How Science Got Sound Wrong


I don't believe I've posted this before or if it has been posted before but I found it quite interesting despite its technical aspect. I didn't post this for a digital vs analog discussion. We've beat that horse to death several times. I play 90% vinyl. But I still can enjoy my CD's.  

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil...
128x128artemus_5
Post removed 
Post removed 
It's all the high frequencies.  The better the digital gets, the better the high frequencies not getting as messed up.  Digital amp actual is pretty good with the bass, but don't let it near your tweeters.  Many people say digital CD is almost if not equal vinyl especially with hi-res digital.  Many people are making it out like digital vs. vinyl but it should be phrased within the context of where in the frequency band it messes up the most - high vs. low.  

By the way, it's hard to imagine this thread is longer than the break-in thread.  Never thought anything could be longer than break-in, no pun intended.  
The bass frequencies of CDs aren’t that great, either, if you ask me. I’m just trying to be helpful here. The bass of CDs - unless certain uh, protocols are followed - lack definition, depth, fullness, slam, pop, bloom and pizazz. In fact, I’d opine bass frequencies are largely missing in action. Afterthought - the midrange ain’t that great, either. Yes, I know, a lot of people out there will say, But my system sounds fabulous! 
The bass frequencies of CDs aren’t that great, either, if you ask me
I am pretty sure you've got a CDP at your home.