When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Let me just say this. Lp's made from 1981 or earlier are all relaxing(vinyl enthusiasts don't recognize this). I'm trying to codify cd's. What I'm thinking now(and how come a cd neophyte is the one coming up with this?) is that earlier cd's sound better when coming from analog tape, while later cd's(at least 1996) can sound pretty good. I don't know why, but why am I the one even suggesting this? No ears out there?

digital is a wrong way for reproducing music, compared with analogic.
Even if it's superior physically, in some fields.
It cuts the time into instants and reconstructed it after, more or less closer to reality.

Neil Young, for instance, has never accepted digital, calling it a crime for music !

I have been positively surprised by the JPS cable "Digital AC" made for CD/SACD/DVD outfits, which makes sound the digital gear closer to the analogic true sound.

Very interesting, Adhoc. I too believed that digital was wrong-and it was backed up by listening. Now, I'm not so sure. I've found digital more than tolerable with the APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910. Maybe it's due to less than optimum setup of my Linn(circa 1992). But, I no longer, necessarily get tense from all digital. My current interconnect(Oritek X-2) was designed mostly listening to digital. I do have ideas on cd's now. First, cd's made from analog tape are mostly(albeit, maybe, they are a little clinical, but generally that's musically insignificant) okay. Second: cd's made after 1995(approximately) can be excellent. My question here is, was there a breakthrough at this point(1995), or was it incremental improvements(I don't believe the second.)? I have found one cd made earlier that was able to communicate the music message with the cd format(R.E.M.'s, "Automatic for the People"-hell, what do you want for a buck?). I've got to admit that I've not tried turning down the volume of those objectionable cd's, to see what effect that has. D_edwards, when you talk about surround, are you mostly talking about 5.1 cd's?

Sure, that the best CD/SACD players are much better than 10 years ago, and often sound very good.

Now, besides theory I just spoke a little in my former message - I can't develop more in english, not to say that I am not a technician - I just can say :

- I have a very good CD/SACD player, Accuphase DP-85, considered among the few best ones (16'000 euros in Europe)
- as analogic outfit, a Michell Orbe, Rega RB1000 tonearm and Lyre Titan as cartridge.

Well, my top sounding LP's sound better than my top sounding CD's or SACD's.

Richer, fuller, warmer - just more musical, if I can say that.
Ok, more dynamics in CD's.
I enjoy a lot my CD's, no problem, but when I want to listen to the best sound, I put my LP's.

MMAk,

No, use with two channel CD's

Digital is better than analog, especially 24bit devices.

Neil Young is a hippy with marginal talent, when the greatest orchestra conductors in the world have no issue with digital why should we?

Mmak,

If I had Cerwin Vega D9's and told you that digital was perfect...would'nt you consider comments a bit influenced by the quality of my speakers? Your DCM's are of the same ilk and you need to get much better speakers because you are just wasting your time trying to quantify analog versus digital when you're speakers are flawed and have difficulty with digital playback as a matter of their character.

Also I disagree 100% with your statement that music is too relax too. Music is a prime mover for me and I thrive on the tension early REM songs (using a recently mentioned example of a band with poor thin recording quality as an aesthetic to their music) like "fall on me" which is a protest song and it should get your attention!

There's music for every emotion and that tension is what makes it compelling and interesting. If you're trying to relax to music like REM, then you're barking up the wrong tree.