Theoretical question about how CD's work

Someone who actually knows what they're talking about, ie NOT kosst_amojan :

Bits is bits? 
Although CD manufacturing appears to be a straightforward process of stamping inviolate ones and zeros into a plastic disc, these manufacturing techniques introduce analog-like variations in the quality of the HF signal read from the disc. 

Because the HF signal recovered from the finished CD is created by the tiny pit-and-land structures, it follows that any changes in pit shape will affect the HF signal. Well-formed pits produce a good-looking HF signal; poor pit geometry creates a poor-quality HF signal. 

A clean HF signal is essential not only to low error rates and good tracking ability, but also to sound quality. Although the HF signal undergoes significant processing before the raw audio data and timing clock are recovered, many digital designers agree that the HF signal's shape and quality affect how the disc sounds. Some high-end transports even have circuits to clean up the HF signal before it's sent to the decoding electronics. 

That the HF signal's quality affects the sound is suggested by many examples of audible differences where there should be none. In 1986, Doug Sax (footnote 4) first alerted me that CDs made from the same CD master tape, but pressed in different factories, sound different. Doug routinely buys CDs of records he's mastered and compares them to the original CD master tape from which the CD was made. He has found a huge variability in sound quality between different pressing plants—some plants produce discs that sound very similar to the original; others make discs that sound dreadful. The only difference is in the manufacturing process. Indeed, engineer Bob Katz's experience, described in the companion piece to this article, further suggests that, although the binary 1s and 0s on two CDs may be the same, it doesn't necessarily follow that the discs will sound the same.

So its Doug Sax, who we're pretty sure can hear a difference, vs kosst_amojan, who we aren't sure can hear at all. This by the way is from the Stereophile article, The Analog Compact Disc. The key word in case you missed it kosst is analog, not digital, and it ain't no typo. It would seem you are once again way, way, WAY off base. https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-compact-disc-page-2

Responding to nonsense from kost_amojan, geoffkait writes:

Nurse! Thorazine! Man down! Costco hasn’t been paying attention. In the case of CDs the 1s and 0s are represented by transitions not by the ON or OFF. As I already explained it’s more complicated than you apparently think. The link I provided yesterday includes the allowable sets of data determined by both transitions AND the length of pits and lands.

Also, you are incorrect that - in the Case of CDs - the digital process is reliable. It is only *partially* reliable 🤭 within limits that are set by failure of the CD playback system to deal properly with scattered laser light and vibration, internal and external. Not to mention the obvious failure of Reed Solomon error codes and the laser servo feedback system to correct all errors. Wake up and smell the coffee! ☕️

Even CD players that are *isolated* have difficulty with laser reading the data on the disc because the *CD itself* is wobbling and fluttering. The CDs are often not perfectly round and the disc is often not absolutely level during play, which exacerbates this CD vibration problem. Yes, CD Compact Disc “works” well enough for those who don’t mind generic, thin, bass shy, brittle, honky, synthetic, congealed sound.

Right. Exactly. Could hardly have said it better myself.

About the only thing left unsaid is that yes indeed one could get a string of 1’s and 0’s from the output of a CD player. Just not the same one every time. And so no, the same sound cannot be replicated. Otherwise a CD would always sound the same. Which they don't. Because the CD is not digital.

Short answer: no. Because like (gulp) geoff said the data is not on the disc in 1's and 0's, its encoded in pits and lands of varying length. So the data is not there in digital form but rather digital form encoded into pits and lands that are decoded. Which for those following closely means its not digital at all. But not quite analog either. But enough so variations in speed, vibration, scatter, etc all introduce noise and accounts for why analog type tweaks produce improvement in what is supposed to be digital.