Essay on analogue, digital & surround sound.

Essay on analogue, digital & surround sound.

Analogue, digital, video and surround Sound - a rant on software etc.

by John Coulson (see his high-end system...) / entered on 31-Dec-01, revised on 15-Mar-03
First let me make it clear the position I am coming from. I collected about 3,000 LP's from the 1950's up until the 1980's and my first taste of digital was not good. I resisted purchase of CD's until seduced by a CD of a 'Welsh choir' performance from the same group we had witnessed winning an Eisteddfod two years previously in Wales. However the sound from the purchased Rotel 865BX was generally harsh and ragged so I remained a digital Luddite.

Next event to drag me kicking and screaming into the digital audio world was the release of a laserdisc of the performance of Berlioz "Damnation of Faust" that we had attended at the Albert Hall. A Pioneer 1750 LD player followed but the sound was no better than from the Rotel.
Gradually, more LDs, generally of a musical content accumulated, so it was time to see if that relatively poor digital sound could be improved. Unfortunately a Theta Data III player and a Theta DSP IIIa, only made marginal improvements.

Digital sound only really blossomed with the purchase of a Meridian 861 processor, particularly after the upgrade to version 3. At last, I tasted how good digital can be! In fact it was sounding even better than our beloved analogue collection! The solution was obvious - upgrade of cartridge to a Koetsu Oynx Platinum.

So, what are my conclusions on the analog vs. digital argument? I feel it all comes down to the software, with arguments about the format rather futile. Given a good artistic performance and a clean recording, musical satisfaction can be achieved from all formats: LP, LD, CD and now DVD. My big complaint is that these 'clean recordings' are too few and far between. If the artistry is superb, (like the early Callas records), then a less than pristine recording can be forgiven and emotional satisfaction still achieved from the performance. However, I find poor engineering is prevalent far too often and I am irritated to think it might not have cost any more to have processed it more carefully and accurately...
This is one of the crosses to bear with High-End equipment. It follows the old principle of 'garbage in --> garbage out', with a lot of frustration on the part of audiophiles, trying to find components, which sound 'more musical'. To me, this is a circular pursuit, great for the dealers, as one component replaces another in a futile bid to achieve Audio Nirvana from software, which will never yield it! It sometimes seems that records are deliberately made to sound better on rowdy commercial radio, walkmans and boom boxes with the result the skewed response can be awful on High-End gear. Fortunately this is less prevalent on classical music releases but outstanding recordings are not the norm. I feel this is due to the multitude of microphones used and the multi track mixing which follows, often introducing phase distortions.

Regrettably, a similar situation is prevalent in video, possibly because engineers perceive the general population satisfied with the quality of ordinary VHS tape so, feel little incentive to achieve the resolution etc., which is possible with laserdisc and now DVD. We have some superbly crisp examples in our collection but these are the exception rather than the rule. Again, a great musical performance or acting performance in a movie can ameliorate this, but a lot of the video is unnecessarily inferior.
It appears, a similar situation is presently evolving with high-resolution digital surround sound via SACD & DVD-A. Some are excellent and offer 'Hall ambience' in the surround channels but some are being released to give the illusion that the listener is in the centre of the players, something I dislike, yet others apparently like! Hopefully this is like the infantile situation which first existed when 'ping pong' stereo first hit the stage in the 60's and a more mature approach will evolve as it did with stereo.

I have been experimenting with artificial ambience from 2-channel for the last 20 years and I am now experiencing high quality surround with Dolby Pro logic II and 5.1 on LDs & DVDs. Done well, the sound from Dolby systems can be impressive but, like all software, it is not always done well. The results from enhanced 2-channel can be less appealing if not processed carefully. With the latest Meridian 861 up sampling all channels, the results of added surround from 2-channel is great, provided it is not overdone. The trick is to keep the surround signal subtle, so it does not overpower the main stereo signal. The Meridian 8612 offers a number of DSP choices.

I do have faith in the future of surround sound. I appreciate the wails of horror coming from audiophiles who have spent a small fortune on 2-channel and cannot see they outlaying 3X this for surround sound. However, this is an exaggeration as lower powered amplifiers and more modest speakers will be sufficient to generate the ambience on offer. And I argue it is a waste of financial resources to have two systems - one for 2-channel audio and another for surround sound and video. Why not put all resources into the one great system? If, like me, you are fussy about sound, why accept inferior sound with video?

I have jumped on the DVD-A bandwagon with a Meridian 800 version 3 but find myself concentrating on Redbook CD's rather than the more expensive DVD-A discs. Maybe I will come around to DVD-A when the present gimmickry settles down. Horrifying as it might be to confirmed vinyl-philes, I judge the sound from the best CD's to be as good as the best LP's and CD's are just so much more ergonomic. Sadly, to get top sound from digital is neither easy nor cheap and I find it particularly ironic that it has taken the developments in home theatre and high resolution digital 20 years later to reveal the potential of the much maligned red book standards CD.
John Coulson, Tasmania - Australia