When is digital going to get the soul of music?

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?

It seems to me, there are cogent points made in this thread which are somehow missed by later contributors. The result is a pattern of one step forward, two steps back whereby the discussion reverts back on itself over and over again.

Mmakshak, I encourage you to read Alberporter's posts above as he addresses your question in a very clear, succinct manner.

"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.

I'll be waiting for the day when high resolution audio with the quality of digital masters is released on a wide scale and with a catalog as complete as the low resolution catalog, and when the day comes I'll be the first to write that I was wrong.

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...