Not wasting my time on new Digital

El, I think you miss the point. To answer your last question first, I have not measured dynamic range in source components or in in-room replay, which is why I provided the link. Did you bother to look at it? But what is your point here? Must one actually make the measurements oneself to understand the concepts behind them?

As far as dynamic range is concerned, you simply misread my statement that, in analog, not digital, replay, sounds can be heard 10db to 20db into the noise floor and this leads to analog replay having a greater dynamic range than redbook CD and is quite audible. Where, as you assert, did I say that sounds 10 to 20db below what is audible are things that you should "care" about? Intentionally misreading is simply obfuscation. My only point about digital replay was that cutting off signal below the least significant bit, throws away information. And I also pointed out that the addition of dither can recapture at least some, of this information. Show me where I said that this disregarded information is audible?

Your point is that the information, being overtly inaudible, makes it of no value. This may well be true and I cannot take issue with your assertion. However, I am not at all convinced that some of the information that "reads" as room tone and ambiance does not fall below what is considered to be the standard limit of audibilty. Some will argue that our listening room noise levels, sometimes running as high as 40db (and yes, I have measured this), will just swamp these small changes. Again, as with analog replay, we hear into the noise floor of our listening rooms, as ambient noise is not correlated with the audio signal, it is easier for our sensory gating mechanisms to diminish. To be clear, I am not saying that this is the case, just that it might be possible.

We have also heard similar arguments about the 20K upper limit of CD replay. If it is inaudible, who cares if we throw it away? And yet, there are still many that believe that information above 20k is necessary to maintain the integrity of the signal and there are audible consequences to eliminating this information. I think that a lot of it comes down to hearing acuity as well. A young person may hear well in excess of 20K, as we grow older the upper limit of hearing diminishes. But it does not always completely disappear, it simply rolls off. There are individual limits to low level hearing as well. I am not so presumptuous as to think that, because I cannot hear something, that others cannot either. So what does not matter to me, may be quite important to others.

Viridian: I am loathe to insert myself into the middle of this one, but I can't make sense of your statements

"...analog, both tape and LP, has greater dynamic range than redbook CD. Sounds can be heard between ten and twenty db beneath the noise floor on analog. Digital media simply throw away all information below the least significant bit"

"in analog, not digital, replay, sounds can be heard 10db to 20db into the noise floor and this leads to analog replay having a greater dynamic range than redbook CD"

Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, the assertion about audibility below the noise floor with analog, I can't see any connection between that supposed fact, and drawing the conclusion that therefore digital must have less dynamic range. Even if the stipulation about audibility is true, it seems to me the comparison would be wholly dependent on where the analog noise floor actually falls in relation to the bit-depth of a particular digital format. If, for instance, an analog format has a noise floor 20dB higher than the LSB of a digital format, then they should have equal dynamic range by your argument. But even so, taking the noise floor of the analog into account, the digital should have superior low-level resolution.

Personally, I'm not sure that any of this stuff actually has much to do with the perception of 'dynamic' sound (or whether dynamics has anything to do with D_Edwards contention about digital and multichannel, for that matter). But regardless, your inference does seem like a non-sequitor to me.

Viridian...Your question, "Where, as you assert, did I say that sounds 10 to 20db below what is audible are things that you should "care" about?" is one that I cannot answer because the posting has been (conveniently) deleted.

Thanks for the link. Interesting, but I have seen it before.

In my multichannel system (5 channels contributing noise) I never hear noise with digital sources. With LPs, quiet passages almost always have enough audible noise to bother me. (Perhaps I am more sensitive to this than you are). My spectrum analyser clearly shows why this is so.

I have no special record cleaning equipment, and I am talking about ordinary LPs: not special audiophile editions. While the noise floor of the LP system is pretty well defined by the technology, the maximum signal can be anything that the recording engineer thinks his customers' cartridges can track. Most LPs intended for the general public have been compressed and peak-limited so that Joe sixpack can play them.

By the way, I think that dynamic range is not the most important parameter. Sometimes I find that quiet passages, even without noise, are difficult to hear unless the volume is cranked up so much that the loud passages are ear-splitting. Too much of a good thing.

I'd like to hear more from D_Edwards on the specifics of his setup and how we can learn to take advantage of what digital offers. His comments were refreshing, whether right or wrong. I can live with my cd's being crunched and massaged through the various digital algorithms that the various surround sound modes offer. After reading his statements I started looking at processor offerings in the 4-5K range and it seems there is are quite a few new surround modes since I bought my receiver 7 years ago. PLII, tri-field, etc. and it seems that every manufacturer has their own proprietary 2-channel mix mode designed for CD's. I'm curious as to what they are trying to accomplish with these modes though. Are they simply trying to simulate what a good 2-channel system can do with sound imaging, depth, etc? I've heard more than one 2-channel setup that when done in a room that has been treated, fills the entire room. Again, his comments were a refreshing change from the usual, is this amp, better than that one, etc. Digital is here to stay and he brings some fresh assumptions. Especially for those of us that don't listen to audiophile grade recording. Hey if you can clean up the sound and make it more enjoyable, I'm all for it.
I've got half a mind to pick up an Anthem D1 and give it a whirl. My receiver is on the fritz as it is.

Hey Snipes,

A quik answer, YES!!! My very budget surround system linked in my audiogon info, has "blown away" 2 channel systems that cost more. I put blown away in quotes because that is the same quote used by four different people after hearing the system listed recently. And trust me they were in the same state of disbelief you're feeling now when they said it. I don't expect you to believe me anyway...just come on by and hear for yourself anytime.

Now what I find amusing is this is a very entry level system with a very nice receiver and some speakers I build myself. What do you think a Meridian 861 and ATC's would sound like compared to two channel systems? I know what J Gordon thinks.

And YES, that "blown away" comment was addressing the systems ability to playback redbook 2 channel cd's in a limited PLII format as you would expect to hear them from a two channels system. All voices and instruments in a wide deep front soundstage, but with a naturalness you might just begin to find in the Meitner products with two channels. But maybe not.

D1 is a good choice, anything Meridian makes is the best for music, they give you so much control I can mimic other two channel and multi channel systems. But not any processor will do. Believe it or not, not all surround processors are competent. Some leave out critical adjustments that cripple the ability of the processor to do music well. Setup flexibility and EQ is very critical.