The more accurate statement would be that they sound nowhere near as good to you.
That’s as much as any of us can say.
I recently heard an Innuos streamer (not mine) attached to a Denafrips DAC. The owner had about £40k worth of LP12 and Naim kit into Focal speakers. They sold the whole of their front end when they heard the above with CD quality FLAC and, frankly, whilst the sound wasn’t for me (more the speakers I suspect) the digital front end humiliated their very modded and overspecced LP12.
However to others of us, digital is more natural, and totally involving, which is lost from analogue due to its very audible limitations despite the fact that we agree it has an appeal of its own and can be enjoyable on a different level from just the music itself where digital can excel.
And what about music recorded digitally then put on vinyl? It won’t lose the limitations of digital but gains the limitations of vinyl. If vinyl lovers like it, then it is clearly not the limitations of digital they dislike, but the limitations of vinyl they like - I.e the added vinyl character, rather than the music as recorded. (Which of course is fine for those it suits.)
…the same thought has occurred to me…here’s a thought experiment…
Imagine an analogue wave, deconstructed to a digital recording and then reconstructed (DAC) to a wave. No matter what the sample rates etc are, the reconstructed wave will have a saw-tooth appearance. Perhaps analogue replay smooths this out?
I don’t know about this and would not argue the point though. I do have digital albums as both files and records…and I generally prefer the records. So, perhaps it is all in the euphony.
What is it about this eternal argument that makes so many people voice what is very clearly an opinion as an objective fact… and then get stroppily defensive when it’s reacted to as the opinion it actually is?
I think the forum needs an algorithm that recognises this phenomenon and adds a few judicious ‘I think/find/feel…’s in the relevant places. Might save the rest of us some time trawling through a lot of needless willy-waving.
And my opinion on this topic? If you look at my system listed in my bio, I’m sure you’ll work it out.
That’s a good point, at least for the records cut from the same master as the CD/file. Sometimes the LP seems to be less compressed, perhaps because most budget record players would rum Into a lot of problems tracking them. Given the overcrompressed nature of many recordings that might tilt the advantage.
This is one of the problems with this discussion. Some on the analogue side genuinely believe that analogue sound waves have saw tooth shaped gaps in the sound. It is frankly beyond ridiculous.
If you can’t hear the saw tooth you must be bl**dy deaf.
Although strictly speaking it isn’t a saw tooth. I seriously don’t think many people would describe it as such. Is this just another made up (so called) fact???
Terminology. I think we’re talking about the oft-repeated ‘staircase’ graphic. It is after all much easier to draw than a series of ‘points’. Which apparently isn’t true either - mathematically it’s a series of impulses.
No, absolutely not. And it would sound terrible if it did. It will produce the same waveform as was digitised, up to half the frequency at which it was sampled.
I suspect, though, that if you tried to create a digital file of a sawtooth waveform at about 20KHz, then the waveform reproduced would be more like a sinewave, but this may be my ignorance talking.
