The character of analog and digital

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.  

@holmz 

that is a cracker of an insult.

'can oath.

Whoever made that assertion to @brianaus  doesn't know that we share nothing in common except for a dissimilar concept of the English language. 

Americans generally have a very good opinion of Aussies and see them as different from us and certainly not trying to be like us.

This is correct and pleasant and is as it ought to be in western Judeo/Christian culture with shared geo-political alliances.

Then there are times when us Aussies think that Americans are really on another planet and perhaps nobody can quite phrase the feeling as concisely as the Aussie actor Hugh Jackman did here.

One observation I’ve made for many years and even today, is that as volume increases at higher volumes in analog the sound opens up more, whereas in digital it tends to very slightly contract the soundstage.

YMMD

digital imposes more of its character on the music.  

Amen to that. Well said.