Hi. Yes, well we have our preferences. Digital is generally awful, at CD quality anyway. My point was Green showed that statistically reliable discrimination of DIFFERENT was only achieved by weeks and even months of training. These were not complex time-varying sounds, but steady-state flat spectrum apart from one or two harmonics raised in level. I think one important point was his listeners in any one experimental session (< 1 hour) built up an auditory image of the 'standard' sound against which to compare the 'changed sound'. The point is these sessions and reliable performance takes a long time. By using simple sounds Green could say that listeners were detecting a change in a spectral profile. Now take complex time-varying sounds and untrained listeners and you're very far from experimental control, or saying anything useful about what listeners interpret as "quality". And yes I am offended by digital audio - its personal. It ruined my record collecting in the 1980s and I've hundreds of poor sounding digitally mastered records (the CDs I gave to Oxfam and plan to do the same with all those awful Phillips 'digitally remastered" records).
You might want to point us to this
Dave Green, Profile Analysis monograph. It sounds like a doozy.
And 'complex time varying' signals will very likely
mask some differences that can be discerned between bespoke 'simple signals' -- that's basic psychoacoustics. Which argues against your point.
I guess you are claiming to be a trained listener who can detect....what, exactly? Comparing different masterings -- such as a commercial CD to its older LP version -- does not isolate the variable 'CD rate digital' , meaning you can't ascribe whatever hatefulness you perceive, to it conclusively. Better you should record the playback output of your favorite LP on your favorite turntable and preamp , to 44/16 digital, and set up a rigorous blind comparison (a far from easy task, given the two technologies involved).