It never ceases to amaze me to watch a thread shift gears and head off in a new direction so easily - so effortlessly. This thread started out talking about "timing" which we now learn is referring to transient response. That's some kind of a leap all by itself, since the word "timing" refers less to what (sort of) event occurs, and more to when an event occurs. But suddenly the subject has shifted into a condemnation of digital audio as being the technology that took us down a dead-end street where music no longer sounds "real". This POV is so far off the mark that I find it almost incomprehensible that it's been adopted by the number of people that have embraced it as some sort of sonic "truth".

If digital audio was indeed a step backward in the evolution of sound reproduction when it comes to sonic accuracy and realism (in other words ... High Fidelity), it would never have been accepted and adopted by nearly everyone in the professional audio industry - whose ranks are heavily populated with some of the most obsessive "nitpickers" when it comes to sound that I've ever come across. These pros are often upset and dissatisfied with the smallest sonic details that most of us would never even notice, let alone be stressed over.

The idea that digital audio is unable to reproduce a musical transient properly without "mucking it up" is so patently absurd and flat-out wrong, that I can hardly keep from rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter with tears rolling down my cheeks. Sheeeeeeesh!