Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"


Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

I am sharing this for those with an interest. I no longer have vinyl, but I find the issues involved in the debates to be interesting. This piece raises interesting issues and relates them to philosophy, which I know is not everyone's bag. So, you've been warned. I think the philosophical ideas here are pretty well explained -- this is not a journal article. I'm not advocating these ideas, and am not staked in the issues -- so I won't be debating things here. But it's fodder for anyone with an interest, I think. So, discuss away!

https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2019/11/25/spin-me-round-why-vinyl-is-better-than-digital/amp/?fbclid...
8700e65e 845e 4b1b 91cc df27687f9454hilde45
And this is technically inaccurate gibberish. Which is worse? There is nothing "infinite" wrt a microphone or our ears for that matter.  Microphones have bandwidth and noise limitations and ultimately sensitivity limitations. So do our ears. Maybe some understanding about Nyquist and SNR before posting?


acmaier314 posts12-31-2020 12:31amHere’s another point worth considering
microphones and instruments are analog (infinite in that sense). Sampling no matter how good is not infinite (if you don’t get the 3/4D aspect).  
There’s no instrument but the human ear for this (yet).

audio2design, it is like running into a brick wall. I suspect that most of these people have very little experience with digital equipment and obviously have no idea how powerful it is. They will keep coming up with baseless explanations for digital sounding awful or why vinyl "sounds better." I suspect most of their opinions are based on the very early CD players that had bad filters and did sound pretty bad. I do not even read mahgister's posts any more. They make me dizzy.

Folks, if I make a 24/96 recording of any vinyl album and play both the recording and the album back synchronized none of you would ever be able to tell the difference between the two and that is a fact. (it has been done.) I suggest you get some experience. Buy the program Pure Vinyl and download a few hi res digital files. Use Pure Vinyl to record some albums to your computer. Have fun and learn. Notice I have not said a thing about better sound and the capability of your hearing. One format will sound better than another when it comes to a specific album depending entirely on the mastering. But, there are many instances when the digital version sounds definitively better. I wish I could demonstrate this to you online but it is impossible.
I do have friend who had diploma in physics and who worked in university. So he can speak about Nyquist an hour as he now in retirement so he had a time to get into it up to human ear construction. But in general if somebody says that digital / Nyquist is perfect - no. Nowadays digital changed as it has less space limitations so hi-res is better and we can leave Nyquist in the dust of history.
But if to speak about DAC there is 2 sides of it - digital and analog. And implementation can't be perfect. So we don't hear what was recorded anyway.
With analog rig it's more complicated. Much more. It's not perfect either. No medium can be perfect.
With digital everything is more easier especially recording process... and software allows to do a lot of tricks. But at the very end it's not perfect as we do have perfect recording engineer who knows everything except ...
bukanona, I think that is a given that very little in this life is perfect. The other problem is that "sounds better" is a purely subjective issue with psycho-social ramifications. If you just look at the waveform as it comes out of the microphones or console a digital process up to the vinyl is beyond belief more accurate than an analog one, but this says nothing about "sounding better." "Sounding better" is a whole other issue which is tied to evaluation by humans. Now you get into a whole mess as you see here. 
Physics is not a field where strength in Nyquist theory is strong on the curriculum, especially at the diploma level.  "digital/Nyquist is perfect" ... what does that even mean? Nyquist simply puts a limit on what digital can do, but also explains why digital can (within the technical implementation limits) capture the waveform very accurately.  Even with redbook, over sampling on recording and upsampling on playback pretty much removed in band filtering effects. This is likely what, as that high end label showed, well done red-book was not distinguishable from high-res with their discerning customer base.


I do have friend who had diploma in physics and who worked in university. So he can speak about Nyquist an hour as he now in retirement so he had a time to get into it up to human ear construction. But in general if somebody says that digital / Nyquist is perfect - no. Nowadays digital changed as it has less space limitations so hi-res is better and we can leave Nyquist in the dust of history.