Is Digital actually better than Analog?

If you only use two channels it really doesn't matter.

so why worry about it?

"The Esoteric, you can make out every detail with ease but I really feel that such a detailed machine takes away from the enjoyment in music."

If you listen in two channel only, you are not getting the best digital has too offer. Infact you're getting the nasty end of the stick.

For years I have been listening in trifield and now PLII two channel is purgatory. ie. Digital is too good for two speakers, and no amount of EQing and sound shaping with tubes and cables will overcome that.

You want to love the music and be swept away by detail and emotional involvement, its scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it. :)....and ten years from now you will actually believe what I just said.

Pauly,

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.

As for your overly simplistic view of what surround does for the audio signal, Well ten years from now you'll undertsand finally.

Nsgarch,

Nevertheless, a good two channel system in an acoustically adjusted listening room will produce all those secondary waves accurately and from the (seemingly) appropriate directions using only two speakers.

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

no time to elaborate you won't believe me anyway.

Queg,

It will take more than your preference for two channel to not get a job, they will overlook that flaw in your logic if you're actually qualified for the job.

Fact is can you setup a theater correctly? Setting up a turntable is a great deal easier than setting up a multi-channel system.
---------------------------------------------------------

Audio Rule #1

Every man believes he's born with all the audio knowledge he will ever need.

Nsgarch,

You couldn't have been more accomadating in demonstrating the incorrect assumptions associated with this part of our hobby. Your education and experience only highlights how little is understood, and I will apologize for some of the information I share as it does not put your comments in the best light. People like Pauly and Queg may not realize it but they do have a great deal to learn about audio, and I hope that's a truth they can handle. Spending money is not experience, listening is poor experience and yet that seems to be all the qualification anyone needs to be judgemental about who knows what. Its ok I'm used to it.

1. All of your expirements where in analog and FYI a full decade after the multichannel expirements by your school and Harvard? Were you in the psych department or audiology?

"the first controlled study of human stereophonic perception" I have conflicting data, in the 1930's stereo was being tested on human beings. By 1950 Discrete surround was available in the theaters with some of the greatest orchestral recordings being 7 channels? Your tests were irrelevant and decades obsolete as it regarded audio and human perception. Sorry to inform you.

2. The fact that you have TRIED to use and are familiar with all of the algos of surround simply does not impress me because you still call it a "ping pong effect" and that is IMO unnacceptable results, and I although most people who don't know what they're doing listen in "ping pong", I don't and won't! Most audiophiles cannot discern when they are listening in surround on my systems to recordings they know very well. And they are shocked by how pathetic 2 channel sounds when the surround is turned off, but that's just hearsay let's get back to facts.

It unfortunatley appears you have never heard a properly set up surround system atleast one set to my standards.

3. Since you have the science background, explain to me how a two channel system (which you do not own one BTW, you have a 4 channel system) recreates the 360 degree algorithms present in all reverb and harmonizing equipment used by professional studios to make recordings?

"I don't understand. Maybe you could elaborate?"

try to answer question 3 and you'll have 1 of my anchors to that comment in my previous post.

4. "I got bored with multi", no you still own a multichannel system which having been an owner of Martin Loagn CLS's I can tell you that you don't have a natural soundfield, you're stuck with one that you accept as the truth and for a few recordings maybe its close to "natural" but for all of the others you simply accept it as truth. Dipole speakers like ML and Apogee and Magnepan were the gateway to my surround philosophy, which was born out of necessiity since I often lived in places that would not allow proper set up of Dipole speakers.

5. "However, in a properly designed live-end/dead-end room and optimum speaker/listener placement, a two channel playback system will accurately re-produce an original (i.e. recorded in a real space) sound field."

Your dreaming and even though that may be the best 2 channel can do, and let me remind you once again you don't own a 2 channel system. To believe as you do you are ignoring microphone pickup patterns and other fundamental noise and signal issues.

So you need to rethink your philosophy a little to accomodate the truth of your reality. I'm not making a judgement about how your systems sounds, I am giving you facts about what your system can and cannot do.

Think about it. Why do you have a 4 channel system with fixed reverb and you're climbing all over me when your 3/4 the way to thinking the way I do? Just need to move those effect channels a little tis all. ;)

Well Nsgarch,

It's hardly ever worth the effort.

BTW: All of the comments about research can be found following the research of Thomlinson Holman and THX and research done by Bell labs for the military in the 40's. The germans we're expirimenting with differential audio signals in the 30's.

Harvard's surround expiriement I believe was in New England Journal of Mediceint but it may have been early 60's, same with MIT's version of the expirement.

BTW nice system too, is that the best one you have?

I know, I know if I'm not being careful I'll spell it every way but the right way.

that word and oppurtunity :)

"As far as I'm concerned we're talking about apples and oranges."

You're not letting go of what you see, stuck in the same box everyone else is. Two channels two ears, laughable and ridiculous

"I'll go with you that these effects sound awesome on multichannel."

Typical audiophile response, actually they don't "sound awesome" they are distributed properly and not smashed between me and the subject of the recording. Thus they don't sound bad. Surround relieves a negative.

To simplify this for explanation, 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

A 360 degree system will not collapse the circle into noice but retains the general shape of the circle. It disperses the high frequency energy created by effects in their proper form, keeping them from dissolving into unrelated noise like a two channel system does.

RVG is ancient history, and yet benefits from surround as much or more than a modern pop recording. Recordings that have "hall" sound like classical recordings from a soundstage ebnefit even more from surround.

Ozzy62

Why does everyone assume;

1. That my system is mediocre?, when you never heard it or anything like it?

2. That pictured is my only system?

3. Do you really think closeout Kevlar mids and Vifa poly woofs are "high quality"?

How about some of the best you can buy?

Is my ATC Anniversary 50's, ATC SCA2, Lake Contour, ATC Concept 4 subwoofer good enough to qualify as quality?

You'll note the comments in my system thread mentioning the once pictured Anniversary 50's when it was connected to Meridian surround gear

I designed the speaker system in my profile and it works exactly like its supposed too. And I'd rather show that system than some some system that anyone could buy ;).

you understand.

Queg,

Your altruistic "its all personal" outlook, is simply lip service I just thought I'd point out that you might want to stop saying it because its obvious you don't believe it.

You should say "If I approve" reference your statement below.

"High quality 2 channel (which, like Ozzy, I suspect you've never actually heard)"

BTW, how do you like my ATC system? Good enough for you?

Here's my favorite comment;

"exceptional emotional quality that (for me) became discernable only after many, many hours of alone time (rather then show off time) in my listening chair."

If you would actually follow up on the information I gave you or ask for more specific info to find it, you'd find that 2 channel is inferior in this emotional aspect to multi-channel. You rebuttle me like you know the facts and done the research, but you have not. Your idea of knowledge is consensus here and satisfaction resolved by sitting on your butt listening to old jazz records. Awesome research methods! If you refuse to learn and still maintain a differring opinion, that's ok but understand yours is an uninformed position.

Pawlowski;

Why do you think I would accept any compromises when listening to surround?...is this assumption extrapolated from your extemely limited experience with surround systems?

The effects of the surround are directly related to the quality of sound, ie much better for digital sources in all areas.

Which was my original comment. But all these arm chair guru's who have all owned and operated state of the art surround equipment in their homes like Lexican't...seem to have their minds made up.

Paw, here's the quickest way to make my point. The guy who designed your speakers, agrees with what I'm saying, so maybe you should sell your speakers or better yet buy a Meridian processor and 3 more Jr's and get rid of the tubes. You'll never look back. I never did, and when I did it surround was hardly what it is today.

Look I would love to have a discussion with you guys instead of deflecting your baseless comments. But it appears still this is all I can expect from you.

Nsgarch, have you looked for the MIT surround research, it was done in 1965, but I will have to go to a good library to find it again. Did your work ever get published? I wonder if I read it?

Gentleman, been the usual pleasure.

Psychicanimal,

and all who may feel the same.

I am simply curious if Nsgarch research was published, it is not a slam, because getting your work published is a very big deal and hardly automatic, unless you have a job as an audio reviewer :). In the mid to late 1960's MIT and a few other Ivy league medical schools in the New England area engaged in behaviour research with audio, and much of this research is more medical or psychology related than for pure audio performances measures.

I have read many of the MIT Journals and New England Journal of Medicine articles on these experiments (Tvad).

So I was just curious if his work was in the journals somewhere. What were the results? Why can't we discuss these things and build on real data, not just on what we "feel" is right.

I am dying to learn something on this forum, Nsgarch has superb credentials but my assertions that his speaker system represents a crude multichannel system goes unchallenged and there's no technical explanation on how he believes that two channel systems can recreate a true soundstage relying on room reflectivity and absorbtion, if he refers me to the studies that back this up, I'll go read it.

I want to know, because maybe part of my idea and part of his idea = the best solution.

"Compressed music is my pet peeve."

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. Compression is a good thing if you like vinyl.

Compression is a pop music/commercial issue. Most of the music I buy is essentially unnaffected by the "radio track" mentality. Peter Gabriel "So" is a perfect example of "Radio Edit" versus "Album edit"....Big Time and Sledgehammer mixed for Radio, the rest of the album is simply excellent and natural.

Video Killed the Radio Star, technology cannot replace talent as many of today's "pop" producers are asked to do. Now singers have to look good first, before they even get a chance to sing.

The reverse from the 40's and 50's where there was more talent than technology and no MTV metality that lumped your looks in as "talent".

Just for the record pauly and gang,

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

re-read the thread, my comments were not even remotely anti-analog nor directed at your record playng types.

You guys made that I was talking about digital being better than analog all by yourself. :).

Pauly , Pauly pauly pauly,

"go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ..."

Guitar players CREATE sound with tubes amplifiers not REPRODUCE sound, fitness to purpose....everything is a nail to you isn't it?

"think digital camera are superior to film cameras."

for about 99% of us there is no substitute, and once again you're looking for style points and like many old photographers they cannot make the switch to the new technology, and some of the things you perceive as limitations of the camera are actually weaknesses in other areas of the developing process. If you would learn to research stuff Paully everything wouldn't be a mystery.

BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex "

Thus they've never been the most accurate watches for keeping time. Style points are not part of the equation but as my slightly upgraded turbo charged Subaru out handles and out runs the best best carberated car refferred to above, one has to wonder when i'm smooching the trophy girl who really has the better car?

If you want style points and esoteric glory Analog is waaaay better than digital in that area. If you're interested in the music and rproducing it with a high degree of accuracy, the line is not so clear.

Caio.

“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.

Raul, my goal is zero compromise, you should talk to the several hundred people who have my systems about what music sounds like to them, they disagree with you and many of them are musicians.

Want to know "what's wrong" with CD wallace? He heard my little receiver system and despite going to all the stores in DC and Baltimore, not one store has a two channel system that is as musical. So like many of my visitors they are isolated with an experience that is unique to all of you. Sorry you all can't come over.
---------------------------------------------------------
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:

Hey Raul, why didn't you go make some adjustments till it did sound like live music to you?

LOL! buddy that's all I have to say. Surround is not analog you're not stuck with what it is you initially hear!!!!!!!!

I have owned great LP playback systems and still do, so I know what LP's can do. Lack of knowledge and experience is never going to be the right answer, so you guys need to quit going there.

Building a phonostage is not rocket science, I can do that too AND have. So Raul buddy, next time you have the chance ask the people to adjust the surround to your tastes.

"exited but not emotional"

As for your emotional response and involvement, that's a psychological problem when everything you thought you knew evaporates in an instant. Being wrong is not conducive to feeling good.

I have guys who don't talk to me after their little revelation, and the way that I get them is I have them listen in surround when they think they're listening in 2 channel, then I switch the surround off.....blatt, all of those nice things they had to say suddenly change. I wasn't emotionally involved....please, like you can get emotional at a dealers showroom?

Sorry nice try raul but I'm not even working up a sweat over your assessments. they're not even new.

Shadorne if i came to your house and adjusted your system, you wouldn't have time to write on here anymore :)

You're a Meridian processor away from eternal audio bliss. love your speakers.

"Phantom speakers? What is a phantom speaker?"
:)

So listening to a live recital, the piano can only create “half a circle” and the rest “collapses into noise”?

Dude learn to read a little closer, your commenting on a excerpt that is talking about the 360 modeling used in creating digital effects used in all modern digital processing , delay and reverb etc.

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

Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively, you're going to have to read some stuff and experiment(tvad). You're looking for a easy way to dismiss what i'm saying but your comments do not seem to project that you grasp what i'm talking about.

The information is not on the web, THX will gladly charge you for the course and NEJM will be at your university libraries. What I don't appreciate is you feel you can engage me with so little information. I would think you would have read these papers/articles for you to be so strongly opinionated. We are not discussing my mis-representation or misinterpretation of the facts of these studies. You are telling me they don't exist!

PS: Pauly why don't you read the MIT paper Nsgarch posted a link for and tell me what you think. Lets start there. Tell me if that is what needs to be done to two channel audio to get it to work like a surround system.

A. Why bother, when you can use the natural decay of your listening room to reproduce the natural decay on the recording already.

"Where did you get that silly notion that sound reflection and refraction should occur naturally when you can have it done artificially? ;-)"

I can extract that from your comments.

B. Why does so much information require deletion, and how is this similar or dissimilar to what i propose the rear channels do in our current Prologic 2 setup?

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

Explain the difference? If the movie is about the Doors and or Beethoven, why don't they switch off the surround sound when the music is playing if music is more "realistic" or live in two channel? I know filmmakers and if this was true they would do it. What say you?

"Stereo is so much easier, " yes it is...and the conceptual root of this debate.

"Been there done that. I went through the multi-channel phase several years ago, didn't like it. It doesn't properly represent a live orchestra. It felt like I was sitting in the middle of the orchestra instead of sitting in the 10th row. Listening from the audience is a more natural experience, fact."

Should have learned to actually use the equipment so you could listen from the 10th row, fact is you never came to fully understand all the adjustments you can make.

All I have to say is if you buy a proceed PAV you get what you paid for and its not a music surround processor.. As for your surround music experience according to you, you never had it running so "been there done that" is a stretch. Saw it bought that, then sold it...that's more accurate

"It is however still a receiver, with all the limitations of a receiver, fact."

You really think your VA's and BAT gear are THAT much better than my surround receiver? How's that Judas Preist song go? "tell you right now, you got another thing comin'" I KNOW my system can play orchestral music as well as your two channel system. maybe i'd have to use the $1500 receiver just for a safe discerbable margin. You own BAT gear and all the limitations of that BAT gear...fact

So please refrain from acting like you have any serious experience with surround.

Raul,

Why don't you tell us what exactly is needed to make a system sound live.

Give us the information that will allow us to experience what you experience.

I need to know which cartridge on which arm and which turntable you can assure me this experience will happen for me.

Live sound is the reference so it should be quite easy to design a system to do this. What are important speaker characteristics that you feel is essential to reproducing live music in the home.

Which record labels produce viable recordings.

Explain to me what makes and amplifier more musical for the REAl music lover like myself?

Raul where I come from the source is the reference and I hear enough live music and real instruments to be an expert like you so my piano lesson and season tickets to the Baltimore Chanber Orchestra etc. have served me well. As you know now that its 2006 its hard to find performances that are not amplified and or do not use electronic instruments. Please from now on don not assume I am deficient, I am an audio professional, not a hobbyist.

Here's my current two channel system tell me where I need to change components and why please; Cause its not better than my surround system based around the same speakers.

ATC Anniverary 50
ATC Concept 4 subwoofer
Lake Contour crossover
ATC SCA2 or Motif MC7 with black gate ps upgrade and modified input impedance circuit
EAR834P resistors trimmed to match tubes .1%
Roksan Xerxes X, with Benz Micro M2
Custom made cables
Cartridge aligned with oscillascope

Greg,

As you can imagine I have a motive for my question and I appreciate what you have to say. Maybe your post will help
me clarify what I want from my question. I want the fundamentals on how I can buy a "live" real music lovers system. When you say low noise floor what's the signal to noise ratio 50DB, 100dB, and high dynamics what dB do you suspect would cover "high dynamics" in a medium sized room. Because I need to be able to shop for that "low noise floor" and "high dynamics" as Raul pointed out you can't even trust a dealer with a $500,000 system to do it correctly. So it would be great to eliminate some of the possibilities before I go shopping.

As you highlight I think it is erroneous to think a recording will sound "Live" with out manipulation in someone's listening room. But what is that magic manipulation? Raul's got it and I, m hoping he will share to elevate me to his level. I need to be told what to do with my system to make it a Real music lovers system, I think I have a pretty decent two channel system but i could be doing it all wrong.

"A reasonable simulation would be very low noise floor & very high dynamics..."

Would you feel comfortable saying that the equipment I have listed would or would not achieve this?

Greg excellent bravo,

"I don't think there is a "live" system to be bought:);"

A little advice....DUCK! and cover , if that advice came too late...stop drop and roll

Of course you are dangerously close to my side and I will tell you that it can be no fun over here if the skin is thin.

"a music lover can be happy listening to music on a little radio"
agreed
I'm not sure everyone else understands that and yes Guido's point were very insightful.

As you know Greg (or maybe you don't) I have drawn the Ire of the cogniscenti here because I claim that surround is better for digital.

What I am trying to establish is why is this so offensive a concept that people would be motivated to belittle me to the degree above and yet seem to ignore that atleast by your standards I should have a grasp on two channel pretty well and live sound. What is it exactly about surround that makes audiophiles cringe, for me it has given me the freedom to dial in my system to perfection for all types of music. My solution is well tested and my surround system outperforms my two channel system...without spending more money to play old records, I don't see a way to make it better and I've got $9K wrapped up in analog, have I spent enough? :)

I appreciate the extensive thorough input and I agree with and or accept all of what you said, to me your effort is noble and I appreciate it.