Partially true. But remember how fervently you & Co. have been and are still opposing any digital with higher resolution than RBCD. Bats ... - and all that jazz. However, if - and that is big IF - the RBCD had not been rushed to the market under the gun ( particularly by Philips, who had a big...

I would not call it enthusiasm. Not in the usual way, at least. It is more of a quest for - wanting a better term - absolute sound. Not the magazine ( although it has been an inspiration at one time or another ), but actually the quest for the ability to at least approximate live sound in...

Wait for the uploading of cold hard facts to do the talk for themselves.

Wrong... - on all 3 counts. Whatever I ever write, it is from me - generally, not using even spelling check. When applying for a job in French firm some years ago, I explicitly wrote immediately after Cher Monsieur/Madame that whatever written is from me and my head - not using vocabulary, not...

All of my recent posts - after a long sabbatical - are only meant as a preface - and warning. I am analogsurviver - not digitalover. It took me some time to get the digital side of things up to the standard that can reveal (most of ) the true capabilities of analog - be it tape or analog record...

Well, if if none of the simple Head-Fi members can't measure anything of the sort, it does not mean it does not exist. By sticking with RBCD, you also never will. The same by reading the analog lathe manuals by their manufacturers - the best contraceptive ever is still an aspirine between the...

Theory... - again. The highest frequency ever actually recorded ( even as if in error ) to record master has been the bias frequency of the reel-to-reel deck used as a source ... - at 120 kHz or so. By the late Stan Ricker, using Neumann lathe with electronics modified by now also late Tim de...

Theory, theory ... - of course I am familiar with the "Neumann pole". Which in reality has been - or has been NOT - actually used. Depends on the decision of the actual mastering engineer. Since you are good at reading, check the Shure's Trackability charts - particularly those of their top...

You are new ( at least to me ) on head-fi Science threads. The other guys from the "other camp" with considerable mileage in Science threads actually started it all by removing the actual content from a hi-rez recording and substituting the portion above 20 kHz by some ( white or pink ? )...

Criticizing digital for interchannel timing error ( which is a constant error, if and when it occurs ) is perfectly legal. It is one of the two sources why - in real world - analog record can image better than digital. The other source for the likelihood of analog imaging better than digital...

No, I am not resorting to making assumptions - because assumptions ALWAYS lead to something best described as false. Of course I recognize the analog record degrades over the number of plays it has been used; back in the day, Shure even published a study/paper by how much vinyl noise increases...

You have perfectly described yourself with this post - read (about) JVC CD-4 ( introduced IIRC in 1972 ) and being younger than the PCs have been able to run parallel processing.. I mean no disrespect, but given the above two facts, it is easy to conclude you are unlikely to have much first...

I agree not to disparage all clocks if one is broken. However, PCM can develop such error - whereas DSD is inherently not capable of such interchannel delay - by default. Neither is the analog record - to a degree, but even under worst of conditions, with lesser interchannel delay than PCM...

The problem with PCM in such cases is that it is constantly off - all the time. Never even two times a day correct.

ABX test is usable - for gross differences. And even that depends - if performed on low bandwidth equipment, it can give perfectly "legal" false positive result - that higher bandwidth recordings and/or gear do not bring any audible improvement. LPs are the same as life - a box of chocolates...

Audible transparency is a debatable. It depends how much is one exposed to live music and how much of that can be reproduced by whatever system one listens to. The idea that LPs do not contain recorded signal beyond 15 kHz is true only when the record mastering has been intentionally limited -...

Yes - with digital audio in broad sense. But, that digital has to be at least PCM 88.2 kHz sampling or DSD128. Frequency response of RBCD is by default and definition inferior to that of a decent turntable. Only the clout to push the CD onto the market ASAP at any cost and greed has prevented...

To think is to know nothing. If you have paid attention to my previous post and not dismiss the claims that the effects of interchannelL delay that can occur with PCM are audible WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION - LET ALONE PROOF you would not have ended in a mess you have been preparing for yourself...

I agree that records are not perfect. The most limiting factor, the distortion, can be minimized enough trough the use of linear tracking and stylus tip profile. Record noise can be minimized trough the use of the appropriate turntable and tonearm. However, LPs are most certainly NOT limited to...

Sorry, there is ANY amount of evidence of LP playing back 1 kHz square waves from real world test records. As square wave is defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave its harmonics go in theory to infinity. Real world analog record playback has limitations in frequency response - but...

Correct on everything analog - but interchannel phase in PCM most certainly is not always guaranteed to be 0 degrees and stable troughout the pass band. These errors are certainly clearly audible - as errors in imaging, most notably in subjectively perceived narrowing of the soundstage. There...

It is a pity... - with your kind of attitude, you'll never know, let alone hear what is in the grooves of your LPs. I actually once wanted to give you access to something that would most definitely improve the reproduction from every of your LPs - something you've been lamenting about being...

Ditto

It is sad that you, 71dB, are totally reluctant to learn anything or change your mind if need be - let alone actually try to ever listen to anything beyond RBCD. I could respect if you said that analog is way more expensive than digital for the same perceived sound quality ( because it is ...

There is more - much more - to the correct imaging with analog TT. The Bible of analog TT : http://www.laudioexperience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bruel-Kjaer-Audible-Effects-of-Mechanical-Resonances-in-Turntables-AN17-233-1977-1.pdf I have it in original print, Bruel & Kjaer paper, just...