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

wuwulf

Nyquest theorem does not touch the problems of using a computer storage format as a musical transport format where time is important.

Not so. The Nyquist theorem is all about frequency, which by definition is all about time.

Additional there might be 2 things which have even further consequences: the unability of digital to recognise if the data is a real data or if it is error data ... It makes an difference it the wrong data of for exmaple 16 bit is a low bit or a high bit ...  Just some thoughts. I might be wrong,

That's the reason for error correction - Reed Solomon. It works.

He used an tape recorder and a digital recording maschine. There were 2,3 women talking very quitly before the concert startet.
After the concert he checked both recordings. The whispering of the women could be heard on the Tape, slightly, as the tape noise was almost as high

.

Several things at play here and also how it would play out differently today.

The tape recorder was probably set up (often are) so that there was some compression on the loudest peaks. That effectively extends the dynamic range beyond the raw SNR with technically loss of fidelity.

The digital recorder was likely set up so that no peak was at the max, effectively reducing its dynamic range.

You can detect sounds with an SNR < 1, which was or was close to what was happening with the tape player.

The digital recorder was likely a lower quality or older unit (if in the 90's) and was limited to raw 16 bits for recording.

If you did this test today, you would record it at 24 bit, and the voices would be more audible than the tape.  If you down mixed to 16 bit, you would add noise shaped dither to get the perceptive dynamic range up 115+db, and again, the voices would be audible with a lower noise floor than the tape.

Thanks cleeds,
I may be wrong, but my question is what goes in the Nyquest. That it is all about frequency, which by definition is all about time, I am aware of. Which bits go in when.
There is a hearable difference at least to my ears :-) between analog an digital. Digital does all better, but than why I feel it still lacks the vital engagement when listening.

Thanks audio2design,
It is nice to get a more detailled analysis. As I said this problem might not occur today. It was more thought as an example because at that period people that 16 bit is perfect. It could be there is still more we do not know today even we have 24bit.

My digital side ist reasonable modern and cost around 3500 Euro; my analog side is double as expensive. Listenimg to the latest CDs of known HighFidelity manufacturer I feel there are lots of dynamic, details, name it. I love it, but after a few songs it still does not touch me. My analog records are ordinary, most of them, some bought new, some came as gift, some found on the flee market. Cheap recording sound defenitely cheap. But most records, even still not in the HiFi league of the best CDs, catch my interest in a way digital does not.
Again I believe everything is right with digital from a pure mathematical point, but why than it is still wrong for some? It must not be in the many calculatons, it must be what goes in the calculatens and what changes between calculations over time. There is a difference even the difference is only perceived by some unlucky people like me.
Additional there is that filtering thing which does or had once the effect of preringing of 16 bit CDs. It might be a thing of the past as 96KHz does shift things to a frequence area where it should not be perceivable. Or is it not? We know so much about matahmatics, but so less about our hearing. But what worries me is that people invented the CD format knowing of that problem, which is an uncertainty, as knowbody can be sure how listener reacts on an complete unnatural behavior. All we end up is that we know a lot but still not all.

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 ....