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
From a mathematical standpoint(Nyquist) it is a universal facts that there is no mathematical difference between the translation digital/ analog or analog/digital....Nobody can argue against that...But anybody can interrogate himself about this fascinating fact indeed...(Fourier analysis is one of the crowning jewel of mathematic)Like the mathematician woman in the article i cited above....

But from the recording engineer making a set series of choices alternatives linked to the choices and location of many kind of microphones which are different analog complex devices with different properties, and the engineer that makes his own choices in mixing, trying to create and compensate for what is the "artistic" perspective of the artist, the information of the instrumental timbre from the "live" original event is lost partially...

Then the perceived differences coming from vinyl or digital format are linked not so much to these mathematically equivalent medium itself but way more to the implementation of their specific format in specific gear of variable qualities and not only that, but in specific audio system which are diversely embedded, more rightfully or more wrongfully in their mechanical , electrical, and acoustical dimensions...

Then a comparison cannot UNIVERSALLY validate the superiority of any format...

And arguing the superiority of digital by Nyquist is ignoring the initial lost of the information about timbre perception because of the 2 sets of choices at the recording(microphones) and at the mixing moment...If someone understand what timbre is it is clear that it is a complex acoustical event easy to distort...

Musical timbre concrete perception is the BEST way to assess the quality of a hi-fi system, and is related not only to a source but to the mechanical, electrical and acoustical conditions pertaining to the listeners room and to the chosen qualities of his audio system for the RECREATION, and not only a reproduction, of the original timbre event in the listener room....

Nobody is in error claiming that he prefer vinyl or digital.... The only one in error are those who promote their obsession or ignorance as universal claims ....
@wuwulf ,


You are making the classic mistake, no offence, of assuming that because something is preferred (by some), that it must be inherently more accurate. That could not be farther from the truth, and would be true for most forms of human perception whether that the sound reproduction, image reproduction, lighting, etc.

Most people will prefer a slightly over-saturated unnatural photograph to one that reveals the most accurate colors. People, on average, when they are looking at faces, prefer lighting that is unnaturally "warm".  Why should we expect any different for audio?  Many people crank their bass up a bit if they can. Many soften the treble (if they can). Vinyl introduces a whole host of colorations, the end result obviously being favorable to a large group of people.  There is no need to try to make up arguments about some unknown property that makes it more accurate. It is simply pleasant colorations that appeal to a group of people, sometimes coupled with a mix/master that is superior to the digital one.
There is no pure reproduction of an original event witout lost of information...There exist only a recreation...An analog one and/or a digital one.

Accuracy of the digital format has nothing to do with the accurate perception of timbre by the ears...

What some call subjective, almost useless, or inessential delusion, or at best only "pleasant coloration", is a specific mathematical acoustical concept and a definite concrete event in the acoustic domain and in the musical domain ; timbre. and timbre can be judged only by the human ears for the time being.... 😁

Perhaps then some people prefering vinyl live through an experience that is not so much a delusion, or even a taste, but a better timbre evaluation with the right audio system rightfully embedded...

Generalization about group of people are not always enlightening...Sometimes divisive...
As humans we are organic/analogue - digital is not that. I just accept the advantages of each format although I was in the larger group that preferred vinyl.


Are you aware of any DACs that output "digital". Last time I checked they all outputted analog. They just happen to output analog far better than the vinyl. Funny that huh?




Are you aware of any DACs that output "digital". Last time I checked they all outputted analog. They just happen to output analog far better than the vinyl. Funny that huh?
Dont mock him....

You confused the multiple possible and relative choices of a set of recording analog microphones with the real TIMBRE analog event in the live performance...No microphone restitute the original timbre event...This complete event lived before Nyquist theorem can apply to translation technology, from the microphone waveform incomplete translation of the initial event to the digital domain by the engineer inevitable trade-off choices before and during the translation....Simple acoustic science...

All analog events are not equal, the ears is not a microphone.... Is it surprizing?