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

Oh, and good equipment for the recording, too!

Sam here again and i'm not talking about the difference between digital and vinyl and it doesn't matter if your listening to an mp3 player or a $25000 turntable with the finest vintage tubes the sound i'm talking about can not be achieved with man made equipment? 99% of music is recorded on musical instuments tuned to standard 440hz this frequency is out of tune with the brain and by replacing 440hz with a frequency that is in tune with the brain the music is now in harmony with the brain creating a new listening experience that you hear and feel.

440 tuning is just right for me. Even being a little flat is fine too. Just as long as all is in tune to each other. Maybe your brain just doesn’t like music. 

Buried in all of Guitar Sam hysteria on this and other threads re digital v. analog is the notion that to some people, digital, no matter how well done, strikes some people as inherently “wrong”.  The counter possibility is also true, that vinyl (My experience with Reel to Reel is limited) sounds inherently wrong to others.
   I am sure that this notion has been done to death here and elsewhere, so I will add just one side glance at the discussion.  I firmly am in the digital camp; I remember becoming increasingly frustrated with the limitations of vinyl in the early eighties and to me digital was a godsend.  I dabbled in vinyl a few years ago but it just wound up reconfirming my impressions and I made a nice sum selling off my analog rig.
   My slant on this is that perhaps it is genre specific?  I listen primarily to Classical.  Digital eliminated the surface noise, pitch instability that warped vinyl provided, expanded the dynamic range, and in general allowed to me to hear so much more low level information that I was previously missing, even on budget equipment.  I mean, entire passages, such as the chamber like episodes on a work like Mahler Nine, were now audible and deepened my appreciation significantly.  I thought that friends that complained it was cold and sterile were nuts.
  I then listened to an early CD transfer of a pop album that I knew well, Cat Stevens Tea For The Tiller man, in the late nineties  and for the first time I thought perhaps I understood; on my nice fancy system this seemed to sound smaller, less warm than my aural memory of 25 years earlier listening on my parents KMart Special system.  And as my systems became more revealing with time I began to hear some faults with early digital transfers of favorite Classical albums.
  Flash forward another 10 years.  I have spent several thousand dollars on analog trying to recover some magic.  And I finally had to conclude that all the Classical, even the early digital albums, sounded better than the lp equivalents , even when I had shelled out 30 bucks for a 200 gram vinyl.  And I preferred pop albums on CD, but here the gap was smaller.
  Setting aside prog rock, Sgt. Pepper, Pink Floyd and the like, most Classic Rock of Pop that I listened to as a teenager feature electric guitars, electric bass, drums, maybe some keyboard.  Compared to Classical or Jazz, the dynamic range is quite limited.  With vinyl, with its decreased dynamic range, it can sound as if the music is more naturally frame.  With digital, it can sound as if there is wasted space.  Think of the way DVD players can crop the images on large flat screen TVs, particularly on older content.  Like hey, I paid for a 65 inch screen, why is the image being shown at less than 50?  Listening to pop music on vinyl is more like watching an old movie on a cathode Ray TV.  Even though the the music and the reproduction have limits, the limitations are complimentary, so they seem to work together to some people.

For me digital it can be natural with the right gear and system set up, I heard this cocktail streamer very natural sounding Tsakadiris tube integrated and audiovector speakers were used, But vynil is vynil....