Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Why don't we all chip in to cover the cost of a Dale Carnegie correspondence course for Dead Ward?

I'll toss in a buck. Anybody else?

It's just not for music."
JMcGrogan2, Raul and everyone, for that matter - This is what’s wrong with me. This very statement and those like it. This statement concludes that it’s just not possible. In fact, many have said it in previous threads. However, this statement is a matter of opinion. Nothing against that, at all!

My argument is "what if it can be for music; what if it is for music? What if you can configure the system and processing to accurately reproduce the music to match the original recording?" I have yet to hear anyone ask how! Ok, so you don’t care, but what about those who do? What if some other than yourselves wanted to learn something new or just see what the stir is all about? What if someone wanted to honestly give surround a shot?

On the flip side, what happened to trying to answer the original question? Then again, I guess I’m getting side tracked. Go figure.

My problem is I've had the opportunity to hear a surround system, valued at approx $6K, namely D_Edwards', that brings out the best in 2 channel music, every single CD and digital track it played. So much that it surpassed multiple $150k+ LP systems, and numerous other high end 2ch systems that played a different version of the same recording. These systems where just like system many of you own. Many also exceeded your systems. I have nothing against those systems. Again, to each his own.
But whatever happened to listening for yourself? Whatever happened to taking the time to listen? Isn’t that what the hobby is all about?

Sure I only have my opinion that surround is better. But my opinion isn’t based on opinion. So then why not find out to see why "I'm wrong." OK, so you don’t care, but, again, what about those who do? Instead, the name calling and attempts at mud slinging begins. WHY? What was the point? What did it accomplish?

Truth is gentlemen, the research has been done. If you choose not to accept it, that’s fine. But that doesn't negate the fact that it was done. Another truth is the information is in front of everyone, available to be tested and investigated individually. You may have to do you’re your own research. However, no one has made an effort to do this. This is one of the many sad parts.
Is anyone prepared to listen? Is anyone prepared to test D_Edwards’ thoughts and findings for themselves? Is anyone even willing? If not, then how can you say “your wrong and I’m right” until you all are willing to prove why and how? Otherwise, audio is chasing its tail for the next 5-10 years.

I’ve been serious about audio for about 3 years now. Yes, only three years and no I’m not so new that I don’t know anything or any better. I’ll establish my point further in a minute. Anyway, I’ve been researching hard and met a guy who hipped me to DIY. He was my reference for a while. I learned so much from him. Then I meet another guy who introduces me to D_Edwards. Since then, I’ve been forced to think outside the box and for myself. I’ve been forced to conduct trial and error and been shown what to do and why, all at the same time. This led me from 2CH initially (yes, I did start out with 2CH) to MC surround. This forced me to pursue the truth of audio, not just an opinion.

Gentlemen, I apologize for allowing my enthusiasm to overtake me at times, but this is who I have become. An isolated, pursuer of audio truth within the realm of audio reproduction, be it 2Ch and MC. That’s my problem!

This is one of the many things I’ve learned in 3+ years.

“What is a phantom speaker?”

It’s the room. How? In the shortest way, your speakers emit full range frequency from both the front and rear. There are speakers that emit so much that the rear cabinet frequency reflection, combined with the rear wall, reverberates the reflection around the room. Many times, causing the reflection to bounce off of the opposing rear wall, so much that it gives the illusion of rear channels/speakers. This explains why many 2Ch guys say that they can achieve the same results as a MC system, from only 2CH’s. But from a technical/theoretical outlook, aren’t you listening to 3 speakers? ; )

On that note, let the rebuttals and name calling begin!
Happy Listening Gentlemen. This time, I am really done!

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

What is the difference between movie sound and music sound? Many movies contain up to 50% music. If it is realistic for a movie than why not for music. Have you listened to Amadeus in 5.1?

I will grant you that there is a drawback to surround....it is extremely expensive to get the same level of quality as in two channel. This is very simply because you need FIVE high quality speakers (and sub) instead of two.

To me this is the crux of the problem with surround; it is roughly three times as expensive to maintain the same quality timbre matched speakers compared to a stereo setup. If a good set of main speakers are $10K, then a similar quality surround system will be at least $30K. Most people compromise and don't even get matching speakers (or sub) and, no surprise, they find the comparison of surround to stereo is unfairly biased towards stereo. Our ears are not fooled...you need the same quality matching surround speakers to get the full advantage of surround....or else all you get is special effects.

Shadorne - very well put. Bravo!

I'm not real bright but it seems to me that the means of reproducing the music should be the same as the recording. I do not mean by that digital v. analog(remember that question?). Movies are recorded in Surround Sound while music usually is not. There are newer notable exceptions.

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!

All things being equal, I still think speakers are the least important link in the chain.