[old tech]

1) I would be the first to also guess expectation bias too. The expectation bias held over from before digital? Funny, how it can last a lifetime?

Of course it can. One can also have expectation biases of how a $100k TT would sound like even before hearing it.

2) Certain people do not own the equipment to fully delineate the value of analogue compared to digital. Their coming to terms with their own personal fidelity in playback being key here. This concept is also very applicable to the understanding of headphones and IEMs as a whole. Basically you can’t write about the quality or lack of improvements till you hear the TOTL headphones. But somehow people think they can? The fact that there has been a full revolution in IEM sound the last 4 years, yet it could be arguably false (here in SE) by people who never heard them. Such delusional behavior does not boarder on the ridiculous, it is the very definition on the word!

They are not getting themselves (the opportunity to hear) the window to fully ascertain is what’s going on. Meaning I actually do not hear a difference at low volume and/or with marginal equipment that I own. I feel it’s pertinent to the observations here. I myself am only fully hearing only the beginning of analogue sources, only having the basic gear. Such other individuals are experiencing a much different extremely profound development of analogue sound. I myself have been lucky enough to have a very special demonstration of a 100K TT system on numerous occasions which cemented my opinion fully. Again maybe a whole glass of expectation bias? It’s very hard to distinguish? Such playback is beyond the means of almost all but the very well equipped 10%.

It’s impossible to judge equipment/files of playback based on numbers and graphs. Music is so much more. Remember too, western music has only a very short window of time being recorded. Only the past 122 (or so) years has mankind had the luxury of actual playback. Before that it was only live. We have only had a small window of 30 (or so) years of digital playback. So in so many ways it’s in it’s infancy.

Here we go, the game of bingo again. I am right you are wrong because a/ you don't have good enough equipment, b/ you don't know what to listen for - I'm just waiting for c/ your ears aren't good enough.

As for you other points, sure price does scale to quality more so in the analogue world so one can expect (though not always the case) that a $2,000 TT (and cart) may be better engineered to finer tolerances so can sound better than a $200 set up. One can also expect a $20k analogue Rolex watch to be more precision engineered than a $200 analogue watch and keep better time. But no-one could legitimately argue that the $20k analogue watch would keep better time than a $50 Casio digital watch.

As for the $100k TT, it would be extreme audiophoolery if it is not considered anything other than a luxury good. I doubt it would sound better than a TT at 5% of its price and certainly would not be more accurate than the laser TT I once owned at a fraction of that price. After a certain point of engineering, say around the $2k price point, any the TT would be limited by the compromises in the actual LP.

Digital recordings started in earnest in the late 1970s, ie 50 years ago. That is hardly what I'd call infancy. Even so, the equipment of the early 80s would surpass the fidelity of your $100k turntable.

3) You say the answer is within my mind? But you fail to come to terms that it’s not just me? A lot of people are enjoying vinyl.

I enjoy playing vinyl too (sometimes). Some of my vinyl records sound better than their digital version and vice versa as it depends on the production and mastering choices. All things equal though, the difference is clear, just as it is with other digital media like video, broadcasting etc.

Anyway, as Bigshot has asked, why on earth are you posting here? Do you also post on medical science forums claiming naturopathy is better than modern medicine, and that is true because thousands of thousands of people feel that way despite objective evidence otherwise of its efficacy outside placebo effects?

 

[bigshot]

I have tens of thousands of records... so many that I don't know what to do with them all. I love the music on them. That's why I collected them. But I'm a professional archivist as well as being a fan of great music. I've never turned my record collection into a fetish object. I know EXACTLY what it is... It's obsolete technology that contains important information. A VHS tape, a laserdisc, a floppy disk or a zip drive might be the exact same thing. I don't fool myself into believing that the magic exists in the plastic or metal or shellac. It exists in the data. Data is measurable. Data isn't all loosey goosey hippy dippy or subject to psychological influences. Data is objective. If you extract all the data contained in the grooves of an LP record, and archive it in a stable format, the original record is now just a curate's egg for collectors. Turn it into a wall clock of frisbee. It doesn't matter. The data is all that matters.

Data transfer is a matter of fidelity. People who refuse to consider or acknowledge fidelity have no clue about the importance of the data or how it should be preserved. Data is objective. Music appreciation is subjective. If we follow the lead of spiritualists and mystics and how they recommend we handle data, we will lose data irretrievably. The people who sell high end audio equipment are more than willing to delude these people into believing lies that justify their delusion. They claim that there are magical properties in the grooves of that LP of Whipped Cream and Other Delights on your shelf, and the only way to experience the magic is with their $10,000 turntable, dongle full of dirt and tin foil, or magical crystals. It's a lie.

I'm not a person that suffers fools gladly. It gets me in trouble. But when someone is blathering on with a bunch of nonsense, I'm going to call them on it. I'm not here to be beloved. I'm here to share information. This boloney wastes everyone's time and energy. We could be talking about much more important subjects instead of replying over and over to one person who doesn't know what they're talking about. That is why we can't have nice things in Sound Science.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Of course it can. One can also have expectation biases of how a $100k TT would sound like even before hearing it.

Here we go, the game of bingo again. I am right you are wrong because a/ you don't have good enough equipment, b/ you don't know what to listen for - I'm just waiting for c/ your ears aren't good enough.

As for you other points, sure price does scale to quality more so in the analogue world so one can expect (though not always the case) that a $2,000 TT (and cart) may be better engineered to finer tolerances so can sound better than a $200 set up. One can also expect a $20k analogue Rolex watch to be more precision engineered than a $200 analogue watch and keep better time. But no-one could legitimately argue that the $20k analogue watch would keep better time than a $50 Casio digital watch.

As for the $100k TT, it would be extreme audiophoolery if it is not considered anything other than a luxury good. I doubt it would sound better than a TT at 5% of its price and certainly would not be more accurate than the laser TT I once owned at a fraction of that price. After a certain point of engineering, say around the $2k price point, any the TT would be limited by the compromises in the actual LP.

Digital recordings started in earnest in the late 1970s, ie 50 years ago. That is hardly what I'd call infancy. Even so, the equipment of the early 80s would surpass the fidelity of your $100k turntable.


I enjoy playing vinyl too (sometimes). Some of my vinyl records sound better than their digital version and vice versa as it depends on the production and mastering choices. All things equal though, the difference is clear, just as it is with other digital media like video, broadcasting etc.

Anyway, as Bigshot has asked, why on earth are you posting here? Do you also post on medical science forums claiming naturopathy is better than modern medicine, and that is true because thousands of thousands of people feel that way despite objective evidence otherwise of its efficacy outside placebo effects?

I firmly disagree that a $2000 turntable sounds as good at say a $40,000? You basically don’t know what your talking about? You haven’t ever heard a $40,000 turntable (I have) so your shooting from the hip? For someone to come on sound science and say anywhere above $2000 is a waist of money for a turntable.....is nonsense. Truly, you must not have heard one or your opinion would be different?

Compromise in the LP? Basically there is all kinds of audio science in a turntable. Way more audio science than I will ever learn in my life! And the most amazing thing? That turntables continued to actually get better, even right after 1996 and the LP had a slow down. So turntables have been a continuation of science that never stopped. Tolerances and the science of extracting music from a turntable actually continues up to this very day.....with accomplishments on a regular basis. By the way, if you read carefully I said a 100K turntable system. That includes a 10K TT preamp, a 20K cartridge, a turntable, speakers and a set of tube amps.

And yes C, I was going to delineate that different people have both learned listening skills as well as a difference in hearing which can be validated by hearing tests. How else do you explain a music engineers ability to do his job, when others fail? In school sound engineering students will perform tests where just a section of the music is changed and they will have to blindly pick out what frequencies were modified from the last session. This improves their ability to hear into the mix, and makes the subtle changes more noticeable.

Why do I post here? Why am I spending my time here? Because I learn a lot. But........again I’m confused, as you think (or try to make me think) that I’m the only person in the world who thinks this way?

I’m very aware of when the recording industry started to record digitally, your perfectly right, so 50 years, but 30 some odd years of playback.

Maybe the expensive turntable scientists don’t post here as your only the numbers and graph folks? But there is heavy science in turntables.....and it’s advancing all the time!

The Casio watch comparison is not valid.

Someone could have expectation bias before hearing a 100K turntable system, the whole system.

Again, I have to say, I don't know why people who don't have any interest at all in fidelity or science hang out in the Sound Science forum. This back and forth has nothing to do with flat response or vinyl or coloration. This is just about attracting attention to oneself... maybe the constant negative feedback is better than no reaction at all. Maybe one of us is entertained by this, but I know I'm not. I'd welcome a newbie to come in and talk about new subjects for a change. I'd even like to talk about what we had for dinner or the funny thing our dogs did today over this. I enjoyed the thread about the guy in an apartment with a 150 pound dog upstairs a lot more than this!

I have a sincere interest in fidelity?

If you decided to watch the enclosed Ken Fritz video you may learn something. The fact that he started on his vinyl rig about a long time ago. The fact that he designed the parts before he could hear them is a big deal.

So you have a 700lb turntable base made to your specifications and it may or may not be perfect. You don’t know, as you don’t have a 300lb base designed a different way and the 700lb base to compare. The 700lb base may actually have issues, and not be the best it can be. So you go and you tell yourself a lie. You tell yourself that it’s the best. Same as that room he built and the structure of the walls, the sheet rock. Could it be better? We will never know as there are not two rooms like it to compare. The configuration of the speakers....again if there was an issue, actually he wouldn’t tell anyone. Why? Because music is mental and whatever expectation bias he is on, well that’s enough. If he believes he has the best system in the world, it sounds like the best system in the world.

All of us, both the digital lovers and the vinyl people are delusional to a point.

Can’t have nice things is sound science? Just don’t answer my posts and you’ll be fine?

 

[castleofargh]

But I’m not alone in suggesting that something is missing from digital.

My mother got used to adding Cayenne paper in about everything she eats. Without it, she most certainly feels like something is missing. Unlike you, she understands that it's just her preference. She never tried to BS her way into some alternate reality(well... not on that specific topic).

Vinyl playback is of significantly lower fidelity than digital playback. That is a fact supported by many measurements with orders of magnitude that leave no real place to debate.
Not counting the transducers, digital playback will typically add tiny amounts of distortions and some noise at levels you probably can't notice when listening to your favorite track. Vinyl playback will typically add distortions and noises tens of dB louder than digital playback, and heavy amounts of crosstalk, all at audible levels within the music.
sorry that facts contradict your spirited narrative so unequivocally.

We don't have like buttons any more, but me like!

the 'like' button has been associated to other social media buttons, that a good deal of ad blockers will remove for you.

 

[FYFL]

Maybe the expensive turntable scientists don’t post here as your only the numbers and graph folks? But there is heavy science in turntables.....and it’s advancing all the time!

Absolutely. It’s mostly about new metallurgical techniques, resonance control, speed and torque stability, precision. And new precision manufacturing plays a big part in today’s state of the art vinyl playback.
Even record pressing plants are taking it farther with new vinyl formulas temp. control and isolation of their presses. So….. old technology with a bit of a new twist.

 

[Redcarmoose]

My mother got used to adding Cayenne paper in about everything she eats. Without it, she most certainly feels like something is missing. Unlike you, she understands that it's just her preference. She never tried to BS her way into some alternate reality(well... not on that specific topic).

Vinyl playback is of significantly lower fidelity than digital playback. That is a fact supported by many measurements with orders of magnitude that leave no real place to debate.
Not counting the transducers, digital playback will typically add tiny amounts of distortions and some noise at levels you probably can't notice when listening to your favorite track. Vinyl playback will typically add distortions and noises tens of dB louder than digital playback, and heavy amounts of crosstalk, all at audible levels within the music.
sorry that facts contradict your spirited narrative so unequivocally.



the 'like' button has been associated to other social media buttons, that a good deal of ad blockers will remove for you.

Totally it could only be my preference. Cheers!

Cayenne in everything? Wow!

 

[FYFL]

Vinyl playback is of significantly lower fidelity than digital playback.

That’s why vinyl revenues are skyrocketing and CD is basically dead.

 

[FYFL]

You should consider thinking a bit about what you want to say before you just start typing at 90 miles an hour.

Flat is neither digital nor analog. Flat is simply a frequency response calibration for the output. The intent is that the sound coming out of the speakers should be consistent, not different colors on different days of the week or at different studios. It's really a pretty simple concept. You start with a baseline by taking a known sound from a tone generator and you run it through the system and then measure the output with a sound level meter. You calibrate the response curve so the output matches the input. You do a full sweep from 20 to 20 balancing every band all the way through. Voila! Balanced. Calibrated to flat. Not complicated at all. You're adding some sort of hoodoo mysticism to the word that has nothing to do with it.

Flat response isn't just for studios. It's a baseline to start from in home systems too. You calibrate your system to a balanced, flat response. Then you listen to it a bit with music. If you want, you can adjust the tone controls to suit your own personal taste. If you want more control, you can apply a correction to your response calibration curve using your equalizer. If you want to get very fancy, you can employ DSPs to modify the timing or slather on some nice euphonic distortion. You can do anything you want. It's your system. But you start from a baseline balanced response so you aren't just smearing on coloration randomly. If you do that, you end up with muddled sound that doesn't succeed at accomplishing what you are intending to accomplish.

The place to apply coloration IS AT THE END OF THE CHAIN... just before the signal is amplified and sent to the speakers. Because if you apply it in each source, every source will have a different response. One will sound muffled and another too sharp. Different colorations in the sources and amps will stack up on top of each other and create undesirable response curves. If you apply it at the end, everything will have the same curve... the exact curve you want. Feel free to color your own system any way you want. Just do it in a logical way.

At this point, I am talking past you to explain it to the lurkers. You've been corrected enough times to have understood by now if you wanted to understand.

I see nothing wrong with that statement. Especially, when applied to postproduction. There are exceptions thought. Some engineers, with decades of experience, don’t necessarily play “safe” and aren’t strangers to “boogyeman”, esoteric equipment/techniques of yesterday. They all have one thing in common though. They are all in top 10 list of the most renounce and accomplished engineers in the industry.
Even younger generation of renounced engineers, base their success on more then latest toys, automation shortcuts or numbers. Case in point Emily Lazar. And here is a snippet of her philosophy:

“From a technical standpoint, although I had studied and gotten degrees and worked really hard to be on top of my technical game, it’s not really my focus. I don’t like sitting around and talking about gear or plug-ins or settings on gear. I use the whole thing as a more artistic and creative experience.”

I won’t mention Bernie Grundman or Kevin Gray’s philosophy (or their views regarding “inaccurate, old, obsolete gear” or accomplishments to prevent potential heart attack episode.

 

[bigshot]

The reason you can look at mixing as a purely creative exercise is because of the chief engineer who makes sure all the rooms are up to spec before you even open a project.

Don’t use inferior obsolete equipment on a project I’m supervising, or I’ll be on the phone arranging to move it to a different post house!

 

[old tech]

I firmly disagree that a $2000 turntable sounds as good at say a $40,000? You basically don’t know what your talking about? You haven’t ever heard a $40,000 turntable (I have) so your shooting from the hip? For someone to come on sound science and say anywhere above $2000 is a waist of money for a turntable.....is nonsense. Truly, you must not have heard one or your opinion would be different?

Compromise in the LP? Basically there is all kinds of audio science in a turntable. Way more audio science than I will ever learn in my life! And the most amazing thing? That turntables continued to actually get better, even right after 1996 and the LP had a slow down. So turntables have been a continuation of science that never stopped. Tolerances and the science of extracting music from a turntable actually continues up to this very day.....with accomplishments on a regular basis. By the way, if you read carefully I said a 100K turntable system. That includes a 10K TT preamp, a 20K cartridge, a turntable, speakers and a set of tube amps.

And yes C, I was going to delineate that different people have both learned listening skills as well as a difference in hearing which can be validated by hearing tests. How else do you explain a music engineers ability to do his job, when others fail? In school sound engineering students will perform tests where just a section of the music is changed and they will have to blindly pick out what frequencies were modified from the last session. This improves their ability to hear into the mix, and makes the subtle changes more noticeable.

Why do I post here? Why am I spending my time here? Because I learn a lot. But........again I’m confused, as you think (or try to make me think) that I’m the only person in the world who thinks this way?

I’m very aware of when the recording industry started to record digitally, your perfectly right, so 50 years, but 30 some odd years of playback.

Maybe the expensive turntable scientists don’t post here as your only the numbers and graph folks? But there is heavy science in turntables.....and it’s advancing all the time!

The Casio watch comparison is not valid.

Someone could have expectation bias before hearing a 100K turntable system, the whole system.


I have a sincere interest in fidelity?

If you decided to watch the enclosed Ken Fritz video you may learn something. The fact that he started on his vinyl rig about a long time ago. The fact that he designed the parts before he could hear them is a big deal.

So you have a 700lb turntable base made to your specifications and it may or may not be perfect. You don’t know, as you don’t have a 300lb base designed a different way and the 700lb base to compare. The 700lb base may actually have issues, and not be the best it can be. So you go and you tell yourself a lie. You tell yourself that it’s the best. Same as that room he built and the structure of the walls, the sheet rock. Could it be better? We will never know as there are not two rooms like it to compare. The configuration of the speakers....again if there was an issue, actually he wouldn’t tell anyone. Why? Because music is mental and whatever expectation bias he is on, well that’s enough. If he believes he has the best system in the world, it sounds like the best system in the world.

All of us, both the digital lovers and the vinyl people are delusional to a point.

Can’t have nice things is sound science? Just don’t answer my posts and you’ll be fine?

While i'm not interested in discussing nonsense further, have a closer read. I referred to a TT exceeding the limits of an LP as a storeage/playback medium, and it doesn't take a $10k TT/cart combination to do so. In my experience TTs in the $1.5 to $2k can exceed the limits of an LP. Most above that price point are placebo laden audio jewelry. And as far as i am aware, there is no TT, at any price, that can match the accuracy of a cheap CD player or an Apple, Samsung DAC.

I can imagine the $100k system you describe producing a 'sweet' syrupy sound. Of course what sounds pleasant is subjective but its not the sound i could live with over a longer term. I prefer a more neutral playback which brings out qualities within the recording.

 

[bigshot]

I’ve never found any correlation between price and quality in consumer gear. I think a good $200 70s turntable from eBay and a nice new cartridge can get you everything you need for everyday playback. No aspect of audiophilia is more fetishized than record playback. It’s almost guaranteed that anyone who focuses on that is going to be pretty foolish.

 

[bfreedma]

Absolutely. It’s mostly about new metallurgical techniques, resonance control, speed and torque stability, precision. And new precision manufacturing plays a big part in today’s state of the art vinyl playback.
Even record pressing plants are taking it farther with new vinyl formulas temp. control and isolation of their presses. So….. old technology with a bit of a new twist.

Do you have objective data that any of what you posted makes an audible difference? Or are those just more marketing claims that ignore vinyls inherent limitations?

 

[old tech]

That’s why vinyl revenues are skyrocketing and CD is basically dead.

Now that has to be the most ignorant comment yet, if you're suggesting the decline of the CD is due to the minescule rise in vinyl revenues compared to streaming digital audio.

The decline of CDs commenced in the late 1990s once digital files were freed from a physical product. It continued with better internet, wifi and phone bandwidth and lower cost. In other words digital audio has evolved from CDs and continues to evolve into the future.

Analogue however is stuck at the highly compromised LP of the past which, unlike tape, sadly is not the best analogue media for high fidelity (though hardly any new LPs are analogue). The only reason the inferior vinyl format won out over tape is the availability of music titles and the large cover art work.

 

[gregorio]

A) The fact that digital to analogue converters set an idea as to flat also is suspect.

DACs don't set an idea as to flat. The "idea" of flat isn't an idea, it's a mathematical definition (as detailed by @VNandor). If a DAC or anything else complies with that, then it's flat and we can test that with a null test and by specifically measuring frequency response. Virtually all DACs do comply (to a level of accuracy which isn't audible) up to the limit of their anti-imaging filter transition band.

B) Are all methods of ADC the same?
C) The RIAA equalization curve of a phono stage somehow is very different than a DAC.
D) I would like to believe that some day we will be able to make the two totally equal, but so far they are two different worlds.
E) Obviously some are going to point out that the phono stage has flaws and digital is fully pristine............I beg to argue that fact.
F) Some how people (in Sound Science) will resist to fully embrace the fact that the phono sound has its intrinsic attributes here............it's nothing new, I have seen it here for 12 years.
G) Also what are about the masters before modern ADC, are they all wrong suffering from profound ineptness?

B. Mostly, yes, but there are many variations. However, a variation does not necessarily imply a difference, for example, 1 - 1 = 0 but a variation of that, for example 0.5 + 0.5 - 1 gives us exactly the same result. There are almost always some differences between ADCs, even those employing the same methods but they're outside or more typically, way outside audibility.

C. Yes, very different, for starters it's analogue!

D. That's never going to happen. The analogue world is limited by the physics of electronic components, the digital world isn't, it's just math.

E. You don't have to beg, you're entirely free to argue here, the only requirement is that if you're going to contradict science, then you must provide some reliable evidence to support your argument. Also, there's a requirement to be honest! No one has stated that "digital is fully pristine" just that it's pristine beyond the limits of human audibility, given some obvious conditions.

F. And here you fail to comply with those requirements! You're not being honest, what people here in SS don't fully embrace the fact of intrinsic attributes (artifacts) of analogue?

G. Some are "profoundly inept" but the majority range from good to excellent, considering the limits they had to work with.

You avoided all of the most important questions that were actually directed directly at you?
Most importantly:
Who is to say what flat is?

Again, you need to be honest! I did directly answer your question at some length, I told you that a null test can reveal a flat response and I even explained the basic principle of how it works. You however, DID avoid the questions presented to you! For example, do you believe 1 - 1 does not equal zero? What digital reproduction do you think you're listening to, if we apparently can't measure everything but digital audio is just a measurement to start with?

[1] Flat in analogue sound different that how flat sounds in digital. By many ways it should not sound different........... but it does, I think? Could it be expectation bias that lasts a lifetime? Maybe?
[2] But I’m not alone in suggesting that something is missing from digital. [2a] It can’t be added back even with EQ, in my humble opinion.
[3] You maybe don’t realize there thousands and thousands of people who still feel this way, so many years after digital was made mainstream. It's still a reality that many feel digital is not complete.
[4] I don’t have the answers, actually I know very little. I will admit that.

1. A flat response is flat, which means it's identical. How can sound (digital, analogue or anything else) that's identical sound different? Again, do you think 1 - 1 does not equal zero?

2. And you wouldn't be alone if you suggested the Earth is flat, does that mean the Earth IS flat?
2a. The response is flat, there is nothing missing and therefore nothing to "add back, even with EQ". Again, does 1 - 1 equal 0 or is there something missing and it equals something less than zero?

3. And maybe you don't realise that hundreds and probably thousands of people still feel the Earth is flat, does that mean the Earth IS flat? What you or anyone else "feels" is irrelevant because it doesn't change the facts. 1 -1 = 0 is a fact, maybe you're happy about that, maybe you're sad about it and of course, you're free not to believe it, but 1 -1 = 0 will still true regardless of what you feel about it and regardless of whether you and thousands of others believe it or not.

4. Then why keep presenting false answers and arguing with the proven/demonstrated scientific answers?

[1] What I'm saying is there may be an improvement to digital, and there may not. [2] I don't see how you and many others feel that the single invention of digital music reproduction is the end all? Truly what's next?

1. How do you improve on audibly flat/perfect? The only place to go from perfect is, by definition imperfect!
2. Who said it's the end all? "All" includes the human musicians, the transducers and the humans who subjectively mix and master the recording, none of which are digital and all of which can therefore be improved!

[1] There may be an improvement that brings about new changes to try and bring analogue sound to digital? That's one of the main purposes of the thread title? Should you color your DAC or your amp?
[2] But all and all, digital is not just analogue with out the pops and surface noise, [2a] the is also an extra additive of something.

1. How is it an improvement to "bring to digital" all those things that digital was specifically invented to avoid? By definition, that's not an improvement, it's a degradation! 2. Correct, digital is not just analogue without the pops and surface noise, it's also without the rumble, wow/flutter, distortion, signal loss, generational losses and various other analogue artifacts.
2a. What "extra additive"? You can't seem to make your mind up, a few paragraphs above you said something was missing, now you're saying something is added. Either assertion could easily be verified, a null test will easily reveal if digital conversion is adding or missing something and exactly how much it's missing or added ... and guess what null tests actually prove? Does 1 - 1 equal something more or something less than zero?

1. I’ve looked for gear that has brought “life” into the digital signal.
2. You have made a partial list of the drawbacks of vinyl, these products try and emulate the tone of analogue amps and analogue source components. To try and make digital complete. And....I would love to demonstrate to you someday!
2[a]. Vinyl plug-ins degrade the signal, here we are enhancing it. But only enhancing it if that is your subjective taste?
1a. No........your not ending up with digital sounding result, your enhancing digital to make it “sound” more analogue.
[3] It’s an attempt to have the best of both worlds?

1. Of course you cannot bring "life" into a digital signal, there is no life, it's just zeroes an ones and you can't bring life into an analogue signal either, it's just an electrical current. If you mean change the digital signal so that you perceive it to have more "life", then that is by definition a distortion, an audibly non-flat response. A very serious flaw in modern digital audio, as even relatively cheap digital devices have managed to avoid audible distortion for many years.

2. Digital is already complete. I, science and the whole world would love for you to someday demonstrate that Shannon was wrong and therefore that the whole digital age (not just audio) doesn't exist. Good luck with that!
2a. Vinyl plugins do degrade the signal, the same as vinyl does, which is why of course they call them vinyl plugins in the first place! If you perceive that degradation to be an enhancement, that's obviously an issue with your perception.

1a. Again, how can giving digital all the analogue faults it was specifically invented to avoid, be an enhancement? That's like saying, we can enhance the performance of a Ferrari to make it perform more like riding a donkey!

3. Digital is already the best of both worlds, that's why it was invented!

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

DACs don't set an idea as to flat. The "idea" of flat isn't an idea, it's a mathematical definition (as detailed by @VNandor). If a DAC or anything else complies with that, then it's flat and we can test that with a null test and by specifically measuring frequency response. Virtually all DACs do comply (to a level of accuracy which isn't audible) up to the limit of their anti-imaging filter transition band.

B. Mostly, yes, but there are many variations. However, a variation does not necessarily imply a difference, for example, 1 - 1 = 0 but a variation of that, for example 0.5 + 0.5 - 1 gives us exactly the same result. There are almost always some differences between ADCs, even those employing the same methods but they're outside or more typically, way outside audibility.

C. Yes, very different, for starters it's analogue!

D. That's never going to happen. The analogue world is limited by the physics of electronic components, the digital world isn't, it's just math.

E. You don't have to beg, you're entirely free to argue here, the only requirement is that if you're going to contradict science, then you must provide some reliable evidence to support your argument. Also, there's a requirement to be honest! No one has stated that "digital is fully pristine" just that it's pristine beyond the limits of human audibility, given some obvious conditions.

F. And here you fail to comply with those requirements! You're not being honest, what people here in SS don't fully embrace the fact of intrinsic attributes (artifacts) of analogue?

G. Some are "profoundly inept" but the majority range from good to excellent, considering the limits they had to work with.

Again, you need to be honest! I did directly answer your question at some length, I told you that a null test can reveal a flat response and I even explained the basic principle of how it works. You however, DID avoid the questions presented to you! For example, do you believe 1 - 1 does not equal zero? What digital reproduction do you think you're listening to, if we apparently can't measure everything but digital audio is just a measurement to start with?

1. A flat response is flat, which means it's identical. How can sound (digital, analogue or anything else) that's identical sound different? Again, do you think 1 - 1 does not equal zero?

2. And you wouldn't be alone if you suggested the Earth is flat, does that mean the Earth IS flat?
2a. The response is flat, there is nothing missing and therefore nothing to "add back, even with EQ". Again, does 1 - 1 equal 0 or is there something missing and it equals something less than zero?

3. And maybe you don't realise that hundreds and probably thousands of people still feel the Earth is flat, does that mean the Earth IS flat? What you or anyone else "feels" is irrelevant because it doesn't change the facts. 1 -1 = 0 is a fact, maybe you're happy about that, maybe you're sad about it and of course, you're free not to believe it, but 1 -1 = 0 will still true regardless of what you feel about it and regardless of whether you and thousands of others believe it or not.

4. Then why keep presenting false answers and arguing with the proven/demonstrated scientific answers?

1. How do you improve on audibly flat/perfect? The only place to go from perfect is, by definition imperfect!
2. Who said it's the end all? "All" includes the human musicians, the transducers and the humans who subjectively mix and master the recording, none of which are digital and all of which can therefore be improved!

1. How is it an improvement to "bring to digital" all those things that digital was specifically invented to avoid? By definition, that's not an improvement, it's a degradation! 2. Correct, digital is not just analogue without the pops and surface noise, it's also without the rumble, wow/flutter, distortion, signal loss, generational losses and various other analogue artifacts.
2a. What "extra additive"? You can't seem to make your mind up, a few paragraphs above you said something was missing, now you're saying something is added. Either assertion could easily be verified, a null test will easily reveal if digital conversion is adding or missing something and exactly how much it's missing or added ... and guess what null tests actually prove? Does 1 - 1 equal something more or something less than zero?

1. Of course you cannot bring "life" into a digital signal, there is no life, it's just zeroes an ones and you can't bring life into an analogue signal either, it's just an electrical current. If you mean change the digital signal so that you perceive it to have more "life", then that is by definition a distortion, an audibly non-flat response. A very serious flaw in modern digital audio, as even relatively cheap digital devices have managed to avoid audible distortion for many years.

2. Digital is already complete. I, science and the whole world would love for you to someday demonstrate that Shannon was wrong and therefore that the whole digital age (not just audio) doesn't exist. Good luck with that!
2a. Vinyl plugins do degrade the signal, the same as vinyl does, which is why of course they call them vinyl plugins in the first place! If you perceive that degradation to be an enhancement, that's obviously an issue with your perception.

1a. Again, how can giving digital all the analogue faults it was specifically invented to avoid, be an enhancement? That's like saying, we can enhance the performance of a Ferrari to make it perform more like riding a donkey!

3. Digital is already the best of both worlds, that's why it was invented!

G

That was an amazing post. You did answer my questions.