@thespeakerdude

Perhaps @fair , can enlighten with at least 2 or 3 of these research papers he claims are hard to find? A new paradigm with 3 decades of research that legitimately calls into question all current signal processing and hearing knowledge should have many available sources to reference.

Not what I meant. I meant that advances in signal processing and understanding of how mammalian hearing system works were significant over the past three decades. Yet not all of the advances are reflected in engineering practice yet. 

CD format, as an example, was developed prior to that, and its designers couldn't take advantage of these advancements. Sadly, this format and its derivatives remain leading by volume for lossless online streaming.

Certain common handbooks on DSP and auditory science haven't been updated yet either. Leave alone the mass of practitioners who still work in the paradigm expressed in these handbooks.

I'll give you a couple of examples. First, a gradual understanding, over about quarter of a century, of the role of so-called Octopus Cells in the functioning of the hearing system: https://www.google.com/search?q=octopus+cells+hearing.

Second, influence of new micro-surgery and robotic devices and techniques, which became widely available in the past two decades, on the hearing system research and medical practice: https://www.google.com/search?q=cochlea+microsurgery+hearing+research.

Still I wait for this. A meta analysis of purely digital sources, some too old to be relevant due to hardware limitations and others with experimental flaws, does not support your hypothesis let alone suggest there is any new paradigm.

That's why I prefer to believe in results of meta-analysis. Some of the smaller-scale experiments support the hypothesis, some others don't. All are imprecise in one way or another. Yet with a larger array of data, statistical inference starts working with sufficient, quantifiable precision.

From where I stand, this meta-analysis shows that the old paradigm, supporting the notion that 16/44.1 can encode perceptually transparently any music for any human listener, is experimentally disproven, and thus the paradigm itself is falsified by the evidence.

I do appreciate the repartee as it demonstrates the vinyl argument.

You are welcome. Winning a gratitude, however small, of a tough intellectual opponent, is one of the best rewards one can hope for in a discussion.

This is just like the tube discussion.  Even though there are significant, identifiable differences between typical tube amplifiers and SS amplifiers with good design practices, differences that are highly audible, every discussion devolves into a debate between those who point out those differences and those who believe in some unseen, unmeasurable property that "must" exist.

I lost interest in this particular discussion quite long ago, after I was able to replicate the "tube sound" inside a common DAW, using easily available software plugins. I occasionally listen to tube amps owned by others, including very expensive ones, but keep coming away underwhelmed.

In a way, the proponents of the tube and other highly distorting amps are right that there are some properties of such amps that evoke hard to measure phenomena inherent in the human hearing system, yet these phenomena can be activated by other means too.

For instance, the Missing Fundamental effect. It makes an amp sound more warmly-bassy to some listeners, which can be pleasant on some source material. Yet, this effect is routinely used in Bluetooth boomboxes, via quite simple DSP algorithms. The downside is of course masking of midrange, so it is beneficial only for some music genres.

@thespeakerdude

>>> Practical music doesn’t fulfill these obligations,

>>> and thus the Sampling Theorem only works approximately.

>>> How well it works can be calculated too, using other parts

>>> of the theory, yet this is far more involved, and the answer is

>>> signal-dependent.

As you are the self declared expert @fair , complete with straight A’s in relevant courses, perhaps you could go through the basic math for us taking into account practical analog filters, typical over sampling and decimation filters, etc. As you know so much about this subject that should be very easy for you. You can tell us exactly how big the errors are of course.

To be frank, I'm bored at this point. Not getting anything of value back from you.

Clearly, you are not reading not only what I'm referencing, but also the parts of my posts that you are quoting.

I'm telling you that the errors are signal dependent, you are quoting this, and then are asking me to tell you exactly how big the errors are? 

You know, serious people run long simulations to answer this question for specific digitization schemes and sets of representative signals.

May return to answering your questions when I see your commitment to learning.

Ps Audio recently posted on this very topic. Perhaps the answers you seek are contained within Paul’s posts. 

@wturkey while it is possible for Paul to provide an answer, I have nmot seen it happen for me so far. But a link is easier to click on.

Back to the reality of the thread..
the OP says/asks:

 

Has anyone been able to define well or measure differences between vinyl and digital?

Is there a synopsis of the measurements?
(I know you are kind of asking it as a question, and the thread has strayed into subjective places.)

But do we have an agreed description or agreed measurements of the differences between vinyl and digital?

Yes… Do we have an idea of what to consider and what to look at?

Hi there.

I’d like to ask @fair & @thespeakerdude to disengage from your conversation with each other. You have reached an impasse where no greater value is being added either to my original questions or each other’s position.

Again I want say thanks to both for your energy and effort to address the technical aspects of these questions.

But honestly, I learned somethings from each of you, and I respect you for maintaining civility. I ask that you and we need to move on. Please.

Id like to hear more diversity of thoughts and experiences here.