Is Digital actually better than Analog?

"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!

11-11-06: Cdwallace
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."

For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.

Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
Cdwallace (Threads | Answers)

It's also what makes digital, digital. For you haven't come up with any proof that digital sounds better.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?

JMC - I'm gonna need you to review all three pages of the thread, because "digitals" answers are all there. Just for starters, review the posting submitted by D_Edwards. Once you're done, then review the rest. Our postings are facts, no name calling or rhetorical fillers. Just meat and potatoes.

I just perused all of D_Edwards 'digital answers' and found no facts, simply published opinions. Seems the meat and potatoes are simply a cardboard photo.

So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?

Surely they must miss you at Audio Review.

“scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it.”

Fact

“Harvard University School of medecine (early 50's)NEJM
Bell Labs
MIT
USC
repeating Harvards study---THX
A few more that have simply confirmed earlier Bell Labs findings in the 1940's

Scientifically proven. Its the information that motivated serious companies to spend serious money to try Quadraphonic, the boat anchor of home audio.’

Fact

counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers. And there are other factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way.

Fact; read the MIT paper posted by Nsgarch it is quite thorough at explaining how our current two channel setup is flawed.

draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise. That noise is disproportionately high harmonics thus hi frequency, shift the balance of the recording.

Fact

The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored.

Though the numbers may vary slightly from what I posted, that is a FACT.

You guys started in on me about digital and surround , and as you have demonstrated this area of audio is not your forte.

Fact

Mcgrogan; not being aware of the facts or refusing to acknowledge the facts does not make them opinions. This is the problem all along. I have studied and researched for 15 years. I am a film major, I have worked on feature films, I have recorded bands…etc. Believing another thing does not change the facts. Life is not that simple.
In my opinion I’ve never heard an analog two channels system that even comes close to a high quality surround system. And there are many surround systems that qualify. My opinion.

Too me two channel is a joke, fact.

Doesn’t matter if its analog or digital

Keep it straight dudes, I’m not anti analog, give me seven discrete analog channels on an open reel tape deck and I’m happy.