Lemmy is such a rad place, I love it here

More of a thaw, really.

Ah, I see! Like I said though, not necessarily a quality difference but a mastering difference. It’s not that the mastering isn’t made for the album/songs, it’s just the target medium of the masters that are different and the nature of the mediums the masters are destined for.

This obviously comes down to the specific album, but from what I understand it is common to have just two masters, one for digital (streaming/CD) and one for analog (vinyl). A huge driver of this is that you CAN take a streaming master and put it on CD but you CANNOT do the same for Vinyl, because of it’s physical limitations. A streaming master on CD functions perfectly while a streaming master on vinyl has a good chance to cause the needle to jump tracks and have distortions because of the loudness the vinyl can’t handle. That’s why maybe only vinyl gets a special master, because the medium demands it.

Of course there is nothing stopping an audio engineer from creating that vinyl master and sending it for the CD and Vinyl!

Not trying to argue merits of either format though, I love and use both. I even stream music (gasp). I’m just an audio nerd info dumping haha

I think in general the reason people think vinyl sounds better actually isn’t a quality judgement and is down to the different mastering vinyl typically receives. Streaming music sources are typically mastered very loud with the dynamic range reduced as a result, this is to compete with all the other tracks mastered for loudness. Loud typically subjectively sounds better when A/B comparisons are done, like when a streaming service serves up a bunch of random songs. Because vinyl has the privilege of not being shuffled with other productions and due to the physical nature of the medium it typically receives a bespoke mastering of the content. This bespoke master typically has a better dynamic range because it doesn’t have to max out loudness. In my experience I prefer the vinyl mastering of an album versus the streaming mastering 90% of the time. There are some stinkers though :P

The benefit of having unused RAM is that every program you are using can remain in memory for quick multitasking access and when you go to launch a new program it can be loaded into that unused RAM without unloading any of the currently running programs. What part about that is a misunderstanding? Would the user be better off if the application in focus aggressively reserved RAM it didn’t need to slow down every other running application? Because that’s what Photoshop does

Consumer software running on a consumer OS should not be grabbing all available RAM just because. Doing so will cause other applications to be moved to swap and have to be loaded back into RAM when the user goes to use them. In a server environment doing something like running a SQL server it would make more sense to grab all available RAM and start aggressively caching frequently accessed data in RAM to present it sooner with the assumption that the server’s primary role is to perform SQL operations as quickly as possible.

Specifically with Photoshop what would be the benefit of it be aggressively reserving RAM beyond what is needed to function?

This is only remotely true if you have a box dedicated to doing one single thing and nothing else. That is almost certainly not the case for the vast majority of Photoshop users