Hi Paul -
"Why is digital audio information treated differently than digital information in any other form."
Well in fact since you are a master printer, you know that your Canon is going to print the same file differently from your Epson. And that the print will look different on glossy and matte papers from the same or different makers. You know that a Leica lens will render the identical scene differently from a Canon. Perhaps most on point, every app will convert your RAW file in a slightly different way.
Then, though they all use the same sRGB file, your smartphone will display differently from your laptop and your big bux calibrated monitor. And it’s not just how they display, it is how quickly they render, how bright the image is, how much of the gamut you really see, etc. There is a myriad of variables. Which as a professional image maker you manage by testing, then locking down the variables.
The point is that all (many?) digital media present differently depending on their path back to our ability to perceive them. To paraphrase a photo term, various devices have different perceptual intents - either by design or as the result of engineering decisions be they adequate or inadequate.
The other thing that I think is extremely important to consider is the history of audio. Voices, instruments, all kinds of components along the signal path, and every concert hall are all celebrated for their differences, not their similarities. There is no white balance, there is no way to measure color temperature. There is zero db, THD, SN, SPL and other measures that like barrel distortion are useful, but limited in explaining what we perceive - sometimes distortion sounds good - ask any rock band. How loud it is will greatly affect your perception of the recording; just as how large a print is, how far away it is and how it is lit will impact the viewer’s perception of an image.
A studio performance sounds different than a concert performance - same singer, same song, same instruments. An LP and a CD of the exact same recording sound different, as does a 44.1 versus 192 file. In fact, if you look at it, those differences and their alleged fidelity replicating a recording is what marketers use to justify one component costing more than another.
So IMO it is simply not reasonable to presume (or mandate) that all decoding and playback systems (which is what we are focusing on) will sound the same; when every listener, every room and every system is as different as a fingerprint. It’s simply not possible. Which I find incredibly amusing given that they all purport to provide a window into the ’truth’.
Having wandered in and out of these discussions for a few decades, I have concluded that like photography what this hobby is about is becoming proficient at discerning and defining those differences for yourself. Then putting a system together so that you hear (experience) all that nuance and variety in a way that is pleasing to you in your listening environment. It may be sacrilege to say it, but everything else is just noise.
"Why is digital audio information treated differently than digital information in any other form."
Well in fact since you are a master printer, you know that your Canon is going to print the same file differently from your Epson. And that the print will look different on glossy and matte papers from the same or different makers. You know that a Leica lens will render the identical scene differently from a Canon. Perhaps most on point, every app will convert your RAW file in a slightly different way.
Then, though they all use the same sRGB file, your smartphone will display differently from your laptop and your big bux calibrated monitor. And it’s not just how they display, it is how quickly they render, how bright the image is, how much of the gamut you really see, etc. There is a myriad of variables. Which as a professional image maker you manage by testing, then locking down the variables.
The point is that all (many?) digital media present differently depending on their path back to our ability to perceive them. To paraphrase a photo term, various devices have different perceptual intents - either by design or as the result of engineering decisions be they adequate or inadequate.
The other thing that I think is extremely important to consider is the history of audio. Voices, instruments, all kinds of components along the signal path, and every concert hall are all celebrated for their differences, not their similarities. There is no white balance, there is no way to measure color temperature. There is zero db, THD, SN, SPL and other measures that like barrel distortion are useful, but limited in explaining what we perceive - sometimes distortion sounds good - ask any rock band. How loud it is will greatly affect your perception of the recording; just as how large a print is, how far away it is and how it is lit will impact the viewer’s perception of an image.
A studio performance sounds different than a concert performance - same singer, same song, same instruments. An LP and a CD of the exact same recording sound different, as does a 44.1 versus 192 file. In fact, if you look at it, those differences and their alleged fidelity replicating a recording is what marketers use to justify one component costing more than another.
So IMO it is simply not reasonable to presume (or mandate) that all decoding and playback systems (which is what we are focusing on) will sound the same; when every listener, every room and every system is as different as a fingerprint. It’s simply not possible. Which I find incredibly amusing given that they all purport to provide a window into the ’truth’.
Having wandered in and out of these discussions for a few decades, I have concluded that like photography what this hobby is about is becoming proficient at discerning and defining those differences for yourself. Then putting a system together so that you hear (experience) all that nuance and variety in a way that is pleasing to you in your listening environment. It may be sacrilege to say it, but everything else is just noise.