Please Educate Me


If I can’t find the answer here, I won’t find it anywhere. 

Something I’ve wondered about for a long time: The whole world is digital. Some huge percentage of our lives consists of ones and zeros. 

And with the exception of hi-fi, I don’t know of a single instance in which all of this digitalia isn’t yes/no, black/white, it works or it doesn’t. No one says, “Man, Microsoft Word works great on this machine,” or “The reds in that copy of Grand Theft Auto are a tad bright.” The very nature of digital information precludes such questions. 

Not so when it comes to hi-fi. I’m extremely skeptical about much that goes on in high end audio but I’ve obviously heard the difference among digital sources. Just because something is on CD or 92/156 FLAC doesn’t mean that it’s going to sound the same on different players or streamers. 

Conceptually, logically, I don’t know why it doesn’t. I know about audiophile-type concerns like timing and flutter. But those don’t get to the underlying science of my question. 

I feel like I’m asking about ABCs but I was held back in kindergarten and the computerized world isn’t doing me any favors. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some work to do. I’ll be using Photoshop and I’ve got it dialed in just right. 
paul6001
"...in the hope of gaining a small, small, infinitesimally small sense superiority..."
You could not have said it better. That is exactly how that post of yours comes across.

By the way, now when we know you are an accomplished and self-confident writer, would you say that...

"...a small, small, infinitesimally small sense superiority..."

would be slightly more polished if it were...

"...a small, small, infinitesimally small sense of superiority..."

Some of us are lurking here in the hope of gaining a small, small, infinitesimally small knowledge of any possible kind.
Digital isn't just 1s and 0s. There is a whole bunch of processing actions at play like error correction, power supply noise, quality of chips and sampling rates etc. The better the device and the lower the amount of error-correction required, the more accurate the conversion from digital to analog. That's why a good DAC improves sound.
When you input a letter into Word, you are merely instructing a machine to manage one's and zeros. There is no specific intelligence invoked in the apparatus. The intelligence is outside of the digital space when you interpret meaning. The same with a digital audio component, it's instruction set and software (music medium) as it is 'transduced' from digits into intelligence-detecting sound waves impinging on your mind.
Word works better on some computers than others. Faster, responsive, 256 colors or 24 bit, better quality printing. Try render a PIXAR movie on a 133MHz Windows 98 machine. Everything matters. The colors are better on a gaming machine.
Glupson, I don’t see any difference between my version and yours. Did I misspell something? I’m a terrible speller. Thank God for copy editors. 
People keep talking about differences in printing. I’m a photographer as well, so I’m keenly aware of the fine points of printing. But once the image is fixed in Photoshop or whatever you’re using, printing becomes a mechanical process and isn’t relevant to this discussion. 

What would be relevant is how Photoshop works from one machine to another. I’ve known a lot of photo editors in my day but alas, I’ve never heard anything to indicate the slightest difference. As long as the machine has sufficient horsepower, Photoshop is always the same. 

Since I’m kinda getting into the swing of things here, I add this note just to piss people off. Very obnoxious, very immodest, very unlike me. But just to bolster my printing bona fides, as a photographer, among other exhibitions, I had an image on display at the Louvre in 2015. It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t spend your days mocking those you judge to be unworthy of a presence on this forum. 

And just because I can anticipate the hypertechnical response that note will draw, no, the Louvre doesn’t display photography. I was under the pyramid but not in the official museum. Not a distinction I feel necessary to draw in ordinary life. 

And I’m sincerely sorry for that bit of blowhardlery. (Is that a word, Glupson? I tend to think not.) Getting in must have been some kind of fluke and I don’t expect it to be repeated in this lifetime. Again, my apologies. I’ve been taking a beating here and I had to throw a counterpunch.
...just another 'nite on the 'net.....*g*

Btw....I'm not an angry anything....bemused, sometimes amused, slave of my muse, but not meaning abuse except in a general sense when I make some....sense, that is. *s*

Paul, swing accepted but felt free to duck... ;)

Being meatless entities as opposed to IRL is irritating....look, I'd rather have a drink or share a blunt with any and all instead of 'all this'.  We could obviously 'read' each other and either come to common ground or avoid as needed.....

The OP states a rather open-ended commentary, and we all go off on our particular tangents; responses vary as typical and as expected.

Such is SOP for 'Gon.  Personally, I'm pretty pragmatic about audio and my approach to it.  I don't strive for the perfection that I know (IMHO) doesn't exist.  Too much between me and the performers at the mic or pickups in the studio or the venue.  What I employ to listen to that is a varied bunch of items that makes pleasant enough sounds to amuse me.

'You' may run from 'here' screaming or laughing; I'd rather 'you' pause and tell me what/why/YHO and discuss much; previous offerings accepted or declined.

As to Why we put ourselves through any/all of this is runs around the reefs of philosophy centric to music and the enjoyment of.

Spending time and pixels on the How is fine.
But whether 500 or 150K$...if it makes you smile and transported to the Other....by the Music, and not the How....

Wonderful.
Enjoy.
J