Ralph,
I think that you missed the gist of the article. It was not an analogue versus digital, which sound better? article; but rather and article concerning why added distortion, by way of phase manipulation and harmonic enhancement/restructuring, has pleasing effect that many qualify as sounding "better".
I have said it once (actually many times here and on Audio Asylum) and I'll say it again:
In a nut shell, my position is that:
I think that you missed the gist of the article. It was not an analogue versus digital, which sound better? article; but rather and article concerning why added distortion, by way of phase manipulation and harmonic enhancement/restructuring, has pleasing effect that many qualify as sounding "better".
I have said it once (actually many times here and on Audio Asylum) and I'll say it again:
In a nut shell, my position is that:
The one-shot trial and error substitutions that are the current basis of the audiophile doctrine can be replaced by predictable, systematic, repeatable, scalable and defeatable operations.
The power of convolution processors, linear-phase filters, sampled reverbs and spatial matrixing is much more compelling and efficient than power-cord, speaker-cable, interconnect, cleaning solution, fuses, isolation/coupling devices, tonearm, cartridge or even source component swapping.
A simple way to test this approach for free is to listen to two different mastered versions of the same recording or to an original version compared to a re-mastered edition. Even XRCD's and K2HD CD's are products of re-mastering and see how much difference the process makes as compared to cable or fuse swapping, for instance.