Not wasting my time on new Digital

Eldartford,

Ditto! I was about to say the same thing.

The problem starts with the recordings. I have witnessed A-B tests between a SOTA ($60K+) vinyl setup and certain Digital only to find out that, with the same record title, some sound better on the Digital and some better on the Vinyl.

Believe or not!

Regards,
Alex

Viridian: I am loathe to insert myself into the middle of this one, but I can't make sense of your statements

"...analog, both tape and LP, has greater dynamic range than redbook CD. Sounds can be heard between ten and twenty db beneath the noise floor on analog. Digital media simply throw away all information below the least significant bit"

"in analog, not digital, replay, sounds can be heard 10db to 20db into the noise floor and this leads to analog replay having a greater dynamic range than redbook CD"

Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, the assertion about audibility below the noise floor with analog, I can't see any connection between that supposed fact, and drawing the conclusion that therefore digital must have less dynamic range. Even if the stipulation about audibility is true, it seems to me the comparison would be wholly dependent on where the analog noise floor actually falls in relation to the bit-depth of a particular digital format. If, for instance, an analog format has a noise floor 20dB higher than the LSB of a digital format, then they should have equal dynamic range by your argument. But even so, taking the noise floor of the analog into account, the digital should have superior low-level resolution.

Personally, I'm not sure that any of this stuff actually has much to do with the perception of 'dynamic' sound (or whether dynamics has anything to do with D_Edwards contention about digital and multichannel, for that matter). But regardless, your inference does seem like a non-sequitor to me.

Viridian...Your question, "Where, as you assert, did I say that sounds 10 to 20db below what is audible are things that you should "care" about?" is one that I cannot answer because the posting has been (conveniently) deleted.

Thanks for the link. Interesting, but I have seen it before.

In my multichannel system (5 channels contributing noise) I never hear noise with digital sources. With LPs, quiet passages almost always have enough audible noise to bother me. (Perhaps I am more sensitive to this than you are). My spectrum analyser clearly shows why this is so.

I have no special record cleaning equipment, and I am talking about ordinary LPs: not special audiophile editions. While the noise floor of the LP system is pretty well defined by the technology, the maximum signal can be anything that the recording engineer thinks his customers' cartridges can track. Most LPs intended for the general public have been compressed and peak-limited so that Joe sixpack can play them.

By the way, I think that dynamic range is not the most important parameter. Sometimes I find that quiet passages, even without noise, are difficult to hear unless the volume is cranked up so much that the loud passages are ear-splitting. Too much of a good thing.

I'd like to hear more from D_Edwards on the specifics of his setup and how we can learn to take advantage of what digital offers. His comments were refreshing, whether right or wrong. I can live with my cd's being crunched and massaged through the various digital algorithms that the various surround sound modes offer. After reading his statements I started looking at processor offerings in the 4-5K range and it seems there is are quite a few new surround modes since I bought my receiver 7 years ago. PLII, tri-field, etc. and it seems that every manufacturer has their own proprietary 2-channel mix mode designed for CD's. I'm curious as to what they are trying to accomplish with these modes though. Are they simply trying to simulate what a good 2-channel system can do with sound imaging, depth, etc? I've heard more than one 2-channel setup that when done in a room that has been treated, fills the entire room. Again, his comments were a refreshing change from the usual, is this amp, better than that one, etc. Digital is here to stay and he brings some fresh assumptions. Especially for those of us that don't listen to audiophile grade recording. Hey if you can clean up the sound and make it more enjoyable, I'm all for it.
I've got half a mind to pick up an Anthem D1 and give it a whirl. My receiver is on the fritz as it is.