'Digital Glare' - is it really the medium at fault?

[lurcher]

What the source is driving into. the combination of the preamp and whatever is afterwards as a network, or the first stage of a active preamp. Plus whatever LCR components are added by any interconnect in use.

[Macca]

Right so I did understand sort of. Presumably there are optimum parameters for the combined network the source is driving?

[lurcher]

Maybe, but I prefer to use a driver that is agnostic about what its driving.

[magiccarpetride]

Now apologies if you already knew this. But I am wondering what the reason for this revelation is. A pet theory I have just pulled out of the air is that the output level of most if not all CD players and DACs is just way too high and that running that signal through an active pre-amp i.e another gain stage is both unnecessary and counter-productive. It is that extra gain stage that is causing the 'digital glare'. Copying the CD to R2R or cassette bypasses that extra gain stage and with the lower output of those devices, the problem is sidestepped. Now I suppose this is not the case for all active pre-amps , just those several dozens (both stand alone and integrated) that I have heard. Fair enough if that is the case. Does anyone else relate to what I am going on about here? Is there possibly another reason for this effect? Your opinions welcomed.

My personal experiences do not relate to CD players but to the digital transport (i.e. Squeezebox Touch). I have noticed that when I ssh into the Touch (I remotely log in to the box; Squeezebox Touch is basically a micro computer running Linux OS), I can play with various job priorities as well as with buffer sizes. And often times the changes I make to the digital transport have noticeable impact on the sound quality (and by 'quality' I don't mean how good or bad it sounds, more like different taste or flavour of the sound).

Since I personally prefer 'wetter', 'greasier' sound, I have tweaked the job priorities and the buffer sizes on the Touch to deliver such sound. It's the sound that has more substance, more heaviness to it, as opposed to more transparency and airiness. The best way I could describe those differences would be to ask you to imagine a musical instrument, say a cello, painted with glossy oil paint, and then imagine the same instrument painted with more delicate acrylic paint. I prefer the effect that the oil paint gives.

Where does 'digital glare' fit into this? I don't know. All I can say is that, to my ears, good analog sound reproduction seems more like a soundscape rendered in oil paints, while a decent digital system sounds more like it's been rendered using acrylics. Both can have its pros and cons. I think it's down to personal taste...

[struth]

very artistic post

[Yomanze]

IMO a lot of this "glare", "sheen" and "fatigue" effects associated with digital are due to oversampling, upsampling, digital filtering etc. As Nick's mentioned, I think the other key aspect is down to so many DACs / CDPs using 'textbook' opamp circuits with poor power supplies. For long-term listening and an ultimately analogue sound, I've found that only true multibit, non-oversampling DACs can exceed what I get from my vinyl setup in terms of dynamic contrast, timbre & tone, naturalness etc. Of course some people *like* digital sound (especially the resolution), nothing wrong with this, I think my DAC preferences would go down better with vinyl or tape fans.