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

Mahgister has used the word timbre in 50 posts since Dec. 30. Time to find a new hammer.

i really apologize to disturb you another time, but why dont you stick to logical sound argument?

You  know perfectly well now why i used the complex concept of timbre ...

I could say that you hammered  the word digital accuracy 50 times... I prefer to stick to argument...

wuwulf10 posts01-15-2021 3:48am01-15-2021 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 :-)

Sonic differences between what I will call technically equivalent DSD and PCM virtually all come down to implementation details.

Other than that, most of what you are mentioning is either implementation detail and/or an intentional euphonic manipulations and moving away from accuracy. I am not at all against that if you like the outcome.

NOS DACs at redbook rates are not technically accurate. The are fraught with both audible band artifacts and near audible band that can subharmonically isolate.  You can put a brick wall analog filter, but then you have other issues.


Upsampling a NOS DAC with a standalone upsampler will fix most of the ills of a NOS DAC. However, if you prefer one sound for one genre and a different sound for another genre, it makes total sense.

Every chip DAC designed in the last 20 years, and most high end standalone DACs where the DAC is discreet upsample. Sometimes they upsample a lot.  In most cases that is very good thing.  It makes analog filters simple and easy, and improves SNR in the audible band.  It's not going to overcome bad design.  There are some DAC chips that measure better at lower sample rates, but not so much modern ones.

Modern DACs also have different filter setting. Most of these "new" filter settings are technically less accurate. Some prefer the sound.

Other implementation details come into play like how well they reject noise on data / electrical connections, and how well they reject jitter on optical/co-ax connection.  A virtually jitter free isolated USB interface is not rocket science.

People are no longer afraid in the audiophile community to say they prefer digital, or even to say they prefer vinyl, but realize it is a personal preference, nothing to do with accuracy of recreation.

I am sorry but in the beginning you said that turntable people were ignorant of Nyquist theorem... You have changed your tune...

Second you distort my view...I never speak of accuracy save for the ears ....There is a mathematical accuracy by Nyquist theorem between the microphone and the digital format yes rightly so, but no microphones can perfectly record the original live timbre event... Then my point was not "accuracy" in the measured sense, it is accuracy of timbre perception in a theater for the ears of the violonist or mine listening him in my room... I spoke of recreation because PERFECT reproduction is impossible...Then a prefered format is a matter of convenience for each of us...Not an ignorant choice.... There is no superior format in the absolute, only more practical one....

A precision: A produced timbre is not "accurate", it is the note produced by the structural and material properties of the violin which is "accurate" for the ears...The musical and acoustical physionomy of timbre is not a frequency or even a bunch of frequencies, it is more complex acoustically than that....Confusing the 2 is not understanding what timbre is and why it is nearly impossible to record or reproduce it perfectly artificially, it takes a room with some ears .... Microphones cannot perfectly reproduced it because of all the trade-off at stake in the process ....

If you dont want to discuss more , it is OK, but dont erase casually the point you begin with in this discussion and distort my own argument after that... 😊

Ok then i will let the matter here....

I am a bit passionate but i try to be truthful to the point in discussion, and i am able to recognize when i am demonstrated to be wrong....I hope so...

My best to you....

**** People are no longer afraid in the audiophile community to say they prefer digital, or even to say they prefer vinyl,.......****

True.

****....... but realize it is a personal preference, ......****

Also true.


****....... nothing to do with accuracy of recreation. ****

Absolutely not true.

It has everything to do with accuracy of recreation.....,,for me. However, I am not the least bit interested in trying to convince you or anyone that I am right and that you are wrong. Just don’t waste your energy trying to convince me that I am wrong. Please!

To me, good analog simply sounds closer to the sound of live unamplified unprocessed acoustic musical instruments and voice than even the best digital. It is a fundamental difference that is there no matter how good the equipment is. Of course, with the best equipment of both ilks the difference is subtle, but it is still there. I hear it and it is obvious to me. I base this, not on unfounded “preference”, but on countless hours of being around the sound of live acoustic instruments.  So, The most interesting question for me is why it is that some are so hellbent on trying to convince me that I don’t hear what I do hear.