"My APL Hi-Fi Denon 3910 cost me $2500 and beats my $10,000 analog(circa 1992). Now, my analog is old and not completely dialed in, but isn't that why digital was so successful to begin with?"
Mmak...thanks for the kind words. To be perfectly candid, technologically speaking of course, age is not a pertinant factor. Your 1992 analog system, more than likely, employed the same ideaology and application as the original 1960's version when it was created. I'm not certain of course, because I don't know what you system consisted of.
Granted, there may have been improvements through the years, but for the most part, depending on the components used, it's probably a duplicate of the original. Digital used this and things similar, as a "springboard", allowing it to capitolize on the shortcomings of analog. It took the same principals that produced the good qualities in analog, formed its own "signature", and carried the audio torch further, where and when analog could not. IMO, I don't think analog shortcomings is what made digital so good. Digital is an entity all in itself, just as analog; allowing for its own "evolution", just as analog. Your systems age or incomplete setup, as you say, has no bearing in this instance.
"Most people didn't dial in their analog, or went with direct-drive."
I beg to differ on this. You have a point, but its not what you perceive. Far too many people have "dialed in" thier analog systems, and have learned to accentuate and even manipulate analog to the creation it is today. All be it, these systems also sounded very good. This is why I say that analog has improved since its creation until now. This is where the evolution part comes into play. People have managed to bring out the best in analog. Some may have, as you say, went onto direct drive. Nevertheless, many have gotten analog as good as it gets.
"Cdwallace, I understand that you are stating what has been said previously, but do you realize that 5.1 has Dolby involved to make it work?"
This is a very true statement, but somewhat incomplete. Yes, dolby has played an important role in making 5.1 what it is. Be it from a technology/format standpoint and even from an industry/marketing point of view. However, Dolby did not make MC what it is. There many variation of MC surround, to include versions and configutations of 5.1 (ITU and others), 5.0, 10.2, ambiosonics, and even others. Like Bose, Dolby was able to take advantage of an opportunity, as well as capitolize (Dolby) on its own legitimate advances in technology. Dolby played a major role in the advancement of MC, but Dolby didn't make it what it is.
"I haven't spent much time looking at this, but I would think that if correction is applied, that the argument that digital is meant for surround sound would have some holes in it, if it requires correction."
This is a common practical misconseption. A properly setup high end 2CH system still has room for correction. As does a MC system. This does not and should not imply that there is "something wrong" with the format, though. The correction merely implys room for improvement. A high end 2CH system in an empty bare room can be "corrected" in the performance by the addition of room acoustic treatments and such. Does this mean that 2CH is errored? No, but this situation showed room for improvement, which, in this case, would produce noticable results.
Digital is what it is, just as 2CH analog. However, same rules applied, just as room acoustics helped in the previous scenario, surround improves digital which produces noticable results. Granted, room acoustic correction can help any system, 2Ch or MC. I only used that to help further my point. No format is perfect, but when setup and configured to its optimum, it brings the format much closer to perfection. Surround does this for digital.
"I have read that the harshness of highs can go away with surround versus two-channel with cd."
Mmak, this is only the beginning. Surround, done correctly, can produce remarkable results for digital. One Dobly created "format" comes to mind as well, Dolby PL. This isn't the only one, and there are others that were not Dolby created or inspired, which can redirect and/or eliminate digital "shortcomings" as well.
