Please Educate Me

Unless this listening was done with proper blind testing then confirmation bias, cognitive bias, placebo etc...
Or differences in reconstruction filters and analog output of the units.

Let me repeat something from my first post: I’ve heard the difference. I’ve heard a PS Audio CD player sound better than my NAD when played through the same system. But search as I do, I can’t find anyone/anything to explain the difference

"...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.