Not wasting my time on new Digital

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.

Hey Snipes,

A quik answer, YES!!! My very budget surround system linked in my audiogon info, has "blown away" 2 channel systems that cost more. I put blown away in quotes because that is the same quote used by four different people after hearing the system listed recently. And trust me they were in the same state of disbelief you're feeling now when they said it. I don't expect you to believe me anyway...just come on by and hear for yourself anytime.

Now what I find amusing is this is a very entry level system with a very nice receiver and some speakers I build myself. What do you think a Meridian 861 and ATC's would sound like compared to two channel systems? I know what J Gordon thinks.

And YES, that "blown away" comment was addressing the systems ability to playback redbook 2 channel cd's in a limited PLII format as you would expect to hear them from a two channels system. All voices and instruments in a wide deep front soundstage, but with a naturalness you might just begin to find in the Meitner products with two channels. But maybe not.

D1 is a good choice, anything Meridian makes is the best for music, they give you so much control I can mimic other two channel and multi channel systems. But not any processor will do. Believe it or not, not all surround processors are competent. Some leave out critical adjustments that cripple the ability of the processor to do music well. Setup flexibility and EQ is very critical.

D, If you read my post and assumed that I was a disbeliever, than you misinterpreted me. I'm curious and you have piqued my interest. I'm intrigued by your statements and would like to hear more about your setup. How many speakers, what the various surround modes do to the mix, what other type of configuration settings did you do with regards to the processor, etc? So far what I've gathered from your posts is that the vast majority of people aren't listening to digital properly. OK, but can you give us specifics on your setup. Are there component do's and don't? I'm almost interpreting your statements to imply any properly setup HT music system in a dedicated room that has been acoustically treated is the ticket. All one has to do is pick the proper surround mode.
Please shed some light.

Thanks

I'm not sure that digital is a waste of time without multichannel, but it is true that MC is the greatest factor for improvement over analog (for us poor guys who don't have $80,000 LP playback gear). In particular, for someone who will not install multichannel equipment, I doubt that SACD or DVDA is a big upgrade over CD.

I have many 2-channel discs and LPs, and have experimented with many of the matrix systems that can derive multichannel from a stereo source. Almost always I find the result problematical. There is a compromise however, three (not five) channel, and there is a product (SST Trinaural Processor) that "Blows Away" (sorry about that) all the other systems. You can read my review here or at the Imperii Audio website. Kal also had a favorable review in our favorite rag.