When is digital going to get the soul of music?

I do believe that the highest frequencies that can be heard are the hardest to get right regardless of the technical approach used (digital versus analog). This is because small errors in reproduction are more significant in relation to the high frequency harmonics at that range, so people who can hear in that range are more likely to notice the distortion if present.

When I have an audible issue with a particular CD recording in terms of noise or distortion, its usually in the upper range of frequencies that I can actually hear.

The only artifact I hear regularly that bothers me is slight tonal variations in long passages in orchestral CDs that should not vary much in pitch but in fact do sound sometimes like an audible high frequency warble that impacts the purity of the sound of the instrument. Passages by string sections in orchestral works are the common culprit. Even this does not occur in all CD recordings, the better ones are usually pretty good, but I so suspect they might be improved yet with a different player or DAC that is clearly designed to reduce jitter. I am looking into that.

OTher than this, I believe most other aspects of digital sound that people tend to not like is more due to personal taste than technical issues, which is fine, because that's what its all about. Chose your high quality tubes or SS and speakers here as needed to get the sound you like.

Mapman, Out of curiosity, this 'pitch warble' you are hearing, is this from an analog source remastered to digital or was it a digital recording in the first place? One of my few dis-satisfactions with vinyl was related to constant pitch, even with TT's that had excellent wow and flutter spec's. I assume it might have been sourced to the recording processs as well as playback. Interestingly, amoungst my complaints about digital, maintaining pitch is not one of them.

I agree with your comments, except I wouldn't object to $30.00 or even $50.00 for a perfect digital copy of the master file.

Unfortunately, the "master tapes" are not always that great. Lets face it, you can only use up so much studio time and session musicians or a band may have just a week with the studio rented (often at night if they can't afford it). With classical it is even worse - you may only have a couple of days to get everything you need and live is the absolute worst - you maybe get as much as three inadequate recordings in a venue to work with.

The reality is that if the band is serious about audiophile quality sound then you generally get it - INXS, Pink Floyd, Bryan Ferry, Roxy Music, Mark Knopfler, The Eagles, Tom Petty, Toto and many others pay great attention to sound quality coming out on their studio releases (and hire the best of the best). However, those who take such care - re-dub things and if necessary and spend extra money to go back to the studio or go to several studios and do extra takes - these musicians are in a great minority. Unless you have such stubborn musicians that stand up to the producer and push for a great recording then a great recording is often simply a one off stroke of luck!!

Poor master tapes can be cleaned up - but you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse!

Newbee,

I'm talking about digital sources in general.

Warble was not a good choice of words. MAybe graininess would be better.

Its only on some recordings , not all, so its not an inherent issue with equipment or format.

I tend to agree with Shadorne's view that in most cases these issues are due to the imperfect process that goes into making recordings in many cases. In cases where attention is paid, the sound is fine in either medium with good quality equipment. No playback system at any cost can correct problems when they exist in the recording.