to my ears digital audio does not sound natural? something is wrong!

lf Digital audio is man made how can I expect the brain to recognize it as natural sounding?

lf I re-encode digital audio with the earths natural frequencies will the brain now recognize it as a natural source allowing the digital audio to harmonize with my brain creating an entirely new listening experience?

This might sound crazy however it sounds perfectly logical to me so i went to the park at 3am to record the frequencies of nature using the built in mic on my cheap mp3 player in wav 16/44 and uploaded the wav file to my pc and while the file from the park was playing on my windows media player i made a simple copy of a commercial digital album flac 16/44 on my desktop and here are the results using the same audio source.

commercial release flac 16/44

commercial release  with earth frequencies

lt may be the placebo effect and i'm hearing what i want to hear however i think the music is now in harmony with my ears?

If what you are hearing sounds synthetic, thin, lifeless, gray, compressed, congealed, strained, honky, rolled off, airless, boring, hard, metallic and like there are tiny insects burrowing deep in your ears the odds are very good you’re listening to a CD or streamed audio.
You guys just need a better digital front end system. I don’t hear insects burrowing in my ear 🙂. As usual, broad brush statements like this are rarely accurate. We listen to complete systems, not CD players or streamers.  I have heard some digital front end based systems sound as described above and others that sound very natural and inviting.
Simple to solve, either stop listening to digital, or as grannyring suggested get a better digital front end.  
Yes it does sound crazy.When a music source is played with cheap equipment it sounds cheap...well probably. 
Ack chew ally most commercially available music is a combination of analog AND digital. Which makes comparisons of the two basis techniques rather difficult if not impossible.

I agree that vague broad brush painting gets you no where. I've heard digital sourced audio systems sound very organic/natural and 'some' turntable front end systems sound etched and clinical. The converse has been heard  as well. The ultimate sound quality depends on multiple factors.  Most certainly quality of the individual components and how well the audio system is set up/implemented.


OP, Precisely why I prefer Tubes in between my DAC and my SS amplifier. For a while I thought, like many others, that elimination of unnecessary components in the chain would be "pure". Why introduce noise right? My ears say otherwise and I much prefer the organic sound of digital music passing through some 6SN7 tubes. I will put on my flame retardant suit before I make this comment: I don’t like the snap,crackle pop of turntable music. To me, while it has a cool vintage sound, it is not natural. I like the dead quiet between digital tracks. What sound you like is all that matters.
I don’t really understand what you did from your description, but the first recording sounds like a typical flat, gray, lifeless MP3 track while the second sounds like a more dimensional, cleaner, clearer 16/44 recording.  Not even close in my book. 

     Let's not forget about the significant influence that biorhythms, the exact alignment of the planets and stars, psycho-acoustics, your horoscope, prayer, karma, brand and technology bias, serendipity, witch doctor choice, crossing your fingers and other superstitions obviously have on our systems' performance.

I hate to break this to you but not only is digital man made so is music itself and recordings.
to my ears digital audio does not sound natural? something is wrong!

Then you should listen to whatever format sounds natural to you and stay away from digital.
Its clear where this is headed. Guitarsam is looking to duplicate the incredible Kenjit Society. Remember he too started out small and battling naysayers but look where he is today! Big shoes to fill, but so far at least following right in his footsteps. Here's hoping he gets there, and soon!

In order for digital music sound more natural you will need invest in good dac like nos tube dac ! Around 2k and you will be satisfied!
What is your digital setup , low budget digital will not cut it also
everything else in the chain needs to be at least respectable 
or it’s just a dream . I find R2R  Multibit dacs like the AD 1865 K sound much more natural then these new Single bit Sabre dac chips  Not as natural sounding .I bought a Hand built Mojo Audio Dac.Loaded with top quality, the competition will be hard to match Their latest Evo dacs are superb and just got a rave review
45 day Audio , money back guarantee ,and modular to be upgraded as technology advances.
Yup this is why every quality recording is made using cheap MP3 players. it saves tons of money and as we all know the hardware used to record and the methods and techniques used to record make no difference. As if  the earth sounds in question are just simple and easily captured and reproduced. Well in the end we get what we pay for. To even use words like cheap and expect pristine and accurate results is ambitious.
You can’t get away from the fact that all digital throws away most of the timing info - our brains need 2 nanoseconds, so Red book loses 80%. This is because scientist had no idea how hearing worked until long after the standards were made.
Digital is convenient, not natural. I get by with my $1800 Ayre DAC, but the most natural sounding ones are much more expensive. DCS makes the best.
It can be natural. Get the right front end and learn first hand. Try a Innuos server paired with Ideon MasterTime 3R Blackstar reclocker/filter and the new Mojo Audio Evo dac. This digital front end will change your mind after just one song.

Again, broad brush dismissing of digital is simply incorrect and out of step with today’s reality. It can be very, very good. Yes, as good or better than many analog front ends.

Pair the above digital front end with the right remaining system components and be prepared to forget about digital vs analog. It simply becomes irrelevant.

Don’t have this kind of budget? Ok, you still have many great NOS R2R dacs out there that are affordable. With care, learning, and effort choose the right associated components and one can achieve beautiful, natural tone and texture with digital.
I understand where you are coming from I remember when CDs first came out. I didn't like them.  I much preferred cassettes.  I honestly still do now CDs sound so much more clear and no static but it's just not as good.  Everytime I put in a cassette or listen to an album of old they just sound right.  Digital sound clear and high quality it just doesn't sound right lol.  I can't pinpoint anything as being wrong its just missing something.  I don't see the point in today's digital HiFi as you have to spend so much just to get to where a record was.  That doesn't mean I don't listen to it because I mostly listen to streaming on my phone lol it's just to easy and fast lmao.  Anyways I do get where you are coming from. 
op is a troll baiting here i think

if not, i would say well implemented digital streaming today can sound very close to good analog, but like anything else, there is a learning curve leading to smart choices to be made
+1  jjss49

It's common knowledge that as you move up the audio food chain, digital audio sounds better.  Trying to make a statement about all digital audio systems based only on a single sample of a relatively (by high-end audiophile standards) low price/performance component is meaningless.

The OP too general a term "natural" is not an absolute, but a subjective judgement.  For instance, as one moves up the digital audio food chain, there will come a point where some will say it sounds "natural" while others would disagree.  Also, how would I know if we injected some "tube magic" into the digital audio chain whether it would satisfy the OP "natural" requirement?
Sam here and i had to look up who kenjit is? still not quit sure.i'm not trying to get new age as i have never been new age.l believe that the music we listen to even on top notch systems somehow falls short and if i find the right formula there can be a supernatural experience between the listener and the music. based on the two audio samples from my post i believe i proved that frequencies can have a pronounced effect on the sound of music.when i use the term natural what i really mean is a supernatural connection to the music something man made equipment can't produce.l believe there is an answer and i believe it is a very simple answer i simply have to uncover it.
My Allo USBridge signature streamer, fead by Ethernet and an ENO RFI filter, into the Lyngdorf TDAI 3400 sounds incredibly life-like, natural and involving. The £4000 turntable and phono stage plays second fiddle to it.

A riddle that always has me foxed is why some people think digital recordings cut to LP and played back don't sound 'digital'.

It seems to me that if inherently digits 'digitise' a recording then that will be faithfully reproduced by the LP.  Or does the LP magically add 'undigital' artifacts to the sound that can somehow negative the 'digital' sound and make it 'nice' again?  This is beginning to seem like hogwash.

Separately, if music is recorded at a high enough sampling rate and bit count then the crude graphical zig-zag of a lo-quality digital recording will transform to the beautiful curves of analog and it should no longer be possible to hear any 'digital' artifact.  All digital is not inherently bad; only poorly implemented digital (which admittedly is a lot of it)


A riddle that always has me foxed is why some people think digital recordings cut to LP and played back don’t sound ’digital’.

>>>>Most likely for the same reason a lot of people don’t think CDs sound “digital.” 😄
Oh please OP... You're either a troll or you've been under a rock for a long time. 
...then you'd best stop listening to anything other than....say, This....

The Future: Live It....or live with it.....
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

Wonder if our brains fill in missing sensory information based on our experiences perception......
milpai said:

"Digital will sound correct when you remove that bias out of your mind."

I agree.  

milpai said:

"Digital will sound correct when you remove that bias out of your mind."

I agree. 


Me too.

The best of digital is as good as anything.

The last Dylan album is an excellent example of a 'warm' digital recording.

In any case unless you're playing vintage vinyl it's pretty difficult to play all analogue, isn't it?

As for digital, isn't everything converted back to analogue before it reaches the speakers?
The correct answer is better gear. You can't get there with a dreamy recording and cheap gear. 

garbage in=garbage out.  Source, equipment......confirmation bias......dont get me wrong, I love vinyl, it does not always sound good. and to get vinyl to sound amazing is very very expensive. My cartridge is $900 and it is not even a very expensive cartridge, tone arms can go $10-$15,000, and you still need a turntable to put that stuff on. 
Sam here again and i believe i figured it out digital audio is transfered in the virtual realm and vinyl is cut in the analog realm and the earth frequencies are being encoded onto the vinyl as it's being cut which is why new vinyl cut from the digital master is void of the earth frequencies and does not sound like 1st press vinyl which is why when i encode digital audio with earth frequencies it sounds as good or better than 1st press vinyl.
Sam here again and i want to post another audio sample using my earth frequency technic. 

fleetwood mac landslide 1975.

(1) 2017 digital remaster 16/44 flac:

(2) 1975 1st press vinyl flac 24_96 + lineage:

(3) 2017 digital remaster 16/44 earth frequency encoded:
Around 1985 my house full of audio geeks set up a live vs. digitally processed test using a Nakamichi ADC (tweaked Sony PCM-F1) in the signal path, an ABX comparator, and a rotating listening panel.  The speakers were Maggie MG-3 Ribbon dipoles, and the amp a Tandberg low-TIM Matti Ottala design.  Results were that running the live feed (acoustic guitar trio w/ cello & violin) through the ADC/DAC process did no audible harm to the live signal.  The live performers were in another room, miked with a Nak Tri-Mic setup, and were local professional musicians.  From this we concluded that in theory and practice, 16/44.1kHz sampling was good enough for live-to-2 track mastering of a high quality music least one as simple as a chamber ensemble.
But we all heard lots wrong with commercial CDs of the day.  From this we believed the fault lay with how multi-tracked analog recordings were being digitally mastered and mass produced as CDs...not the digital process itself.  The fact is CDs did get better over time.  Our reference for "analog" were live-to-2 track tapes of classical concerts, not LPs (far, far, inferior, even with a SOTA Sapphire and Dynavector Ruby Karat).
It sounds just fine, thank you very much.  Certainly on a par with the click, pop and skip technology.
I have digital and analog  front ends, they both sound great to me "depending" on how good the recording was made. The only difference to me is that on the digital front system with certain recordings after a while I get tired. It's like pass certain time My brain cannot take it anymore.  

With  my analog system, it doesn't matter how bad the recording is I can take it, but I'm not enjoying it as it should be.

I think the prejudice against digital is driven by boomers and the people they influence who have great nostalgia of their LPs and tube equipment. Absolutely that stuff was great and a lot of fun to meddle with, and much of it sounds fantastic. I use as my main system the Exogal Comet/Ion system and either stream or play lossless files of a MacBook Pro, and the sound is amazing. The small footprint, simplicity, and convenience of the digital format is very agreeable to me. But I also have a vintage secondary system on which I run my turntable that I enjoy greatly. I believe I am getting the best of two worlds, but digital is superior to me. 
I find we all hear different and to me digital audio isn’t for me. But I understand that for many it is and that shouldn’t be argued. I’d prefer it was. It would make things easier. 

I use these examples: 
Florescent  lightening doesn’t bother me but for others it does. Even with the digital ballasts many people still see  light flicker. I don’t.

DLP projectors don’t bother me either like they do for some people.

LED lighting I don’t like, I just see blue and I find it too directional.  But many people love it.

Digital audio for me is like fluorescent lighting is for other people. Sorry to the digital crowd but that’s how it affects me. We all experience our hearing and visual senses differently and that is ok to acknowledge that. 
It's not only dependent on the equipment playing back the recording, but it's dependent on the quality of the recording itself.  As more and more recordings are being produced in home recording studios, the quality of recordings is generally suffering.  To make a good recording, it takes a combination of technical expertise, artistic skill, and an understanding of the genre of music and what is most suitable for that genre/style.