music itself; the performance. But being able to get to it - to connect to it? It's unfortunately become somewhat medium and venue dependent for a lot of music. Buying multiple versions of an album to find the one that you connect with gets expensive. I mean, how many of us own at least three versions of 'Kind of Blue?' Worth it for a handful of recordings, but near impossible for modern recordings.

09-12-08: Kijanki
Albertporter -

"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.

The reason I responded the way I did is because of your comments:

And the LPs are made from digital master - that's funny...

Yes, some LP's are made from digital masters, just as some CD's are made from analog masters. Again, the master is not the issue, it's a failure of the music business to deliver a high quality product.

And mostly this:

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?

Sorry if I took it wrong, but it appears from that comment that you believe "converting" to analog is what this is all about. I have no interest in the format, only the quality. My reason for being angry is not at Audiogon members but the 20 year plus promise that "just around the corner" the "perfect sound forever" format will deliver as promised.

I've had at least a hundred thousand dollars worth of digital through my system, most on loan or product that was a perspective item for review. I also bought a lot.

When a promise is made over and over and disappointment follows there are a couple of reactions a person can have. Sadness that it's not what you were expecting, and later (after the same things happen fifty times), anger that you were taken advantage of.

I've had this enough times to be angry, I've given up on digital other than for background or breaking in components. Happy for others that have made it work, perhaps we hear differently or it's a system thing.

Kijanki

"I remember seeing similar threads on SS amps lacking the soul compare to tube gear"........

And I could imagine that I wrote them long ago after getting my SP10! Only I would have just said 'music'. :-)

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.

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.

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!

Rant over. :-)

Shadorne,

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.

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...

"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 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?

Tvad,

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.

"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.

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.