Is Digital actually better than Analog?

11-13-06: D_edwards
"I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies.
It's just not for music."

Explain the difference?

Seems that struck a nerve, so I'll explain. I do find that surround sound helps to place me in the movie scene better. I'm on the beach in 'Saving Private Ryan', etc. However, I always found it uncomfortable when listening to music. I went through the surround sound phase for a year or so about 6 years ago. Trying high end pre/pro's from Proceed, Classe, Anthem, etc. Yet the music just didn't sound right. Maybe if you are trying to recreate the sound of a Dance club and be 'in the middle' of it, this is the way to go. If trying to recreate a live orchestra, it doesn't work. I want the orchestra performing in front of me, not all around me. I also found the center channel to throw off imaging, not inhance it.

The biggest hurdle though was tonality. No, I have never heard a receiver, or pre/pro for that matter, recreate the natural tone sound of an instrument as some high end stereo gear. I also find that vinyl is better suited at recreating this natural tone than digital. Strings are the best example of this. To me, massed strings sound congested and edgy through even $10K+ digital systems. A receiver or pre/pro may not be revealing enough to show this though, as many of them digitize the signal anyway.
FWIW, Digitally Mastered LP's also suck at recreated massed strings and instumental tonal colors, IMHO.

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'"

While I'm honored that you are researching my equipment, I guess I must admit that no, there isn't THAT much of a difference if Judas Priest is what you're listening to.

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

This doesn't even require a response. If your receiver sounds good to you, you are fortunate indeed, LOL.
'nuff said.

When watching a movie, I find myself distracted by the video screen, so musical tonality is not as big an issue here. Especially since music tends to be digitized and in the background of the dialog in the movie.

If digital, receivers and pre/pro's make you happy, count your blessings. I have friends who are perfectly happy drinking a Budweiser. I much prefer a good micro-brew. It would be great if a Bud tasted just as good to me, it would save me a few pennies.

You, Cd and Shardorne are welcome to your opinions, as long as I'm entitled to mine. It does seem as though you are lost in this forum though. You may have an easier sell with the surround/digital package of ideas in the digital and/or video forums as opposed to the analog forums.

I normally write IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) in my responses. I stopped doing that in this thread because you all haven't quite grasped that yet. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but don't try to force your opinion on others by calling it a fact. Published DBT results don't mean much to those that don't belive the method is valid, and no I won't get started, it also is a waste of time to debate this.

I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how pointless this all is. You will not convince me that digital/surround is better anymore than I can convince you that analog/stereo is better. Obviously neither one of us is a weak minded sheep. So again I ask, what is the point? I almost feel like I'm back on Audioreview.com arguing cables, DBT's and other meaningless nonsense. Not that your opinions, or mine, are nonsense. It's just that the argument never ends, and no one changes their mind. It just seems to me like a dog chasing his tail. I'm done chasing my tail, feel free to try and convert analog purists to your digital/surround philosophy. Let me know how you make out. :)

Sure, there are some that can sell snow to the Eskimo's, but you three aren't the ones.

Peace out,
John

Taking a Doors tape and mixing in in 5.1 does not change how it was recorded. Music can be gimmicked to sound surround when it really isn't... No one is fooled by this kind of compromise!

This is such a true statement....gimmicked sound is not good, Depending on the master tapes it may be difficult to get something decent in 5.1 if the studio recording was not planned that way (for example you don't have all the separate tracks for each instrument/microphone).

However, not many people realize the amount of "gimmicking" going on in order to produce good stereo sound and a good stereo image. Artificial reverb and the like is almost always added to certain tracks. Voice is often doubled. Check out Sergeant Pepper on Wikipedia for an example of severe messing around in stereo....

Musicaudio,

Coming from a recent vinyl convert here is my limited opinion. I recently purchased a vinyl rig which cost total (cartridge, phono pre, and table/arm) less than half of what my digital rig (marantz SA-14) cost. Not that it necessarily matters but my vinyl rig is the marantz tt-15s1 for comparison. Anyhow here are my thoughts about your question. Before I purchased my vinyl setup I was looking for a new preamp. While in several different high end shops I decide to listen to a few turtables. The first time I sat down I listened to dire straits money for nothing. I got goosebumps. I have NEVER had this reaction to any equipment I have auditioned. Needless to say I quickly decided that I must get a vinyl set up. It is now about 8 months later and I am still extremely happy with my decision. Direct CD to vinyl comparisons in my rig always lead me to the same conclusion, that the vinyl is just more real and lifelike. I will say this. The vinyl is MUCH more work. In other words the records themselves really seem to very in quality as far as the recording itself. So you have to spend some time learning about labels, early pressings, 1/2 speed masterings, etc.., etc.. these make a huge difference in sound quality. You will need to clean your albums, much more maintenance than CDs. My suggestions would be if you don't mind the search/research on albums and don't mind cleaning and maintaining the vinyl then go for it, I think you will be rewarded with the effort. If on the other hand you want to just pop in a CD and listen to the music then stick with the CDs. I have no problem enjoying either format tremendously, but given a quality recording on vinyl you just can't beat the goosebumps that I still get IMO anyhow.

Cdwallace: I wonder how many hours by week or month you are hearing live music and which kind of music. Could you tell us?

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

>>Check out Sergeant Pepper on Wikipedia for an example of severe messing around in stereo....<<

I kinda doubt George Martin and the band were really thinking about us audiophools when the album was mixed down. IMO of course.