Does Digital Try Too Hard?

(....the riders glare @ each other, crops in hand.  Their mounts nervously tread and paw, awaiting....)

"They're at the Post! *short pause*the bell rings*

"They're Off and Running!" *hoof beats pound randomly hard, falling into the familiar semi-syncopated staccato rhythm of racing....*

Yep, @erik_squires ....they're at it, yet again....;)  No trophy, no winner's circle....just competition.....*mock sigh* 

@terry9 ....and that's where the algorithms have been dispatched to 'smooth' the 'lumps 'n bumps'.  DAC's have made tremendous inroads in that regard....*S*   No end in sight...or for D amps, either.

As processors speeds continue to accelerate (Moore's Law still seems to be in effect I've noticed), the 'glare' seems to be diminishing....

Pretty soon, the 'sunglasses' might become superfluous. ;)

Imagine that.

I'm not saying that analog will totally disappear, no..

I used to own an SL-10, which is the only turntable I can think of that could work in zero-G.  In fact, I could pick it up, turn it upside down...and it wouldn't miss a beat.

"First TT to Mars!" *L*

...not too sure about vacuum tubes, though....

@cleeds , thanks for the link...'lollipop' markers and all...;)  Noting that the vid is also from 2013-ish does allow for the improvements of DAC's and digital clock speeds.  24/96 seems to be (more or less) being considered 'acceptable' generally.

I've also noticed that 'glare' and 'jitter' seems to be less of an issue for the majority of 'listeners' currently.  Yes, those who can and feel the need to have the 'latest and greatest' stand-alone DAC in their systems will do so.  Such has always been part of the landscape of 'hi-end audiophilia'...

Speaking for myself (which I typically do...I know myself. I know zilch about you...or anyone else at AG, for that matter *S*), I've never really noticed 'glare or jitter' as a discrete issue to note and/or get upset about....

Now, if I have experienced 'G&J', it's likely I chalked it up to:
-Differences in the age of the original performance, how it recorded, how that was processed. the duplication of it, and how it ended up on my speakers.
-The sheer variety of the previous note.  Unless there's voluminous information attached, one has no way or means of knowing what has happened to what I'm trying to reproduce and potentially enjoy.  But I do notice the differences between them; even with reproductions of the same damn thing.

Some are Wonderful....the next, woefully Bad.  And applicable to Analog>Digital, D>D, D>A...it seems a 'common thread' in remasters of older recordings, but even those are all over the board...'compression', age of the source material...

But, then again, there are those that can say: 'Well, Jerry, that's because your equipment is trash."  Well, true.  I haven't invested multi-K$ in it, nor will likely in the future.  But I Do notice the 'glaring' differences.

I've expressed MHO in rather non-technical terms because I don't listen to my system.  I listen to what it's playing for me.

And any shortcomings of my 'pile of trash' vs.anyone else's does not bother me in the slightest....no 'jitters' at all...

And. if that renders me as 'clueless'...there's a certain serenity in that. ;)

"Does Digital Try Too Hard?"
No...it's just evolving.  Just like everything else.  But Faster.