When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Audiofeel,

Did it ever occur to you that I might own other equipment? I think it's a bad mark on your character to disparage a system you have never heard or anything like it for that matter. What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours. Go figure, I would think I would have to whip out the Meridian to get a clear victory but that doesn't seem to be the case

Tubes and whizzer cones seem to have found an obstacle with my little surround system when it comes to playing music.

well I'm not worried about it.

I think the major problem is that certain formats don't allow for enough dynamic range (16 bit isn't enough for more than piano alone according to experts such as F. Alton Everest). The other problem with having the bits too low is you lose more of the sounds created by heterodyne. Even if you can't hear certain frequencies, some combine to create a third frequency which you can hear.

Jkalman,

excellent point, keep in mind redbook CD has a non linear application of bits, which favors compressed popular SONY music formats. It is why I make sure to state 24 bit digital.

24 bits suffers none of the ills of redbook. many digital processing units of higher quality now process above 40 bits. So sine wave capable digital is.

We need to move away from redbook Cd as the "digital" source, but when the people most concerned about sound quality in the home want to champion $5K+ analog systems and that vocal minority is in key media positions professing hanging on to LP's and buying used collections of mistreated vinyl as a gateway to musical glory.....the hobby will not move forward.

the heel dragging needs to stop, I'm tired of no serious R&D on multichannel systems and software, because audiophiles think two channels and LP's are superior.

Armed with a Meridian processor and some good speakers, I could put any of these two channel systems in the shed for good. Subjectivity? That's what they all say before they get the lesson.

You can always tell when someone is clueless about surround and high quality digital....they say it wasn't any good, then you ask them "why they didin't make it sound the way they wanted?" They don't even know what that means and you get dismissed. I guess if you're not changing power cords or adding Shakti stones, they don't undertsand.

well that's been my experience till now...good point jk

>>What is shocking is my system has been picked twice over a system exactly like yours.<<

I'm afraid my speculative friend you have no idea what my system is comprised of so to say yours has been picked over it twice (by whom, where, etc.) is simply ridiculous and disingenuous. You really should not make such assertions without empirical data; to do so is a bad mark on your character.

No more soup for you here. Private email me if you choose to continue.

D-Edwards,

2'000 - 3'000 "analogic" people ? Where ?

I must say that like everyone, I enjoy all the practical advantages of digital gear, simple clic, etc
I just say that I enjoy more analogic sound than digital, owing very good gear in both fields : so, I still listen to analogic and buy LP's - less than CD's and SACD's, that's true (choice and practical advantages).

I have around 1'000 LP's and 1'000 CD's & SACD's.

One thing is sure : it takes pretty much money to have a very good analogic gear : turntable, tonearm and cartridge.
But, as I said, for me, I spent as much money in my CD/SACD player (Accuphase DP85 I love) as in my analogic stuff Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 and Lyra Titan (if I except, my analogic preamplifier, a Lamm LP2, I must say).

I believe that you can have a very good analogic sound with 7'000$ (turntable, tonearm, cartridge, for new stuff.
Less - possibly much less - if you find good used stuff.
Of course, if you spend more money you will have something even better : but over a certain level, price, the improvement is much less obvious than the the increase of the bill...

Something else : there is a beauty in turntable, tonearm, cartridge similar to the one of a great mechanical watch compared with a quartz one. Some people are sensitive to that, but it's probably true that most people who own both analogic and digital gear are older than those who were born at the digital era.
There may be a nostalgic feeling towards the "original" sound, the analogic sound we have been used to as children and teenagers !
Eventually, I understand perfectly well people who prefer digital, its dynamics, for instance.
I just say that I prefer analogic simply because it sounds closer to reality to my ears.