Do you realize that each of your paragraphs consist of one sentence each? You have some interesting thoughts but the run on sentences make it difficult to follow your argument. I wish that an English teacher had gotten hold of you in middle school and had worked with you to optimize your written signal to minimize the jitter.
I think that your post is saying this: 1) Digital Signals are widely thought to be indestructible, since they are a flow of 0s and 1s, and therefore thought to be less susceptible to deterioration during transmission than an analog signal; 2) modern equipment is very revealing and therefore audibly demonstrates that this is a fallacy.
I don’t measure signals so I can’t speak from a position of knowledge. I can say that when I can control the delivery of the content, digital signals are more pristine than analog. So for the sake of argument let’s eliminate the variables of and ISP or a deficient router. If I spin a CD, and have a reasonable transport, I can be reasonably certain that I am capturing the digits. If my DAC is good at timing the arrival of those digits ( usually by buffering and reclocking) then I can be content that I have optimized the delivery of the digital signal.
In contrast, with analog, I have to hope that the positioning of the stylus and the groove is optimal. I can control the positioning of of cartridge and tone arm, but the disc itself may not have been optimally manufactured, or warped after manufacture. Then there is the issue that signal itself is relatively low output, and the signal to noise ratio is greatly altered by the denominator. Then there are the issues of what happens with that signal as it is amplified and sent to my speakers.
I’ll take my chances with Digital.