How many steps are involved? Analogue to digital in phone, then back to analogue in computer/iPad is bad enough, but converting analogue to digital CD, then digital to analogue on home system, then that back into digital on phone, then back to analogue on iPad ... the deterioration of signal through so many steps makes it unlistenable to me.
Your reasoning again shows the profound lack of logic.
1. The idea is that you can distinguish the virtues of analog vinyl vs digital by means of a digital medium. That is self-defeating.
2. Yes, there is one more step of conversion in the case of digital source reproduced through a YouTube video. Yet the first conversion is vastly superior to the second one. The first one is usually through professional and high quality A/D and D/A converters without lossy compression. The really damaging conversion is the second one, through a crappy and cheap A/D converter in a phone and then back from D to A using the lossy digital AAC algorithm of YouTube. And the fun part is, your analog source also goes through that second, much more damaging digital conversion.
You're funny. Please be advised that I did not provoke this last round of discussion here. Rensselaer did, based on an almost 3-year old post of mine that he felt the need to resurrect. I just replied to his sheer lack of logic.
Last I heard both analog and digital have their pros and cons and I’ve yet to encounter anyone that can sufficiently weigh the differences.
Then again, it would seem any such disputes are moot if our listening skills are lacking. Take for example those still unable to discern any sonic differences between unnatural in-room reverb and the live performance’s natural ambient info embedded in the recording.