So what I got from the article is that everything is the same as everything else in every respect. Balanced audio is a hoax, electrostatics are just normal speakers in a cheap disguise, and nobody could distinguish between a high quality vinyl album and a duke nukem midi file in a real double blind test.
"The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certain digital recordings is that the engineers did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization, or that the recording venue was acoustically superior."
That's right Bobby, the reason your 64kbps mp3 sounds different than its analog original is because of microphone placement.
"Anyone without actual hearing impairment hear what they hear,"
Again, won't a middleschool audiologist say otherwise?
"Your audio circuits don’t know, and don’t care, what’s on the ac side of the power transformer. All they’re interested in is the dc voltages they need."
Bobby, the reason your amp buzzes when you turn on the microwave is because you're stupid. It's all in your head.
"Think about it. Does your car care about the hose you filled the tank with?"
No but it probably cares about the presence of a fuel filter. I can make analogies too!
I hate oversimplifications.
*spite edit* So if I give you the choice between steak A, prepared normally, and steak B, which has been dropped on the floor but cleaned off really well - so well that you ~certainly~ can't taste the difference - for half price, which will you choose? Some people pay for peace of mind. Some people collect stamps. Meh.
*spite edit 2* *NO* information is lost in the audible range with a 44.1kHz sample rate? Ignoring that fact that some people hear over 20kHz, you're telling me that a 44.1kHz 1 bit digital encoding resulted in no information loss? You're a loon. 16 bits? -32768 to 32767? It might not be [consciously] perceptible, but it's fundamentally information loss. Continuous -> Discrete. Loss. Furthermore I didn't see any mention of DAC quality - with digital you're shifting the burden of analog signal production from original source to DAC - am I to believe a two cent budget DAC produces perfect sound? No, you'd be an idiot to. Thus, other factors have to be considered with all of these arguments, and that is my point. Because of flaws like this the article is completely worthless (see what I did there?).
For example I laughed when I got to the cd coating part. At first read I couldn't believe people would actually think coating digital discs with anything would change the sound. Then I thought about what else it might do. A protective coating could very well make the digital data more durable, possibly preventing data loss, thus skipping, and thus effective sound quality.
