I do agree that any claim SHOULD be supported by evidence. Good
Dynamic range of human hearing is 120 dB or so (But real world dynamic range of even very loud live music is rarely near that as noise obliterates the lowest 20 to 45db, to get a dynamic range of 120db above noise is to say the least taxing on both transducers and ears) ; hope we agree on this one. Meaningful frequency response that does affect our perception is from DC to approx 100 kHz. (Not proven in any way shape or form) Here, some of you will probably go ballistic (not ballistic but this supersonic contention has been debunked comprehensively in several places including: Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components, Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando and Ashihara et al., “Detection threshold for tones about 22 kHz”, 110th AES convention 2001) . Hold the horses for a moment - I will try to explain.
We were at CD vs vynil before; why do you think is the test frequency of square wave for CDs 400 Hz vs analog's 1 kHz - NO prizes for guessing that.
In short, a decent, not TOTL of TOTL... of TOTL phono cartridge will always have better square wave response than any RBCD no matter the cost. TOTL of TOTL of...TOTL phono cartridges even challenge DSD at 5,6 MHz in this regard - no PCM, including 192/24, comes even close! (phono cartridges have a faster rise time nobody disputes that or the extended HF capability - the problem with assuming that these properties make vinyl audibly superior is that whenever experiments have taken vinyl and digitized it the audible characteristics of the vinyl are not lost, the original and copy are audibly indistinguishable in all DBTs done to date)
Edited by nick_charles - 12/31/12 at 8:54am