When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Baddabob states;

Once you get into the higher leagues, redbook gets much better. If you have a $2500 set of speakers and a $800 CD player, then you really have $800 speakers. It costs more to buy a top notch CD player than a vinyl rig of equivalent quality.

My experience does not match yours Baddbob. Conversely, I have found that one advantage of Digital is that it is relatively inexpensive to get high league sound. I, for one, can confirm that I am unable to hear audible benefits of a higher quality CD player or DAC converter. (Although, no doubt there have been some very badly performing CD players in the past, particularly in the 80's...perhaps I am lucky enough not to have owned a bad CD player with poor quality DAC conversion, filtering and jitter etc. that is audible)

I have made the following blind tests:

1) My ordinary and inexpensive Sony CDP CX 235 CD changer analog ouput through my AVM 20 pre-amp analog circuits.
2) My Digital Coax output from the same ordinary and cheap Sony CD CDP CX 235 changer through my Anthem AVM 20 192 kHz/24-bit DACs.
3) My somewhat older Grundig Fine Arts CD player with a DAC7 direct to my active speakers. (Grundig CD player has a built in volume control)

The inexpensive Sony's use cheap single bit DAC converters running at a very high frequencies and then filtered to create the anaolg signal and remove high frequency noise...a no no for audiphiles and admittedly a design where CD players have had real audible problems in the past (mid 80's).

The results:
All three options, playing a variety of music, through my ATC 100 Active Studio monitors are indistinguishable to my ears provided volume levels are well matched.

Since I have many CD's and I hate the fuss of changing the CD's in the tray, as you might guess, given the absence of audible differences, I use the quite ordinary Sony CD changers as my source and my Grundig Fine Arts CD player sits in the closet even though it is probably one of the more expensive CD players I have bought ( at the time I bought the Grundig player, a DAC7 chip was hailed as a significant improvement in CD sound).

Baddabob,

You make a good point and are quite correct about my pretty ordinary source components...I stand corrected. I have not made direct comparisons with anything approaching the $2000+ range (a high quality source). So in all fairness, my remarks reflect an opinion about high end digital sound based on my observations of a variety of products from low to mid tier that sound alike.

Since I do not find audibly distinguishable differences between these ordinary to mid tier DAC's (despite using three very different types of DAC), I am naturally a bit skeptical to pay big prices for even better quality components. ( I understand that the higher priced components will definitely be better quality/specification...but my concern is that, given the already good quality of even low to mid tier digital sources, I simply won't be able to hear the improvement of a high end digital source because the low and mid tier digital is already good enough for me...)

Thanks Baddabob for pointing this out.

Well put Guidocorona!

It would all sound so much better if our ears were analog! What a shame that all mechanical hair movement in the cochlea is converted to nerve impulses in order to be sent to the brain (i.e. an analog to digital conversion, with individual nerves either firing or not).

Apparently, XRCD is a better mastering process but has no differences from redboook.

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

Fear not... till Burnham Wood doth come to Dunsinane...

More seriously...if this thread keeps going...how long will it be before the complete works of Shaespeare are typed?

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

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

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

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...

Analog tapes have a from of distortion/compression that is very pleasing - many pros still prefer it. Perhaps the close miked approach to music recording means that analog tape is the optimum medium for taking the sting or harshness out of the music.

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?

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,

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.

"Let yourself go, Mmakshak," says Shadorne. "Your ears can deceive you. Don't trust them." "Let go your conscious self and act on instinct." "Stretch out with your feelings."

"The Soul is what gives an Audiogoner his power. It's an energy field created by all music. It surrounds us and penetrates us."

The "Soul" of music is inside us all. It cannot be found in any vinyl album or CD. I can enjoy the Soul in music on any of my available sources...even mp3, which to me has an audible degradation from CD but not nearly enough to spoil the enjoyment from a portable player. Music it seems, can instantly transform your mood and take you somewhere else...it is something we all seem to share and feel.

Given the current high quality audio equipment widely available (analog or digital, tube or SS amp), after the Artist's abilities, which are of foremost importance, then it is the actual recording quality that has the next biggest impact on enjoyment. I do not mean "digital versus analog". What I mean is the quality of the job done in the recording studio or at the live performance, irrespective of the final source for playback (CD or Vinyl or whatever).

High quality studio recordings take lots of time and effort and significant $$$. Live performances are often a mixed bag with the venue often causing great challenges for the sound engineer to produce something passable.

The MTV "unplugged" series is of pretty good live recording standard...for example they went to a lot of trouble to make the Eagles "Hell freezes over" live recording sound great. For Jazz, Dave Grusin's "Hommage to Duke" is, as far as I have found, one of the best Ellington recordings ever. If we move to classical then I have generally found Telarc recordings to be of generally the very highest standard.

"May the Soul be with you"

I think Hoover uprights suck.

Yeah, Albert, a significant advantage, I know, but a Hoover won't chat and take care of you as you get old.

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!

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)