Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Newbee

...the rise time and, more importantly, the decay time is appropriate to reproduce the sound of a real instrument

As you say, the decay is extremely important. This is related to how well the electronics perform reproducing the medium and, in particular, to the "audible dynamic range": the sound of decay may be there -- but imperceptible due to noise, etc.
Strangely, some systems sound pleasantly "fast" and crispy (both) when there is minimum sound of decay that is reproduced. OTOH systems I've heard with considerable rendition of decay are much more involving -- and "dynamic" in the audiophile sense: the "sudden clash" is VERY sudden.

D_edwards sez

...I claim that surround is better for digital

Actually, I like the effect of well executed surround sound. Also with an image attached to it:)!
I have a 2-channel system, myself. I like the sound -- and I'd better like it: I can't afford multichannel, and the paucity available music is irksome -- although one can create a livable "surround" artefact even with two channel stuff...
But as I said, I can in no way afford such a venture.

I think that as long as we all enjoy some music, there is little reason to pontificate one way or another. I even have friends who listen in mono!

Shadorne, I note your point on anechoic chambers. I have beeen in one once and it was wonderful, but the person I was with couldn't handle it for more than two minutes. My point was not that they are comfortable environments without appropriate references, simply that... in order for a M-Ch system which produces spatial cues to be perfectly accurate, room interactions still need to be dealt with. One way is extreme nearfield listening in a room with no delayed reflections. This goes with your point that room effects are a huge factor.

The thing which noone has mentioned, but which I find to be a crucial part of live music, and a fundamental difference between live music and music at home, is the listener's visual interaction with the performer and vice versa. Is the performer interacting with the audience, the stage space (wandering around a big stage or only inhabiting a small space, controlling it or not, comfortable or not, familiar or not), his/her own performance (smiling at his/her mistakes or frowning, improvising slightly or faithful to the music that everyone knows)?; do the band members grin like little kids when they really nail something well together? Do they joke with each other and the audience? Does the solo cellist hold on to a vibrato in a certain way precisely because he can, precisely because he knows it will thrill the particular audience he is playing for tonight? All of these are, for me, a sine qua non of live performance. Hell, not all live venues have as good sound as my living room, but I daresay watching Hiromi Uehara jump up and down on her piano stool as she's playing, or watching a great cellist subtly change the decay of the coda of a sonata from piano to pianissimo because the venue is small enough and well-enough-designed to handle it, or watching Bill Frisell play with reverb tools while in mid-song just because it'll have an effect he hasn't tried before - all these are the things which make for the most interesting live music. To those who have said that live music is their reference... I'd ask them to think about that. It's a wonderful ideal but I know of no stereo system which will improvise because the audience would welcome it, or where one will be visually surprised because the pianist stuck out her tongue to reach the high notes.

Dear T bone: Very good point. I totally agree with you.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.