Originally Posted by
Marco
Hi Alex,
Well, for me it's simply because, in reality (out with of what's purported as being 'accurate'), what you're seeing in actuality, isn't, but rather as good as is currently possible for today's technology to produce. Therefore, no matter how convincingly lifelike a Van Gogh painting may appear on a computer screen, it's ultimately only a digitally created facsimile of the real thing; not actually the REAL THING itself...
In that respect, it's pretty obvious that what the naked human eye sees in real life, is infinitely more detailed and real than anything currently created and produced by man - and the same applies to our ears, which is why what we hear in audio, yet seemingly can't measure, I believe we mostly genuinely experience, even though it seemingly can't be proven, via any known means.
However, how that correlates with the 'digital vs. vinyl playback' debate is of course open to interpretation.
My view would be that, the ways in which many of us hear vinyl replay (at its best) as sounding more 'musically lifelike', compared with its digital counterpart, is simply down to the fact that, as already mentioned, much of what we can genuinely see and hear as humans, we haven't yet found a way of measuring, and thus proving that what we're seeing or hearing, in that respect, is real.
I'm convinced, however, that it is, and yes that applies to the superiority of vinyl playback, claimed by you and I (and many others), despite some of it technically not being backed up by measurements.
Marco.