You have skirted all around my observation and theory:
My personal observation is that the difference between the “analog” and “digital” sound reside in their high-frequency contours, where digital playback is able to preserve and reproduce more high frequency content and details than analog, where these fine extended high frequency content is often ”consumed” by the stamping process of the medium, the mechanical to electrical and magnetic transducers‘ conversions that take place before the analog signal gets to the amplification stages. Ironically, the same degradation or “consumption” of these high frequency low level details get ”consumed” in real life during live unamplified performances through distance, from the source by natural absorption, diffusion and native instrument directivity profiles. In other words, analog may mimic the “real-time” live listening experience more accurately of sound through distance, from the source signal degradations, where as digital is more accurate and preserves the original source signal as captured by the local or localized acquisition microphones.
Why don’t you just address it directly? I feel very strongly that what I have observed accounts mostly for the differences. Care to concur with it or counter it?
Last edited:
