Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Pauli and all, I still contend that the question of superiority of digital over analog is not only undecidable, but is likely meaningless and a false one. I grew up in Milan with the live music of the Teatro Alla Scala. I have listened to live music. I have performed live music. I have been in modern concert halls, in big and small theaters, in cathedrals, in country churches, in school cafeterias, under mideval porticos. I have sat on the banks of the Cam, while Handel's Water Music was performed on a barge. I have listened to acoustic music in piazzas and in private parlours and coming from the bandstand of Blackrock park in Dublin while I was sitting on a bench in the rain.
Now, as an audiophile I own a high end digital system, but have also listened to a lot of analog gear. Under no circumstance, I have heard any system -- analog or digital alike -- that can be deemed 'life-like'. What I have listened to is a wealth of atrocious music reproduction, from both types of front ends. And a few marvellous music systems, from both types of front ends. However, even the 'marvellous' ones, do not sound like live music. They sound different, both somewhat worse than those live venues that I have attended, and simultaneously a lot more musically satisfying than those same live experiences. Certain features of the music remain depressed or are slightly distorted, while others -- equally crucial ones -- are enhanced. In some sense, the most musically satisfying reproduction system is hyperrealistic, rather than simply realistic.. This may sound like anathema, but if our goal were to create beauty, instead of mimicking some narrow minded perspective of physical reality--the current rarely high achievements of both analog and digital--if admittedly different--are not bad at all.

“BUT any room noise and reflected sound arriving back at the microphone out of phase will be compressed into the stereo sound field (effecting its spectral balance) as noise when played back in (unprocessed) two Channel.”

Economical with the truth aren’t you Eddie?
Economical with the typing

1. The very same signals you refer to is present in all recordings, mono, stereo or surround. Multiple pickups in recording simply exacerbates the problem (And no, reflected signal the cannot be ‘mixed’ away as you seem to elude to - the same way sibilance cannot be removed without harming the original signal)
++++Thanks for making my point, it can't be mixed away but it can be separated from the front stage with an algorithm, funny we seem to agree . That sibilance thing is unrelated, tell your friend.+++++

2. Out of phase signals are not necessarily noise, they occur naturally and nobody on this planet has ever heard sound without some out of phase signals and harmonics mixed in. If fact, sound would be unpalatable without said signals
+++++No but information like the crowd clapping and shuffling, long hall delays that are uncorrelated in a live or large soundstage recordings are not out of phase but actually real sound that is uncorrelated. When only two channels are used, they get smashed in the main presentation. Please include digital/artificial heavy reverb and delay times used on vocals etc in the recording process. This information is distorted by the two channel system. To me this is a big culprit to the bright or sterile sound digital typically has in two channel, when you add it to the absolutely flat response of a digital source it does not take much to tip your spectral balance to the lean side.+++++

3. Reflection, reverberation and refraction occur at both time of recording AND reproduction i.e. artificially creating a “Hall Effect” does not prevent the refraction occurring naturally to your listening room - at the very best you can try and ‘drown out’ naturally occurring reflection with an overly loud out of phase signal to create the effect. Sorry lad, my ears are not fooled by that.
+++++Well actually, in like the 70's that's how you might do it, but your assessment of how the multi-channel system performs in room is a bit pedestrian and oversimplified. Fact is multiple speaker do create multiple reflections BUT their differential placement and the fact that each individual speaker has lower acoustic output minimizes the effect we perceive on the "direct" sound found coming from front stage.+++++
+++++A two channel sytem based on my own measurements has a much higher ratio of reflected sound than direct sound at the listening chair, but I moved before I could really nail it down scientifically.++++
+++I was researching swamping the room’s reverberant tone/field? with the surround system. I need that Bob Hodas measurement tool he uses, to measure the "room" with the resolution I need to get a room signature. BTW My idea of surround is not relocating the soundstage as you might hear it on a two channel system, I'm just talking about moving some information around that is not necessarily key to the recording to give the sound the rich and real life sound like an LP has and you enjoy...so i still don't understand what the problem is for wanting that? In this argument everyone goes for what digital does bad, but sometimes what is bad maybe because of an attribute it does well. LP's have terrible channel separation, thus they give you a denser center image with only two speakers...stuff like that. A bad trait, being good for the sound.

4. Signals more than .4 sec out of phase is perceived as an echo. Shorter than that, they can be quite pleasing to the ear, and can add a richness to the fundamental. Since sound travels at 1130 feet per second, my room physical dimensions and absorption levels prevent harmful reverberation very well.
++++feet per second at 70 degrees sea level.....
And what is the point here? is this my small room acoustics lesson 101. Everest is the man!!!!!! LOL+++++

“Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively”

That is quite obvious ... what is also patently obvious is that you have little familiarity with live music.
Really, and you've been watching me? So the guys at Telarc are just frivolous and arbitrary, because they don't know what live sound is. I've been to many live concerts and recitals, its not that hard and I'm not afraid to go. And lets not forget my piano lessons. So I have easy access to all of your "qualifications"...btw ever hear of the Peabody Conservatory? ....

“The information is not on the web”

Why am I not surprised by this admission? Of course it isn’t, because your interpretation of said document is more than likely patently ‘unique’.
You shouldn't be surprised, the research was done in the 60's....you can't even get Ngarchs MIT '65 paper on the web. Why don't you take the THX class? So don’t make it my fault that you don’t know this stuff already and have to look it up to see if it exists. You’re the ones who’s got no backup.

_____I think herewith lies the difference between us. My audio system is put together to reproduce live performances as closely as possible. It is not designed to impress or who people. Non audio folks are not impressed.______

First of all can you tell me what exactly is so impressive about adding rear and a center channel to a system? Why in your mind am I trying to impress people, wouldn’t a big plexiglass turntable on top of my riack do a much better job for the WOW factor? Oh before you answer, the turntable works everytime…
My system is designed to play the recording accurately no matter what the subject matter, do you see the graphs on my cheap system? My little crappy system is +/- 4 dB with 8th octave resolution 30hz to 20khz.. With DSP correction my ATC system was +/- 2dB at the chair. At 100dB! Actually more a room acoustic pat on the back. --- as we have already discussed my two-channel system is atleast equal to your system. And since you have no surround system it looks bad for you when it comes to integrity on this matter. I can't even tell you what I'm doing so you can try it. How dishonest is that? My system is designed to impress me, that is lot tougher than some audiophile or non-audiophile..
The names Doug; and that's it. Get a surround system and we'll talk, otherwise I'm just debating someone’s who's speculating and guessing about something he doesn't have well atleast you have some help with basic acoustics.///.

Raul;

congratulation on pleasing the frustrated crowd, your arguments and then attack are very amusing. A little contrived but none the less funny.

Your complete dismissal of digital isn't going to look to rational when this debate gets broken down. I think you slid past common sense there buddy.

Once again i'm not having a fight about analog and digital my fight is surround versus 2 channel. And you have no real experience with that Raul, so i don't know what you're so fired up about?

See if you read your post you have to assume that I'm somehow effected by your bluster and stuff, but your focus on digital versu analog really isn't my concern. My surround system is better than my LP playabck system, no contest. You could say that in your case its the opposite but you don't have a music surround system. So I'm afraid till you get one, you're going to have to take my word for it. Its very musical and live sounding.

From one true music lover to another

I am surprised by the vehemence of the arguments against surround sound. It is patently obvious that surround can create the ambient sound of a real venue better than two channel. Two channel can add cues using special techniques in the mix but it is just not as convincing as surround. If the majority of the sound is coming out of the left, right and center channels it will be close to stereo anyway. I think most audio engineers are more comfortable and still better at producing two channel stereo mixes.....but it is only a matter of time before they become as good at multi-channel as they are with stereo....and then multi-channel will begin to consistently surpass stereo for music, IMHO.

If surround was not more convincing than stereo, then big movie theatres would never have adopted these expensive systems...

If surround was not more convincing than stereo, then big movie theatres would never have adopted these expensive systems...
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies.
It's just not for music.