Hi simboticus,
I would agree entirely. An important difference for Jinx to understand is that DVD-Audio and SACD are not "lossy" systems like Dolby Digital and dts. While dts runs at a higher date rate than Dolby Digital, it still is a lossy algorithm, which means it throws away tons of data based on perceptual masking in order to include 5.1 or more channels on a disc plus all the video.
DVD-A and SACD are "lossless" in that no data is discarded. That's why you can't have high-quality video plus DVD-A or SACD and Dolby Digital all on one disc. It takes up too much space.
You are correct--the use of a lossless algorithm does NOT guarantee better sound quality. It's the engineering of the album and the mix with the surrounds. Besides, many listeners who make these comparisons with Red Book CD are confusing the multichannel mix with 2-channel CD. In most cases a good multichannel mix in Dolby Digital or dts always sounds better than 2-channel stereo. On instant A/B comparisons, moving to a 2-channel mix from a multichannel mix often results in the room or "space" collapsing into a 2-channel soundstage which, while pleasant, lacks the realism and space delivered by an expert multichannel mix.
As I've pointed out previously in my articles on the intrinsic flaw of 2-channel (stereo) sound reproduction, those Bell Labs engineers in the 1930s were no fools when they declared that a minimum of 3 channels were necessary to convey a realistic reproduction of a live Philadelphia orchestra concert carried by 3 channels to a listening room in New Jersey.
The progress of sound reproduction realism has always moved to increasing numbers of channels to better mimic the way our ears and brain hear and process direct and reflected sounds.
Regards,
