When is digital going to get the soul of music?

I'm kind of limited on my speakers. I have to get decent off-axis response for my roommate. I have the original DCM Time-Windows. Finances are tight right now, but any suggestions are welcome. D-edwards, I don't understand why you would get rid of music. Analog(pre-1982 albums), even if lacking complete accuracy will get you off on music. There is no question in my mind about that. I understand that it takes tweaking, and people were not forthcoming in the tweaks necessary. You have to take each parameter of a turntable set-up and listen until you hear what it does. You use the objective parameters as a guideline. I am actually a horn-guy as far as speakers go. But boy, the off-axis response, unless you are rich, is terrible. I have to tell you guys this. Alex of APL Hi-Fi(who is modifying my Denon 3910 cd player) played a cd recorded from turntables, and his recording from a Gyrodec(with his AC Power for the motor and his homemade phono preamp) killed a Rockport with Van der Zeal(?, $12,000)preamp.

"I don't understand why you would get rid of music."

2500 records + 6-700Cd's in a growing collection is like 5-6 years of continuous listening 24/7 Its just being practical especially when most of the music I gave or threw away I had little or no real interest in playing especially since records are of secondary quality on my system.

from my perspective it was the practical thing to do.

If you think about it all of LP's shortcomings, poor channel seperation, noise issues, bandwidth issues, need for compression and equalization all are exact opposites of what CD performance is. The lack of channel seperation plays right into only having two front speakers even if its recorded onto Cd! Because a 24bit Cd has waaaaaay more resolution than some tired record and the CD is capable of an excellent copy of the LP, try to do it the other way around! There are obstacles like the level of technical knowledge in the average audiophile. Many audiophles have a great deal of experience but have framed this into a religious frame work not a technical framework. So facts and trends are obscured by pet theories and fashionable trends not facts.

In your case your time windows have a slight raggedness in the lower treble (which I'm sure you can hear time to time on records) because the tweeter is asked to do a little much. With a CD this can be considerably worse due to the nature of the source. Hardly the "sound" of a CD. I have a $1200 pair of speakers that do not have this problem, so it is not necessarily a cost issue, it is a design issue.

The fact is many many speakers are not "digital ready" even though that was a laughable phrase for most when it was a marketing phrase in the 80's. Harsh high and lack of control on transients play into making CD less musical.
Tubes and LP's blur the edges making it easier for equipment to track.

The soul of the music is incrementally easier to reach the less "noise" your system makes and the "louder" you can play the music without room acoustics and equipment deficiencies creeping in to interfere. There has been studies on this... It is science that allows us to repeat the conditions, which is why audiophile companies don't want you to know the truth about it.

D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from.

D_edwards, you have very interesting ideas. I'm not sure that I can test them out as far as surround sound is concerned(finances, etc.). I do believe that many who read this could comment on it though. I do want to mention something though. It is the relaxation quotient of music. I am absolutely positive that analog has this(pre-1982 lp's). Why do we listen to music? Surely, relaxation is part of it. How well does digital do this? I'm not entirely sure myself, as Alex of APL Hi-Fi has made cd's from turntables that sound no different than the vinyl that it was recorded from. As far as scientific studies goes, have you heard about muscle-testing digital, and how it makes you weaker(just to mention studies)?

Well take all my comments as a collective up to now Dynamic range, surround sound etc. They all contribute.

LP's have technical problems that make them somewhat problematic for surround BUT even they could be enhanced by surround. Atleast the companies who spent all that money developing quadraphonic thought so.

But what DPLII does is remove the nasty edge off the CD which for anyone is an irritant. This glare is the reverberant field that is collapsed on the subject/ stimulus of the reverberent sound, whether it is artifical or captured by mics. Two channel cannot properly release this energy which will cause tension.

On the very same system if I switch from surround to two channel a definite edge and glare present themselves. (I have found tubes make this worse(probably not universally though))on CD players, as most tubes are added to soften the sound, but instead they emphasize the problem by adding more noise to the signal and simply blunting the glare.

"It is the relaxation quotient of music." If the music is meant to be relaxing then yes you should be relaxed. One cannot stretch out and relax to The Crystal Method's Vegas unless one is allowed to become detached from the music. Maybe relaxation and the ability to detach oneself from the recorded performance is what you really mean. Surround will not allow detachment as well as two channel. A tweeter that is a bit gritty is like a stick snapping in the woods you will react to this on a base level.

Where I can find a direct conflict with digital not performing as you describe is the people who produce recordings that are DESIGNED too have a "relaxation quotient" seem ambiguous to the medium it is replayed on and if its digital or not. Its just an observation from googling so I can understand your position better. The obvious touche' would be they don't recommend listening in surround either. :)

"muscle-testing digital" I googled it, but if you can point the most relevant study. It would be helpful. Lot's of things on prostates.

I engage music actively it is why I use very accurate flat response loudspeakers. If "enjoy" is too "relax" and "escape" then ultimately CD+surround does this for me.
We are all different, so are physiologies could be at odds. BUT! what is not at odds is the surperiority of surround playing back digital.

Are you a bit of a tinkerer or are your speakers bi-wire capable? We can try an expiriment