When is digital going to get the soul of music?


I have to ask this(actually, I thought I mentioned this in another thread.). It's been at least 25 years of digital. The equivalent in vinyl is 1975. I am currently listening to a pre-1975 album. It conveys the soul of music. Although digital may be more detailed, and even gives more detail than analog does(in a way), when will it convey the soul of music. This has escaped digital, as far as I can tell.
mmakshak
I'm going to say it will eventually get there but not with anything we have currently. Redbook CD will never get there in my opinion. It's too course to possibly trump vinyl.

Higher resolution perhaps but it hasn't happened yet. I have hope because a fair amount of work is going on in this area. If only high-rez files would come along. They are, however, I'm sure they will never be mainstream.

SACD is in the ICU because few are providing software for it.

DVD-A is DOA...
I have three digital sources that are quite acceptable to me, although I still prefer vinyl. My Mac Powerbook Pro with SSD and playing Pure Music 1.65a in Memory mode with Entreq FW through my Weiss Dac202, the same source using Entreq USB through my H-Cat Dac, and my Exemplar Oppo 83 are these three sources. As yet, I have heard no better digital regardless of price.
Just noticed this thread has been running since the beginning of '06, really shows how this topic of analogue versus digital is such a biggy, but unnecessarily so. I have only read the last page of comments, but what stuck out was the comment by Engelgrafik that "everything that distorts in digital is like nails scratching a chalkboard", and the answer is as simple and as complex as that -- distortion is distortion is distortion.

It is relative easy to get analogue to sound "good" because the heart of it is a mechanical process; digital's heart is very complex electronics, and so the task of eliminating "nasty" distortion is much, much harder. You have to work at it and work at it, but the end result will be worth it.

My experience is that digital "done right" in a match race with analogue will most definitely be the winner, and by this I mean experiencing the "soul of music" will be able to be fully realised! But, and a big BUT, if one tiny, tiny thing is not working correctly in the digital setup then it can crash and burn, big time!

An analogy is a performance vehicle versus a comfortable, sloppy springed family sedan. The latter will always be pleasant to drive even if out of tune, but the former will be a monster, and you will hate it if something is not working right. But get it right ... then you'll prefer the performance vehicle.

A key indicator of digital working well is that there is no such thing as a bad recording, you can enjoy the "soul" of everything you have ...

Frank
I am amazed that people still hold the opinion that digital is such a poor performer. Superb CD machines have been extant for at least 12 years and I'm talking redbook, not the SACD or DVD-A variants. I'm not saying this is the case here but for many years internet forums have been awash with claims that vinyl still massively outperforms the CD and people often cite experience as proof. I find it hard to accept claims of "proof" when it's often pretty obvious that the claimant has never attained anything like a good digital set-up, yet still asserts that it's a rubbish medium.
I have been living with my current system for around 8 years and it's CD redbook only. I had given up vinyl some 15 years previously and decided to try it one more time, once I had got a superb CD player, in part to see how it compared. I got myself an LP12 that a local enthusiast was selling (he also was going the CD only route) and pulled out my old vinyl collection. Whilst the detail was certainly "there", so were all the old faults that prompted me to jack it in the first place. The ability to play pops, hiss and crackles with great clarity reminded me why I hated vinyl so much. And how did the sound of my CD system sound alongside the LP12? Let's just say I never want to go back. The issues that people often cite as problematic with CD have not been evident since I attained a high end system, especially since the upgrade of my power amp. No harshness, no sterility, and certainly it has plenty of "soul". The one thing I would add, and it highlights something I have been harping on about for years and something most of you will also be acutely aware of, I'm sure - that of SYNERGY. My Meridian CD player had to go to the doctors a couple of years ago for a new laser and I was forced into using a backup player. I then understood what people were talking about when they complained of the sound of CD and also that of the ear-bleeder remaster. For the first time in years, I experienced listener fatigue.
It's a Herculean task to assemble a system, the infinite combinations of kit and environment make it hard enough. Spending many hours of time and effort assembling what people think will be a system which eventually kill off their "upgrade-itis" will not necessarily result in satisfaction. No-one likes to admit failure, especially when spending a lot of money but the fact remains that sometimes this is what has happened. I have often encountered people on internet forums who cannot listen to a lot of their music for one reason or another - as it sounds harsh. Yet they proudly present their expensive and esoteric system for all to see, just to lap up the praise for the aesthetics. I'm sorry but that always sounds to be like a lack of synergy and consequently poor system matching. I am a canine psychologist and I always say to clients that "you do NOT need to put up with bad and anti=-social behaviour". The same applies to us audiophiles - we should not put up with sounds that displease, however much has been invested up to that point.
I wish people, instead of stating "CD as a medium sucks", would just say "I have yet to hear it in a favourable setup".

And before anyone gets defensive, I am not referring to anyone specifically, as I only read 10 or so responses to this thread.