When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!

Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.

Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup
2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc
3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp
4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp

and you're saying that is superior to:

1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.

Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...

Frank

Learsfool, I'm pleased I did get the first bit right, that is, I was correct in understanding what you were saying.

But, as to "how you can conclude that a recording must have worked right without playing it back", I'm very sorry, another "thought" experiment, and bear with me please ...

Recording a signal digitally and playing it back, for BOTH monitoring AND home playback purposes, is in essence two key processes: A->D, a conversion from an (microphone) analogue waveform to a digital representation (which from then on can be captured with zero distortion), and D->A, the digital representation converted back to an audio signal driving, say, headphones. Let's say, for argument, there was 10% distortion, loss of information, change of sound or whatever you want to call it in this overall process. Where was this 10% lost? Was it:

1) 10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A, OR
2) 0% loss in the A->D and 10% in the D->A, OR
3) 5% loss in the A->D and 5% in the D->A, say

Based on my experiences I would, as a very rough guess, say:
0.1% loss in the A->D and 9.9% in the D->A

and it appears to me that you think it's 1), that is
10% loss in the A->D and 0% in the D->A

That's where we differ, and that's why I believe digital CAN do the job ...

Frank

Frank,

The recording is usually done in the analog domain using high quality Pro tape machines, or direct-to-disc cutting lathe, or at high resolution digital PCM or DSD. So unless if you have a vinyl pressing from the master analog tape or high-res digital master (DSD or PCM 176.4/24 +), there is no way to experience anything that is even close to the original performance.

What Albert tied to say is that, even though the original master recording is initially done in the digital domain, it will 99% sound best on vinyl compared to any uncompressed (WAV or AIFF) digital with less than 176.4/24 resolution. I do have recordings that were done on vinyl and also in SACD/DVD-A so I can compare. Not only that, I've experimented with my own digital recordings from my vinyl setup using the industry-standard top-line AKM Analog to Digital Converters. For the record, nothing that is WAV or AIFF and less than 176.4/24 or 192/24 compares to the vinyl on A-B test. The CDs I made from those tests are my “car copies”.

So while I am sure you are immensely enjoying the convenience of your digital, it really takes a great deal of effort to approach analog quality with digital. CD can indeed sound very nice but nowhere near vinyl made from the original analog or digital master recording.

Just my 2 cents as always!

Best,
Alex Peychev

Albertporter, -- "analog is still the best available to us as consumers, even if the master was digital" -- I obviously wasn't in the groove (no pun intended!) when I read that, your statement does not make sense!

Each process in transferring sound from a storage medium to our ears is either A->A or D->A, that is, either analogue to analogue, or digital to analogue.

Going from digital master to vinyl playback are (at least) the steps:
1) D->A: digital goes through DAC in mastering setup
2) A->A: analogue signal drives the cutter for the stamper disc
3) A->A: cartridge mechanically vibrates a coil or magnet to create a low level signal for the preamp
4) A->A: preamp boosts signal to create an analogue signal for the power amp

and you're saying that is superior to:

1) D->A: digital goes through DAC to create an analogue signal for the power amp.

Are you saying some sort of magic is taking place in those extra A->A stages? Yes, some type of filtering is taking place in these processes, but if you want that type of change of sound to occur just add an extra box to do some processing into your home setup. Of course, some people add tube circuitry into DAC's as a means of achieving this end ...

I pasted this without even reading it, I know where you're going and it's wrong.

WE CANNOT GET HIGH RESOLUTION FILES. The guys that record music have the good stuff, they sell us the crappy MP3 and CD.

If you convert the ultra high resolution files at the studio (source) to analog it gets a lot of what was on the hard drive.

When the hard drive is down sampled over and over to produce what is available to us at Best Buy, it's much less resolution than the best analog.

It's really that simple.

Well said Albert! Thank God for Reference Recordings HRx! This is probably as good as a mortal can get. :-) I am in total disbelief listening to these converted to LPCM DVD-A on my NWO-M! Amazing!

I guess what is not realized on this thread is that the best analog is what the best sound comes from, and if you can get digital to sound close enough, you already have a winner. IMO, of course.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev

Having good digital is important for anyone who wants to hear those artists that don't release on LP.

I wish there was a CD player that allowed me to listen without being constantly reminded of it's flaws.

That being said I have heard positive things about your players if you're the Alex Peychev that does all the digital work.

My friend Joe Harley who's behind the Blue Note Jazz Vinyl Reissues at Music Matters was also responsible for the JVC HRCD project. Joe and I have been friends for 30+ years, he has an incredible ear !

Joe told me that the best digital, sitting on the drive in the studio was enough to make analog guys like he and I appreciate what digital can do. He then explained that every time It’s moved or transferred, reclocked or down sampled it takes a huge hit.

I think there is a lot going on with digital clock speed, error rate and bit problems that really screw with the sound. Eventually this problem will be solved but I'm not going to wait.

When digital gets where it should be and for a price I can justify, I'll jump on board. I have digital right now but it's an Oppo.

Oppo is "OK" at best, but priced like a used interconnect here at Audiogon :^). So, the fact it has flaws is acceptable for price paid.

The problem is many players that cost $15K, 20K $45K and more beats the stuffings out of the Oppo but still gets creamed by my Studer and turntable. With that much invested in digital I'd be pissed.

Hope I live long enough for it to be fixed. I think the technology is there but like I've posted here at Audiogon a dozen times, as long as Apple is making hundreds of millions selling MP3, the guys capable of issuing (true) high resolution digital are not even looking.