Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

Information data is not perceived sounds,  purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments....

Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science....

Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll....


The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is....

I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)

Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way.....

mahgister,

Interesting comments, as ever


"Information data is not perceived sounds, purely objective perceived sounds are not musical sounds, and musical sounds are never subjectively evaluated and perceived in exactly the same manner by all individuals in any environments...."

No one’s arguing with that, are they?



"Subjectivity versus objectivity is an obsolete scientific false debate for almost a century now....Immmanent participation of all consciousness is the new paradigm in science...."

Since when?



"Like in many audio forum debates about cables for example, the analog/digital debates, defenders and opponents are like 2 cats reading the other’s grin with a replicating grin, and the 2 cats disapearence at the end let only their 2 grins mimicking one another, without any cats anymore like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll...."

Yes, but one cat is armed with measurable data which stands up to repeated testing. The other isn’t. If progress isn’t built upon technology and science, then what is it built upon?
Some vague notions of consumerist faith, belief and superstition?



"The repudiation of subjective perception has no scientific meaning at all, and reduction of subjective perception to a "so called" objective one no ultimate meaning....Only a dialogue is meaningful but on the basis of the ultimate irreducibility of individual perception to any numbers there is...."

Yes we’re both free to perceive and interpret any way we want to, but we’re discussing the differing merits of tape, digital and vinyl playback (and recording). Or are we not?



"I will repeat myself, " In a word, i value all the very interesting informations in the last post of rauliruegas and if i think about it i think that he is right....BUT i trust the impressions of mikelavigne, the testimonies of his friends, and his long time dedication on his very refined audio system.... THEN...." :)"


If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?



"Dialogue between people not pretending to be right and others wrong is the only interesting way....."

In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?


Best wishes to you my friend

cd318

Thanks for your generous comment on my posts first...

If you wish to trust individual testimonies ahead of data then that’s your prerogative, but how does that help us decide which format is the most accurate?

My point is precisely that, it is impossible to solve that for now definitively, because too many factors are implicated+ a subjective experience(mikelavigne and friends) that no one neither any science can dismiss scientifically except by dogmatic affirmations based on numbers...

In this instance, since a question was posted, dialogue must involve acknowledging other opinions before making a judgement, must it not?

Dialogue is possible indeed only if one recognise the scientific fact of irreducibility of subjective experiences to numbers....

For the question posed by the OP i answer by a neutral stance, i am sure that digital is good and will progress in the years to come.... But i am sure also that some improved way to read vinyl on very high end system, can be also implemented, and can be now for some people, able to afford it, "better" to their ears.... How can we judge them wrong? Except by receding ourself to a non scientific dogma of the reducibility of the conscious perceiving experience to numbers?


I use myself only digital by the way......But i dont want to dismiss lavigne experience to a peculiarity of taste only because some measured engineering facts said so.....

In a single word, for what we know now digital is on par or better than vinyl theoretically speaking, but for some listener it is not....Why reducing their experience to "illusion"? I trust numbers and i trust people experience....For now the debate can be interesting indeed, but cannot be closed dogmatically but must stay a DIALOGUE precisely especially if someone has investigated with much money, time, and a very high end system....Never mind in day to day experience by ordinary listener, no ordinary system comparison can solve this question once for all, except dogmatically by appeal to numbers in place of human ears experience....My grain of salt....

My best regards to you for your generous takes on my impressions....

+1 mahgister - Excellent treatise on philosophy of listening and why you can never know what someone’s system sounds like without actually 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing it yourself. Technical descriptions, color photographs, subjective evaluations cannot suffice for 🔜 being there 🔙 and hearing for yourself. For one thing, subjective descriptions of a system’s sound can be misleading, intentionally or not. Words describing sound can have different meanings to different people. For example, the words transparent, congealed, analytical, boomy, synthetic, etched, tinny, two-dimensional and compressed can have different meanings to different people.

For example, the words transparent, congealed, analytical, boomy, synthetic, etched, tinny, two-dimensional and compressed can have different meanings to different people.

These words are variable in their meaning similarly for the scientific so called mind or for the ignorant so called audiophiles....These words are related to the particular environment where they are used one time and by the particular people that use them.... No objective content of these words exist in the absolute sense....They are only relative orientation of meaning without an absolute consensus and they are not reducible to the reading of some numbers dials either....

My best to you in your future from my past.... :)