Does Digital Try Too Hard?


Digital glare. A plague of digital sound playback systems. It seems the best comment a CD player or digital source can get is to sound “analog-like.” I’ve gone to great lengths to battle this in my CD-based 2-channel system but it’s never ending. My father, upon hearing my system for the first time (and at loud volumes), said this: “The treble isn’t offensive to my ears.” What a great compliment.

So what does digital do wrong? The tech specs tell us it’s far superior to vinyl or reel to reel. Does it try too hard? Where digital is trying to capture the micro details of complex passages, analog just “rounds it off” and says “good enough,” and it sounds good enough. Or does digital have some other issue in the chain - noise in the DAC chip, high frequency harmonics, or issues with the anti-aliasing filter? Does it have to do with the power supply?

There are studies that show people prefer the sound of vinyl, even if only by a small margin. That doesn’t quite add up when we consider digital’s dominant technical specifications. On paper, digital should win.

So what’s really going on here? Why doesn’t digital knock the socks off vinyl and why does there appear to be some issue with “digital glare” in digital systems.
128x128mkgus
I cannot detect what people name " digital glare" in my audio system (files read from the computer)… But I remember very well when I listened to that " glare" on some very known and atrocious dac, or some few others less atrocious one some years ago... Thanks to my actual dac, Starting Point Systems nos dac, my sound is organic, 3-d, musical, with an increasing better imaging, but mostly thanks to my continuous tweaking...


Very good dac exist, this is the first point.... Taking care of the level of noise in your electrical house audio embeddings my second point... After that you will be no more hearing glare...

(By the way a power conditioner are not a solution for that in itself, it is not enough,neither some cables change are sufficient to kill the "glare")
(....the riders glare @ each other, crops in hand.  Their mounts nervously tread and paw, awaiting....)

"They're at the Post! *short pause*the bell rings*

"They're Off and Running!" *hoof beats pound randomly hard, falling into the familiar semi-syncopated staccato rhythm of racing....*

Yep, @erik_squires ....they're at it, yet again....;)  No trophy, no winner's circle....just competition.....*mock sigh* 
All you have to do is draw a sine wave. Then make 250 equally spaced marks on the x axis, starting with 0 and ending at 2pi. Use each mark as the step boundary of a step function. Just like elementary calculus.

Now calculate the mean square difference between that step function and the sine wave, and divide by the sine wave area - it’s about 5%. You may infer that 250 samples per waveform delivers about 5% distortion. Now, how many samples per 20KHz waveform?

That’s where your digital glare comes from - at least, part of it.