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

Raspberries taste better than strawberries.

No, strawberries taste better than raspberries.

You need more concentration when reading posts...

Some argue about raspberries or strawberries.... It has never been my point by the way...


My point is lost because people understand thing only if we speak in binary alternatives...

Anyway i miss my work it seems..... 😁

Arguing with ghosts.....

But twoleftears i wish you the best and thanks for your last musical recommendation....

Raspberries taste better than strawberries.

No, strawberries taste better than raspberries.

It never occur to your mind that frogman is first a musician and for a musician the microdynamic he speak about first, is not the properties added or substracted in the studio but the REAL acoustic and musical phenomena linked to the act of playing, a resonant synchronisation between the gesture/body and the body of the instrument....

Not only you demonstrate that you dont know what timbre is or his importance but you reduce any sound living experience to bits and electro units...

Nothing else to say....

I will go out before you accuse me of lying like the other fellow who dare to enter and discuss .....

The term specifically used by the poster was "micro dynamic nuance". That is a made up term.  Micro and macro dynamics within the recording process are not a made up terms and even though "micro" is the nomenclature used, the processes are fairly "macro" at least in terms of what I would consider layman thinking.

Someone who "claims" to know the recording process intimately would know that this property is pretty much exclusively a factor of performance and mixing and mastering, from the time the note is played, to the final master, vinyl, analog tape, or digital is made.  i.e. it is almost all a factor of the specific recording you are playing, and has little to do with the medium. However, like always, there is the potential for digital to have more dynamic range, so technically there is more latitude to play with dynamics. 


No point me retyping all of this, but i copied a critical section below so people can understand that this is not about the playback or recording medium, but is pretty much all the recording itself.

https://miloburke.com/blogs/personal-blog/posts/micro-dynamics-and-macro-dynamics

How can a mastering engineer improve the micro-dynamics of a song?

• If the micro-dynamics are out of control, the mastering engineer can use compression to get the instruments to gel together more smoothly, and to avoid excessive volume variation.
   
• If the micro-dynamics of the song are too squashed from the mix, the mastering engineer can use expansion to bring out volume variation within a measure.
   
• If the transients of the drums aren't getting enough attention, the mastering engineer can compress with a slower attack.
   
• If the transients of the drums are too excessive, the mastering engineer can tame them by using a compressor with very fast attack and release times.
   
• A mastering engineer can bring out the groove and shape of each measure by balancing a compressor just right, to have the level of the mix subtly bounce and sway around the rhythm of the drums.

"You are lying" 




Digital is absolutely superior....

Microphone are perfect to record all details...

Timbre is only an illusion...A color... A taste...

Accurate for the ears has no meaning save illusory....Accurate in bits is the truth...Or in electro units...

I feel stupid discussing with you....😊 Sorry....



There is a good thing tough for me, i know i have the tendency to be arrogant sometimes....I am not perfect at all.... But with you i feel that you beat me.... This is the good news.... The bad news is that it did not change my character....
😊


By the way these elusive microdynanics is always part of the interaction of the musician with his instrument, it is a variation in time of the sound hues, a concept in acoustic...But no for some it is in invented word....

Microdynamics is in the flowing sounding timbre playing and very audible even if it is subtle , but this is erased in any bad embedded audio system being it analog or digital...

sometimes I think that what sounds more real may be in the opinion of the beholder....

They don't argue about what is real, they argue because many (most?) artists have a much different impression of how they sound versus how they actually do.  Digital captures every wart in their playing or singing. It does not add anything nor take anything away.  It is totally unforgiving.  Lots of artists don't like to know they are not as good as they think they are :-)


Amateur musician, not awful :-). I know it is very hard to hear accurately yourself while playing. Singing impossible. Your position in relationship to your instrument makes for a quite different sound compared to what is recorded in front of you. There are quite different masking effects due to body placement, direction of the instrument, etc.


You are not discussing with me. You are trying to tell me things that are not true are.

“Lying”

Nice! Way to go. I have no idea what exactly your experience has been, or what genre(s) you have worked with. I could also point out and expound on the fact that recording engineers and musicians are often at odds as to what sounds closer to real (one reason so many recordings sound subpar), but that would surely not lead to anything positive here. Obviously, we have had very different experiences. It is also obvious that it is not possible to have a discussion with you. Perhaps our paths will cross some day? I tend to doubt it.

Low Level.Listening to digital I hear every insrument beautiful rendered, often betters analog. There is enough of everything, but still somehow it is presented as it is recorded in space. Where on analog the music is more like craftet.

Remember helping out on a recording of a three piece trio with one singer.  Very simple music, absolute dark background done in a studio environment.  The result was not good. The quiet was unnatural and the brain just does not like that. It was fixed by adding in some environmental noise.   Ever noticed how hearing chairs move in an orchestral recording isn't distracting and adds a more real quality?

There are lots of tools now for adding pleasant (to most) euphonic colorations. It's an interesting area.   For me personally i prefer the dark background on orchestral music, likely because their is so much going on and digital allows me to pick out all the nuance including that chair moving.  Rock and Pop I often prefer vinyl but modern releases are changing that.

 My opinion and that of many colleagues (not all) has been that ON BALANCE analog tape gets closer to the sound of real. 

You see now I know you are lying. Why because I am quite open about my experience having developed, modified, optimized, world class studio equipment much of my life and spent too much time listening to live feeds and recording feeds from just before digital when analog was at its peak (I optimized many a tape machine) all the way through the digital revolution.  I started my career with tape optimization. I spent 100s of hours listening to what was being played and recorded live. 


I would have a very hard time finding a recording engineer with the relevant experience, and I have dealt with 100s, who would claim that the analog recording was more "real" or true to the source. Ones that work with high end professional gear and have experience with both just don't say that because it is not true. You won't be able to tell the difference between a live feed and the digital studio recording. They are indistinguishable.  With tape you always knew ... Always. The artifacts are readily noticable.


Recording engineers don't use terms like dynamic micro nuance or whatever made up term you created.

Now many engineers and artists preferred the euphonic colorations of tape. Took some of the edge off perhaps, fattened the bass, etc.  That is why we have digital plug ins to simulate those effects.

I don't expect people to believe me. Do a search for highly experienced engineers who worked from the 80s -2000s. Some have written articles. All will say digital is what accurately recreates the source (warts and all).  Many will also say that tape presented a more pleasing recreation, but not more accurate.  Now they just recreate that in software and get the best of both worlds.

wuwulf, Re “ambience”:

I hope it is ok to take the liberty of quoting another poster:

Schubert 12-23-2020 11:28am

All that matters is what YOUR brain thinks .
Mine thinks vinyl is in a airy room.
It thinks CD is playing in a room with no air in it .

**** .....you are making up a property and then assigning it to a particular technology that you like. That is your choice.  

Am I pretty certain you have never spent time in a recording studio with access to both tape and moderately good digital to know that the qualities you assign to "analog" simply do not exist? Yes. ****

With all due respect, as concerns the above comments, you don’t know what you are talking about. 

I generally don’t like to talk about my professional experiences on an Internet forum; in part because I understand that we all have different experiences and it is pointless, not to mention disrespectful, to try and convince someone that his experience is ill founded.  I prefer to simply put my observations, based on my experiences, out there and anyone can make of them what they will.  Having said all that, make of this what you will and for whatever it may be worth:

First, as I wrote previously, both formats can sound excellent.  The differences being discussed are certainly subtle; but they are very real nonetheless.  So, for me, this is not about putting down one format or the other; both excel in particular ways.  It should also be pointed out that, as any good audiophile knows 😊, one man’s “subtle” is another man’s deal breaker.

I have been a professional musician my entire working life (45 yrs).  I have performed in both acoustic (probably mostly) and sound-reinforced settings hundreds (if not thousands) of times.  I  have also spent  hundreds of hours in recording studios and in control booths  where I have, on several occasions, been able to listen to playback from both analog tape and digital formats.  My opinion and that of many colleagues (not all) has been that ON BALANCE analog tape (and good vinyl playback) gets closer to the sound of real.  So, yes, this may be about “preference”....preference for what sounds closer to real.  It should come as no surprise that all this is particularly obvious in acoustic settings where most if not all instruments being played and recorded are acoustic instruments and not amplified or electronically processed in any way.

Anyone who has not had any experience listening to playback of a performance in a control booth would be shocked at just how much degradation of musical nuance the performance suffers by the time it reaches the consumer, no matter the format or record/playback technology used.  In my experience the most damage is done in the area of the sense of aliveness or micro dynamics.  It is mostly in this area of the total sonic experience that we can hear most of a performer’s expressive qualities; subtle phrasing details and overall musical intent.  

Some of us are very sensitive to and so very focused on issues of timbre as the deciding factor of what is “accurate” or not.  There is no doubt that timbre is related to and impacts our perception of dynamic nuance.  However, in my experience it does so only to a degree.  Playback equipment can sound fairly truthful timbre wise, but sound dynamically dead.  Conversely, some can err on the side of timbral euphony and  still sound dynamically alive. 

Neither format nor playback gear is perfect and we are all sensitive to particular areas of the complete sonic picture of a musical performance more so than others.  Given the excellence of both formats and gear available today it seems silly to argue about any of this.  However, for me, and whatever technical reasons there may be for this, ON BALANCE, analog simply has more of that “thing” that can sometimes almost fool me into thinking that I am listening to the real thing.  Digital simply doesn’t do it nearly as often.  

Happy listening.

I am a little bit lost with all this discussion of microdynamic and timbre. It is good discussion, but I for myself are not able to exactly discribe the difference or the reason why I feel more attached to analog.I would call it ambience. Low Level.Listening to digital I hear every insrument beautiful rendered, often betters analog. There is enough of everything, but still somehow it is presented as it is recorded in space. Where on analog the music is more like craftet.

Micro dynamics is what gives music the sense of aliveness and what, more so than timbre, conveys the musical expression of the performer.

You are right about that, but for me it is through the specific way the musician produce his specific timbre from the instrument that reveal the microdynamic which is the aliveness of the musical interpretation like you rightly said....I dont want to contradict here just to express my perception....

Timbre is always a lived concrete specfic event....Never totally perfectly recorded... Because of these choices in microphones properties and locations....

It is the reason why some great conductor, like Celibidache hated recording sessions, because of this lost... But some great other one  conscious of the miraculous power of the diffusion loved the recording like Karajan... The 2 were right .... 😊

audio2design, I think I made it pretty obvious. First, it is not a question of which has more or less, but of which renders micro dynamic nuance (not “micro nuance”) in a more natural way. This is what many refer to as simply micro dynamics. Micro dynamics is what gives music the sense of aliveness and what, more so than timbre, conveys the musical expression of the performer.

Obviously, both technologies can sound very good and the differences between the best of both are very subtle. However, the differences are still there. If compare we must, for me, good analog still gets closer to the sound of real. That is what my ears tell me. Yours may not. I’m cool with that. Why does this bother some?

We tend to focus primarily on issues of and differences in timbre and overlook issues that manifest themselves in how the two technologies and the playback equipment reproduce micro dynamic nuance. There is where most of the music can be found. Not in the sound (timbre) of the performance, but the feeling in the performance.

It is already difficult to discuss about only ONE concept ....😁

Your remark about the way each player use the timbre potential of an instrument differently is very right.... You are a musician no doubt... 😊You are unmasked....

You are right that the feeling of the music is ALL in the way of the specific micro gestures of the musician controlling the note and the timbre...But this signature is easy to hear even in bad recording conditions in some measure... I listen to very bad recording of the great russian pianist Sofronitsky and his playing. badly recorded is unmistakeable in Scriabin...

 For sure when i was speaking about timbre, i was speaking of the instrument playing in some specific hands, no instument produce a timbre without a musician playing it in his OWN specific way.... In this sense the instrument timbre vary and change, not only because of the acoustical setting of a room, but also because of the musician body dynamics.... 

There exist a definition of the many  factors in play in the mathematical  modeling of the timbre, and the way timbre is perceived differently in different acoustical settings also....But no one can explain why Moravec produce his own colors hues on the same piano than another pianist which will give another interpretation of the basic timbre of the instrument...Body and instrument are one wedding here....

The analog format for me is equal not superior to vinyl, but here it is not a truth only my opinion but based on simple mathematical equivalence and my own experience....An opinion only anyway...

On the other hand with an ordinary system not rightfully acoustically embedded, i think analog is more robust and able to give a more truthful experience of timbre than digital in the same quality level system and conditions... But for superior system and very good embeddings i dont think so.... But here it is also my limited opinion...

My best to you....

Don't leave us in suspense, which has more "micronuance"?

True. An instrument may have certain timbre characteristics that are inherent and manifest themselves, to one degree or another, no matter the musician playing it. However, the sound (timbre) we hear is primarily the personal sound that the player coaxes out of the instrument. IOW, two different players playing the same instrument will produce very different timbres. We are not talking about the timbre of the instrument, but of the timbre of the musician....his unique timbre signature.

More importantly, and this is probably the main problem with these debates, timbre is only one of the ways in how the two technologies differ fundamentally. Issues of dynamic rendering of the music...what some refer to as level of “emotional involvement” are even more important.  We tend to focus primarily on issues of and differences in timbre and overlook issues that manifest themselves in how the two technologies and the playback equipment reproduce micro dynamic nuance. There is where most of the music can be found. Not in the sound (timbre) of the performance, but the feeling in the performance.

You cannot argue if someone think that a timbre can be characterized in essence by being "accurate" or "euphonic"....Or a "taste"... Timbre is a scientific acoustical concept, not a "colorful" or colorless more accurate taste....

The violonist playing a pitch note can play it more or less accurately, more or less euphonically, but the timbre of the violin is NOT the note played by the instrument...It is a precise sound complex physionomy coming from a complex structured vibrational materials like a voice....The timbre of a voice is not the note....
And the acoustic of the theater or the studio where the violin or the voice sing is critical for the timbre experience....


The same note played by a saxophone can also be more or less accurate or euphonically played, but the timbre of the sax is not defined by accuracy or colored euphony...

How to discuss the always imperfect recording of timbre, by microphones, which are always a trade-off tree of possible choices, and the imperfect but anyway partially successful recreation of the timbre in the listener room, if someone confuse it with the way the violonist plays it or with what the designed format gives ? Discussion impossible...

It is not at all the same thing when the audio system gives it before OR after the rightful installation of embeddings controls, especially an acoustical one ?



Because the audio system need especially an acoustical setting to give a truthful timbre, nevermind the format chosen....( but like i already said even if the 2 formats are equal and they are , in a bad embeddings i think analog is sometimes more robust for the recreation of the timbre experience)But the choice at the end is subjective and convenient, relative to too much factors in play to condem a format for another....

If someone dont know that all discussion is condemned to nil....

**** 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.

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....

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.

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...

Arguing about the superiority of one vs the other is rather pointless. There is no accounting for personal taste.

You are right about your first affirmation. But timbre natural perception is not a "taste" it is the result of a training musician learning experience, but there is no "taste" related to the natural perception of a stradivarius timbre and a cheap violin... Prefering one to the other dont reveal taste, but the presence of experience or the lack of experience...

The evaluation of any format performance at the end has nothing to do with "taste".....

And no digital processing can solve ALL the mechanical, electrical and acoustical problems in an audio system... A tool is a tool, not the solution by itself....

Wuwolf, all roads lead to Rome.

Most audiophiles do not understand the power of digital processing. You can actually make digital files sound like analog with a little monkeying around. I can make my media room sound like a huge arena or a smaller theater. I can bypass the digital processing with the press of a button. Nobody has ever preferred the system on bypass. I digitize a tube phono stage to take advantage of digital processing. If I take an analog signal and digitize it to 24/192 then bring it back to analog nobody has ever been able to tell the difference on Grado headphones. Michael Fremer also states that analog to 24/192 "is invisible." He routinely records samples to his computer for comparison using the same program I use, Pure Vinyl.
IMHO digital processing will make any system sound better, most of them a lot better. Digital files in this context can easily sound better than vinyl given the right mastering. I am a record collector saying this. 
If like chakster you enjoy collecting records but not files that is a respectable personal choice. Arguing about the superiority of one vs the other is rather pointless. There is no accounting for personal taste.  

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.... 😁

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 :-)

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

@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.

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.

Thanks Audio2desgin,
we should not call it a mistake, more likely a personal preference :-)
Whatever it is I prefer it. I need it. If you are right, that this is more a sign of inferity, than I should look for a DAC with a "over-saturated vinyl" button. If you are right, that should work for me. If not, maybe there is more. I am not saying there is only I wonder.Vinyl is defenitely far from perfect. Tape is proabably better. I only wish instead of 0 and 1s they would have released a laser which reads all in the analog domain. Unfortanetly Philipps/Sony did win.

Some of us like Vinyl, some of us like Digital, some of us like both. There is no crime here.

if there is no crime, why calling turntable ignorant of some theorem and deluded in the first place? That is the "messenger" opinions....

I think that you are are right,nobody can proclaim superiority of a format on another one at this moment because timbre is a human ears evaluation experience not a microphone translated digitally experience first....



«The situation resembles a painter depicting a landscape, who discovers instead the nature of his paints and brushes»-Shai Haran "the real prime" p.3

jollytinker, the math is perfect, it is the implementation that is the problem.
Your M Scaler up sampler especially when used with the Dave comes close to perfect implementation but not quite. Brilliant device. I'm thinking about using one between my computer and my processor. 
This argument is over subjective human evaluation of sound. Whales and bottle nose dolphins are much better at this than we are. It is silly to get emotional about this. Get emotional when your kid falls of the bicycle. 
Trying to shoot the messenger (audio2design) is rather childish. 
Some of us like Vinyl, some of us like Digital, some of us like both. There is no crime here. You like blue and I like green. Are we going to kill each other over this?
The article fails because it is trying to make science out of a subjective opinion and the author has very limited understanding of the problem. 

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?

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?

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...

@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.

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 ....

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jim Smith in his book "get better sounds" said something about the recording he did once. It was a classic concert and he startet to record a few seconds before the maestro came on stage. 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. But there was no signal at all on the CD recorder. Of course it was an older older digital technique, maybe in the 90th, this problem might be fixed nowadays.
But again it is no Nyquest processsing is to blame in this instance.

I would love to have a digital processing where I could listen as long as to my analog rig.
But in my case it might be of no use. I mainly listen to music before the 80th. All music of that time was recorded analog.

When I am right I believe Nyquist is not important at all when it comes to the overall quality of listing. Put it is way: if Nyquest would be wrong than there would be only one more reason to blame digtal for. But Nyquest works, I believe this without being able to unterstand in complete the mathematic behind.
When there is a problem that it must be before it reaches the Nyquest calculations or after. If I am at a concert and listen to an instrument my InEar Nyquest calculation works perfektly as well, with one difference to the digital process: the data coming, arethe right data and the data coming in come in the exact time.
Now we go to digital: Assuming a CD. When a CD is produced pits and lands are graved it (at least on of these). But I am shure that on another CD producing machine they are graved in with slightly differently. So when at the end the 2 CD are read by the CD player at home some of the pits and lands are interpreted different at least in time. That means your beautiful Nyquest does not get the exact signal which was recorded once. That is why JPC wanted a complete perfect recording and manufacturing process once, but Sony wantet the more cheap one. And they succeded.
0 and 1 is a data format. For data calculation it is perfect. There is no doubt about the values stored. But it is a not very satifying way to use this as a kind of music data. Because when you read or transport the data you always have to not only interpret the value coorectly but in time as well. Noteasy for all this capacitaors, coils or resitors. Different electronic will do a different job. This means additional: your perfect Nyquest might perform different because again the values may not be what they have been at the recording.
And what about transporting your data. Errors might happen again.
And in the Generation of voltage or current (not sure what comes out) there might be problems again
What I mean is that even Nyquest theorem does not touch the problems of using a computer storage format as a musical transport format where time is important.
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. In Analog it is much easier :-)And where in Analog the errors are kind of linear, in digital it is stange. It makes an difference it the wrong data of for exmaple 16 bit is a low bit or a high bit. The calculated value of his is very different.
Just some thoughts. I might be wrong, but my main argument is that I am sure that the problem with digital is not if Nyquest workes or not. But I believe it is very hard to make digital right. The process is to awkward. The main advantage of digital is storage and manipulation. Outside where time kicks is is where it gets difficult for digital. Analog cicuits do not like to have to deal of interpretation of tons of values to exact times.

It might be that some people have more problems with digital errors as with analog erros. I am one of those. I cannot stand digital. I wish I could!

But most of all: Enjoy music.

I do a mix of vinyl and digital @lohanimal , tending towards vinyl for rock/pop, and digital for most other things. That is far from a hard/fast rule.  A lot of it is just conditioning. The vast majority of audiophiles on this site I am going to guess are older, probably most north of 50, or way north, and they have decades and decades of conditioning for a particular sound.  There are articles out there that show the younger generations when comparing, will prefer digital. I do get a laugh at the mental twists and turns that people will apply to vinyl, tape, and "analog", without making that simple leap that they prefer it, not because it is more accurate, but because it is less. How often do people take their photos and manipulate them to create less accurate, but more pleasing versions without giving a thought to it?

@cerrot I try to get my turntable to get what I associate with digital - clean background - speed accuracy - fast deep bass. I got a warm valve output CD player that’s fun.
@audiodesign I agree to an extent with what you say - despite that to me analogue is still more satisfying. The article perhaps touches on one very valid aspect (unintentionally perhaps) but it is psychoacoustic. My analogy - Digital is like a healthy salad with a Lean protein that is good for you - vinyl is a full fat 3 course meal... I love that the article was put on this forum as everyone has utterly dissected it - 🤪