Back around 1984, Dave Wilson put out a test record entitled "Digital -- How Accurate?"
Both sides of the record contained the same music, consisting of ragtime piano and a jazz trio. Both sides were produced from the same master tapes, recorded on his high quality custom-built 30 ips 1/2" analog tape recorder. Mastering and pressing were done to expectably high standards.
The only difference between the two sides was that on one of them the output of the recorder had been processed through what was then a state-of-the-art Soundstream digital recorder/processor, which converted the analog output from the tape recorder to digital, and then converted it back to analog.
That made possible an extremely clear-cut assessment of the degradations that were introduced by the conversions to and from digital, because:
1)That methodology eliminates all variables in the recording process, the mastering process, and the playback process, other than the effects of the digital processor.
2)That methodology eliminates subjective judgments, since what is being assessed is not which side sounds better, but simply whether or not the two sides sound identical. If they don't sound identical, it means that the conversion to and/or from digital has introduced a degradation. (Although of course some "degradations" may be subjectively preferable to some listeners).
On that record the difference between the two sides was clearly audible in many ways, even on modest playback equipment. It would be interesting to see a comparison like that repeated with today's state-of-the-art equipment, and the results might even help to settle some of these kinds of debates.
Beyond that, I second Tvad's earlier comment: "Why is it that we can't simply enjoy what we enjoy without having to debate why we enjoy it?"
Regards,
-- Al
