When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Shadorne,

I'd quality my statement you quoted by stating that both analog and digital are capable of great things and each have their issues to address t get it right.

Sound is inherently analog, but the recoding and playback process for both analog and digital each face distinct and different challenges that must be met to reproduce this accurately.

Each introduces their own distinct artifacts to the sound that will lead different people with different listening preferences to prefer either depending.

I do think that the vinyl playback process is harder to do really well but is very good when done right.

There have always been a lot of really crappy record players out there and still are, right?

I believe digital payback can be achieved more cost effectively by the average Joe today than vinyl. The issues are more subtle but less severe when things are not going well overall.

Although I think players like the DCS do sound very good, but I do not think it should cost $20000 + up to achieve these results. This is out of line with most other applications of digital that have been around for a while today from what I can see, so that raises a red flag for me.

Still, if you can afford it and you want no compromise sound delivered by a no compromise approach, it may well be worth the entry price.

Sound is inherently analog, but the recoding and playback process for both analog and digital each face distinct and different challenges that must be met to reproduce this accurately.

Exactly. And for that reason it makes sense to say you prefer the sound of one or the other (as they are quite different and have quite different qualities). I much prefer your more measured response in this last post - pros and cons of each if you like. To me this is a better way to judge the two. I guess I object to dismissing digital as something that will never ever sound good on "trumped up technical" grounds as without merit - that is all. Digital is progress on pure technical measures - but that it sounds worse of less preferable to many ears is undeniable - IMHO, there is no need to prove it is "bad" from a technical angle - leave that to lab intruments and technicians.

BTW - Our ear and hearng system is a copmbination of analog AND digital!! I bet you did not know that - if you research it you will be surprised to find this fact. Hairs in the ear trigger bundles of nerves sening impulses to the brain. These nerves have a finite recorvery time before they can be reactivated - in essence there is a whole level of detail in music that we CANNOT hear precisely because of the digital or "sampled" way in which our hearing works. (One of the effects of this behaviour is called "masking" - we can't hear certain sounds when they are masked by others (no matter that our analog ear membrane may actually sense the air vibarations and hairs may move in the inner ear) - it is the basis for MP3 and other compression algorithms)

"I guess I object to dismissing digital as something that will never ever sound good on "trumped up technical" grounds as without merit - that is all."

Agreed.

Also agree regarding the digital aspect of how the ear works, though I had not thought of that in the context of this particular debate before. Good point.

There is a wonderful IMAX film out in IMAX theatures on how the human body works that does a wonderful job of demonstrating this exact point regarding how we hear.

I cannot quote any statistics or measurements offhand to to support this, but it is also usually the case though that mans practical attempts still at this point in time to match the capabilities of organisms in nature in regards to how they register and process things in a binary manner cannot compare in regards to level of sophistication. Maybe some day.... or maybe never.

Shadorne,
Interesting point you make about the masking effects in our hearing. I will only worry me, I suppose, when the masking effects our rigs have vis a vis the real thing will be no more. Doubt though, that this will ever happen.

Great discussion by the way. Am learning a lot.

My ribbon speaker cable is .003" thick. What travels through them has to be very very small. The powerful deep bass licks make that hard to visualize. I have read the music signal travels near the speed of light and is comprised of properties pertaining to both wave and particle.

Now, the 1,s and 0,s can be moved about, or preserved accurately enough by engineers. It is when they start fooling with the signal that ruins things. At least that has been my experience listening to my system.

We can agree the signal is not a neat sine wave, or square wave. We have seen our best, poor as that being, measure of what a music wave may look like. I think that look is a far cry from the true three dimensional complexity music waves are really comprised of.

I just wonder how on earth engineers think they can cull distortion from the body of the speed of light music without affecting the subtleties of the music itself? How is distortion plied away from that complex bundle of pulses without disrupting it's flow? Quantum Physics says no way. My system proves it.

Producing music by interpolation of 1's and 0's is not a perfect thing. Winding a diamond stylus mechanically along a soft groove is not a perfect system either. I don't care how limber the cartridge is, a high magnification should prove the marriage is microscopically a clumsy and dirty affair. Despite deficiencies, both really can be immensely pleasing to the ear.

It has been said time and time again, industry does not care about our angels on a pinhead discussion. We audiophiles are too tiny a minority for them to do the things that try to satisfy our cravings. No matter. The deeper I peer into 16 bit, the more amazed I am just what subtleties those bits encompass.