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

Thanks Audio2desgin,just remember there is one of this advocats, a producer of HiRes. A nice gentleman indeed.But he tells a story where a manufacturer of cables visist him and gives a comment to his HiRes demonstartion saying that the highs are to much for his ears. The comment of the HiRes producer is like yours. He says something like that this man is used to euphonic sound and therefore dislikes the more real picture of his HiRes demonstration.Hearing his story I always ask why he did not ask the next question to this cable manufacturer? He should ask him: if you hear this piece of music live would you think that you would hear the same unnautural highs?If he would feel fine hearing it live, but not hearing it on this HiRes demonstration what than has to be concluded?It does not means that HiRes is worse than vinyl, it would only mean HiRes is not in every aspect for every listener superior to vinyl. There could be explanations like:It could simply mean that for some people they prefer less highs listening to reproduced music, be it digital or analog.
It could mean that the highs of the HiRes are indeed unnatural to some, or something is missing, so that the highs standing out. Or Or....I could come up with many more explanations. But again nobody knows.As long we do not understand our hearing I fear there is no chance to settle this argument.There is one fact not to be ignored: besides some people listen to CD and Vinyl, there is a big crowd of audiophiles who prefer always CDs over Vinyl or the other way around. And most of them have stayed with their preference although they have listen in different rooms, with alway changing equipment (we are all Highenders :-)) , with different settings, , with different digital sources (CD, streaminf, 96KHz) or recording. And what those woh prefer one format say is always alike. So why they report this as a constant attitude, although there listening enviroment has changes radical over the years. Why we use almost the same words? My equipemnt is 200% different to other vinyl who likes. Or do our settings all miss something that does flavor Vinyl. Unlikely. Is it stuborn? Or is it because they get used to one format as the HiRes manufacturer believes? Even it is: but I feel more attached to analog and more detachet to digital.
Maybe it will change with upcoming next digital equipment. After 16bit, SACD, HiRes I would be surprised. But I will have an open ear.

@wuwulf ,

I prefer vinyl sometimes depends on the music, and by genre I often find rock/pop better in vinyl.

Some people who prefer vinyl seems to prefer NOS DACs, probably more at Redbook rates. You many want to try one and see if you like it. I am not a fan, but this is all personal preference.

w.r.t. what comes off the microphone, in the recording industry it is pretty much universally recognized that digital will recreate a more accurate representation of what comes off the microphone. That is not to say you will prefer it.

Then again with Vinyl, depending on how well your turntable is set up, how well your cartridge and pre are matched, how well the compliance is matched between cartridge and arm, etc. you may have a quite flat frequency response, or one that is elevated in the highs, or one that is suppressed and ditto for bass, so it is hard to make definitive statements around frequency response.

Also of note, the frequency response of what you hear close microphoned is much difference than what would be heard if you were farther away. Bass frequencies don't attenuate quick in air, but high frequencies do.


Most younger people who grew up on digital prefer it to analog. What is natural to one, is unnatural to another.

Dear audio2design,
thanks. I already thought about an buying NOS Dac myself again and again. But being somehow disappointet with my digital solutions I tried over the years I believe I rather have to stay in vinyl. I think it is a good attitude what you said in your post to talk about "personal preference" when it comes to digital versus vinyl. Although I do accept the superiority of digital by paper - I am a programmer - I wonder myself sometimes why I cannot get more involved in digital produced music. Therefore I grasp for reasons which some of them I wrote in the post, but knowing that all of them are only assumptions.I will defenitely have an open ear on digital formats and solutions.
Best regardsWolfgang

01-15-2021 9:37amDear audio2design,
but one more thing I believe is rather curios. If digital is defenitely superior, why than there are so many different solutions? Like using a chip form a manufacturer versus programming your own chip. NOS versus DAC with Filter. PCM versus DSD. Upsampling vs No Upsampling etc. Sometimes I feel the dissonance beween different digital opponents is bigger even than in analog where you have the dd versus rim versus belt discussions.This uncertainty about how to process digital best does not neccessarilymean that digital is inferior. What it shows to me is: solutions in digital or analog are easier to build than to be explained :-)

Although I do accept the superiority of digital by paper - I am a programmer - I wonder myself sometimes why I cannot get more involved in digital produced music.

The RECREATION of musical natural timbre perception in our listening room is critical...Especially with digital format...Analog rendition of timbre is more robust to adverse effects and more natural than digital in a non well embedded audio system....In a well embedded environment, with the right implementation of digital tech. they may subsist no perceived  difference between digital and analog...

If digital is defenitely superior, why than there are so many different solutions? Like using a chip form a manufacturer versus programming your own chip. NOS versus DAC with Filter. PCM versus DSD. Upsampling vs No Upsampling etc

Here you point to one of the reason why especially with digital format it is difficult to recreate natural timbre experience in a room, add to it the mechanical, electrical and acoustical lack of treatment and lack of controls problems and you have the reason why many people are disappointed by digital format...

With NO standard well established for a universally tested and recognized unique digital implementation, coupled with the wrong or bad embeddings of most audio system, it is not surprizing there is a war of "tastes" that has nothing to do in fact with "taste", save for the fact that all humans prefer natural timbre experience ; and then lacking adequate vocabulary to understand timbre and describe it, most use some limited frequencies dependant gross vocabulary, speaking of more "warm" or "harsh", or "cool" and "more detailed" or too much "distorted" and "colored" or "inaccurate", entering in a ridiculous war of tastes and vocabulary, all that with a complete misunderstanding of the conditions that make possible instrumental TIMBRE perception in a listening room...

Speaking of "tastes" in this case is revealing our own ignorance about TIMBRE musical and acoustical concept and evaluation...( do not confuse musical and acoustical timbre concept)


Understand me correctly tough, i prefer digital myself, i work with it in NOS implementation, with a minimal design and a low noise floor but, and it is the main factor, my audio system is relatively rightfully embedded in the 3 dimensions, and the result is totally analog-like with a natural timbre for all instruments.

At the end, an undecision can and may subsist caused mainly by the different choices of the digital possible solutions versus the different analog tools possibles to compare to, but this residual minimal differences, that may subsist between the 2 format in very high end acoustic environment, with well embedded system, is also linked to the structural way that our ears will process timbre evaluation in a SPECIFIC conditions...It is not "tastes " here either, it is the impossibility to create the PERFECT analog system to compare with the PERFECT digital one with the PERFECT ears to compared them.... 😁