Is Digital actually better than Analog?

I just perused all of D_Edwards 'digital answers' and found no facts, simply published opinions. Seems the meat and potatoes are simply a cardboard photo.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?

Surely they must miss you at Audio Review.

“scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it.”

Fact

“Harvard University School of medecine (early 50's)NEJM
Bell Labs
MIT
USC
repeating Harvards study---THX
A few more that have simply confirmed earlier Bell Labs findings in the 1940's

Scientifically proven. Its the information that motivated serious companies to spend serious money to try Quadraphonic, the boat anchor of home audio.’

Fact

counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers. And there are other factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way.

Fact; read the MIT paper posted by Nsgarch it is quite thorough at explaining how our current two channel setup is flawed.

draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise. That noise is disproportionately high harmonics thus hi frequency, shift the balance of the recording.

Fact

The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored.

Though the numbers may vary slightly from what I posted, that is a FACT.

You guys started in on me about digital and surround , and as you have demonstrated this area of audio is not your forte.

Fact

Mcgrogan; not being aware of the facts or refusing to acknowledge the facts does not make them opinions. This is the problem all along. I have studied and researched for 15 years. I am a film major, I have worked on feature films, I have recorded bands…etc. Believing another thing does not change the facts. Life is not that simple.
In my opinion I’ve never heard an analog two channels system that even comes close to a high quality surround system. And there are many surround systems that qualify. My opinion.

Too me two channel is a joke, fact.

Doesn’t matter if its analog or digital

Keep it straight dudes, I’m not anti analog, give me seven discrete analog channels on an open reel tape deck and I’m happy.

“scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it”

Proven to do what? Reproducing a mono source?

““Harvard University School of med[e]cine (early 50's)NEJM
Bell Labs
MIT
USC
repeating Harvards study---THX”

URL? I suppose your ‘facts’ are published on the web? I would like to see where the say surround sound is the most accurate way to reproduce a recital.

“counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers”

Phantom speakers? What is a phantom speaker?

“draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise”

So listening to a live recital, the piano can only create “half a circle” and the rest “collapses into noise”? Or by your definition, only a quarter circle, since a recital is mono. Will 4 Pianos will then have no noise, as it creates “the full circle”?

LOL, I have just “collapsed into” laughter ...

“To[o] me two channel is a joke, fact.”

Yep, to me surround is a joke, fact.

Regards
Paul

Dear Cdwallace/D_edwards: It is clear that you are in love with multichannel and digital technology in a fanatical way. I like your passion for what you believe, well done. I respect both of your opinion, as I respect any other single opinion here.

Now, I'm not a fanatical about any technology: digital or analog, tube or SS, two channel or multichannel. I'm a music lover and a fanatical of MUSIC: live music and this is my reference.

Through your post I can't see/understand yet which is your reference: live MUSIC or technology/audio devices?

I'm in the analog and digital electronic design for many years and I can talk of facts on either technology for " years ". But the experiences are part of those facts and I want to share with you some of those experiences:

more than a year ago, in a business trip to Seattle, ( by coincidence ) I had the opportunity to heard the best of the best in multichannel systems ( at least I never heard something better till today ), this was with a dealer there ( Definite or Definitive Audio ), one of the dedicated room ( multichannel ) had all Wilson speakers and Halcro electronics and I think that the processor was Meridian or Lexicon, I can't remember, the room conditioning ( I think ) was designed and build by Rives Audio or some at that level. The front speakers were the MAXX2 and the surrounded WattPupy7.
In the past I had the opportunity to heard a few multichannel systems but nothing near this 500K all asault system!!!

From the very first musical note the sound was impressive, for say the least, I can't belive what I'm hearing!!!
I'm sure that with this very high quality level of demo many of the people that attend that time were " catched " and bring that technology to their homes.

The sound was impressive but something ( for me ) was not right: why I been exited but not emotional?. Then I return to my reference ( live MUSIC ) and how I percieve it in a live event:

I attend every week at least at two live events, classical/jazz,. I sit in the classical hall in the 4-6 center row: in all of the more than 20 years that I attend to concertos I never experienced the impressive " fake " of that multichannel demo or at least I never had the capacity to heard it: the sound in the hall ( where I sit ) is direct, there is a little ambience but nothing near the multichannel ( i don't want to use the " fake " word and I don't know other one ).

Now, when I attend to a Jazz club ( that normally has not avery big space ) the musical experience is more dramatic than in a big classical hall: you have the MUSIC in " front " of, what I say? not only in front of you: the musical notes hit/crash over you, you can't heard the musical ambience or it is at very low level over the direct sound.

All my MUSIC live experiences tell me that till today the best way to hear the music at home is through two channel, this is the way that put me near the live event. May be in the future the multichannel could be less " impressive " and could put me nearest to the live event and could give me the " emotions " that the two channel do.

Of course that the " music power " has no barriers of any kind and when we heard a song/melody/tune that we like it, it does not matters if we are hearing in the car, at home or by headphones we feel how grow-up the emotional feeling in all our body and this FACT is all about!!!!

I assume that you ( both ) feel in a better way those " music feelings " through the technology that you support and that's what counts to you.

Now, I agree that digital technology has a very good future but the analog technology too, let me explain it:

one of you posted that the analog technology have no advances in the last 30-40 years. I think that you don't have the right know-how about. We can take any analog area/stage: TT/tonearm/cartridge/phono stage/etc and I can prove to you that the analog technology has a very good advance ( with out any manipulation ) and in some areas a great advance today against 30-40 years ago.

Now take a look to the digital ( per se ) technology: TILL TODAY IT IS THE SAME ONE THAT WHEN START: 16/44.1 !!!!!!

this 16/44.1 was and it is the Aquiles heel of the digital technology. There are many facts against why the digital technology is so far away of the live music, I'm only give you one of them: the frequency response stop at 22.05kHz against the analog technology that goes in a more natural music way a lot higher than that. All the digital manipulations that that technology was suffer over the years ( to be near the analog sound and in this way to be near the live music ) like the up-sampling: 24/192 ( Redbook ) helps this technology to be accepted for real music lovers ( like me ).

Now, unfortunatelly the SACD/DVDA digital technology, that is a real quality sound improvement over the " glorious " Redbook, was " killed " from the very first moment that was created and was killed for their creators. This fact is a very sad one because the SACD/DVDA technology is very close to analog in some areas, even in others and is superior in other ones.

It is clear to me that in today audio/music stage the analog is a different and superior way to hear the MUSIC.

Well fellows this is my humble opinion about, just an opinion.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

D_Edwards,

I am not sure if surround is currently better than two channel for music but I don't doubt it will eventually surpass. I think the engineers are not all able to put out consistent stuff for music at the moment. Multi-channel should give engineers tighter control on "ambience" & reverb.

What I have observered, so far, is that movie surround sound, particularly stuff coming out of major studios with a big budget (productions from skywalker sound and the like) are absolutely SUPERB. Far better dynamic range and recording quality than the majority of CD's. These multi-channel sounds (voice, music, or SFX) are some of the most realistic available today from any speaker system.

Part of the reason may simply be due to the adherence to standards of recording level in movie multi-channel. Twenty years ago, Lucas did a lot to promote one set of standards and these appear to be sticking. (Something sorely lacking in the music industry where there are sadly NO recording level standards!).

Another reason may simply be budgets (movies get to spend a lot more on sound quality)