Analog vs. digital

Thought I’d share this as it was fitting for this thread, but there’s also likely already another thread dedicated to this video about all MFSL releases since 2015 being digitally mastered…

It's interesting that you could take this entire thread, replace vinyl and cds with film and sensors, and post it to any similar photography thread and have it map nearly seamlessly.  Technology and human passions included.

@lldd I have had this same conversation multiple times, love it. Just in the same way where high dynamic range in photography can sometimes enhance the initial impression but does not replicate reality in the most natural way possible. Another example is going to Best Buy to see most of the TVs fighting for attention with their HDR settings. Sometimes they get you to buy the TV but then you realize once you set it up at home, HDR is just so fatiguing. Our eyes are meant to focus on only a few things at a time, and our vision adjusts its depth of field naturally. Looking at HDR imagery for too long presents too much information that just ends up tiring us out.

There are two ways to get improvement.

First would be to get more of the better sound. Say upgrading cables over the white and red variety.

Second would be removing the bad, irritating sounds. Like those little speakers  that boost up the bass with the annoying thump. thump to give the illusion of more bass.

So even if a system does not sound high-end (lots of "good sound") it still can be enjoyable because it doesn't have the "bad sound" to annoy you. Some hi-end you just hear too much bad with the good.

Could one reason that analog sounds better because although it may lack in "if you want to define detail as good sound" it also lacks in "bad sound"?