The character of analog and digital

Charles, yeah, you’re probably right; a little (?)  hyperbolic of me.  I suppose that feeling that there is a “problem” at hand is not necessarily getting bent out of shape.  Maybe it’s me that gets bent out of shape at the frequent complaining about expressed opinions that differ from our own; as if not expressing an opinion/perspective is some sort of expression of a held higher ground.  It bothers me because I think it’s a shame that many audiophiles at not more open to others’ opinions/perceptions.  Counterproductive. 

How is this topic different than the “cables make/don’t make” a difference” debate?  Countless audiophiles feel that cables make an important difference in a system.  Yet, there are still some who insist that it’s not true.  How egocentric. Being more openminded is the way to a better appreciation of the very topic, even while confident in what we hear. As they say, you can’t prove a negative.  IOW, if you don’t hear it …….

The answer is simple, be confident in your perceptions. One’s perception can be one’s truth. Why should it bother anyone that someone else may have a different perception of what truth is? Good grief, we’re talking about audio, not world hunger.

Now, more to the point, I feel that digital and analog have intrinsically different sonic characters. To my way of thinking and given the dramatically different approaches to solving the same “problems” it is inconceivable that they wouldn’t have intrinsically different characters. The better the examples of each approach, the more subtle the differences; but they are still there. We are each particularly sensitive to different aspects of recorded sound for a variety of reasons. For me, it’s tonal texture and micro dynamics, for someone else it may be something different. We are each seduced by excellence in the areas that we tend to focus on, and tend to be forgiving of problems in areas that we don’t care about as much; areas that may be deal breakers for someone else.

So, let’s all take a deep breath and not get bent out of shape because someone’s opinion is someone else’s truth.

Argument? Difference of opinion perhaps, but no argument.
Let’s not look for one where there isn’t one. Having said that:

**** Therefore it becomes very difficult to make generalizations on which categorically sounds better. ****

You did bring up the issue of which sounds better, rv 😊. I don’t believe it is all that difficult; or am I not allowed to express that opinion given the topic of the thread?  I am good with having what is fact for me, remain opinion for others.  

I completely agree that both formats are capable of excellent sound and I do agree that the topic gets old…. for a variety of reasons. However, preferring one over the other, or simply recognizing the differences, and they do exist, does not mean one is “depreciating” anything. It is simply an acknowledgment of a perception. More importantly, recognizing and/or acknowledgment of this in no way has to mean less appreciation of the music. Isn’t this what this hobby is all about?

So, are we to conclude that any discussion about differences in cables, tweaks and other gear, differences that are often on the same level of nuance, is pointless? Moreover, the OP specifically addresses the issue of the perceived differences in character of the two formats. So, if there is so much aversion to discussing this ussue, and no disrespect intended, the question needs to be asked, why bother responding to, even reading, the thread?

No. I was not one of those “golden ears”….whatever that may mean other than the sarcasm you imbue into the term. I was not there so can’t speak to any of it. I am, however, someone whose ears spend several hours each and every day listening to and as part of the sound of live acoustic instruments; and have for literally decades. I can tell you that to MY EARS digitally processed recordings, on balance, swing the overall sound of acoustic music further from the purity of the sound of live than do analog recordings.  The additive character is more obvious, if of a different type.  Take that for whatever it may be worth to you; if anything at all.

A lot of opinions and theorizing when the answer is found in the OP’s original post itself.  No mention of the obvious:

**** First of all it’s very difficult to speak of analog in general. Records vary widely (indeed wildly) in sonic character and quality. Digital recordings are much more uniform. When you play a digital file you more or less know what your getting. Of course some sound better than others, but there is a consistency of character. With records, it’s the Wild West. Variation in SQ and character are rampant. ****

Bingo!  Records vary wildly in sonic character because recordings vary wildly in sonic character.  This is a good thing, not a negative.  The fact that “there is a consistency of character” with digital recordings is a negative, not a positive.

Both technologies have an intrinsic character.  Why wouldn’t they?  However, to my ears and in spite of the excellence that both are capable of, digital imposes more of its character on the music.