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


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

I am sharing this for those with an interest. I no longer have vinyl, but I find the issues involved in the debates to be interesting. This piece raises interesting issues and relates them to philosophy, which I know is not everyone's bag. So, you've been warned. I think the philosophical ideas here are pretty well explained -- this is not a journal article. I'm not advocating these ideas, and am not staked in the issues -- so I won't be debating things here. But it's fodder for anyone with an interest, I think. So, discuss away!

https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2019/11/25/spin-me-round-why-vinyl-is-better-than-digital/amp/?fbclid...
128x128hilde45
@millercarbon
If you want to get philosophical about it, I believe this is because records recreate a connection with the original performance that cannot be matched any other way simply because it is indeed a connection. The performer caused the air to vibrate, then the microphone, then the wire, on and on to the speaker, the air in the room and then finally all the way to you.
This makes sense on an immediate, intuitive level. I do wonder two things. First, why the "connection" involved here -- which is a complicated, electrified, highly technological process of amplification and translation -- more "natural." Don’t those added transmutations to the initial sound deprive us of the right to call it a "natural" or even special connection?

Second question I have is why we cannot call digital "natural" also. It works in a different way, but it is still artifactual. Why might we think that "digital" is as natural? Because while it does convert a sound vibration to symbols, that’s the same process we use to communicate. We turn arbitrary sounds into words. (In both cases there is a representation involved.) And when we do it with words, we call it "natural language." On this line of reasoning, language and digital music both involve a move from the physical to the symbolic -- and so there’s something "natural" and "organic" about digital sound, too.

In neither case are we guaranteed good sound or pleasing sound. But the article’s author wants to separate them on this "natural" vs. "non-natural" basis, and I suspect that cannot fly.
78s playing on a 1920’s Victrola also has a kind of magic to it. Mostly nostalgic.

I have converted 78s to digital. Sounds the same, but something is missing....can’t quite figure out what it is.
Silliness. This sort of rumination drives me nuts. Audiophiles love vinyl because it gives them stuff to tinker with, to "improve." Vinyl is a tweaker's adventure. Only speakers offer as much if you care to get involved. But, with vinyl it's easy. You have cartridges, tonearms, turntables, cables, mats, weights, stands, phono stages, tubes, etc. Digital is boring in comparison. What can you do to a DAC? 
As for as sound goes I would say it's 50/50 depending mostly on the mastering. A music lover will take advantage of both. Digital has one huge advantage. Once the music is in numbers it is very hard to corrupt. You can perform any number of functions without adding distortion. If I record a vinyl album in 24/192 and play it back synced to the original switching back and forth you would never be able to tell which was the real record. 
Vinyl is a tweaker’s adventure. Only speakers offer as much if you care to get involved. But, with vinyl it’s easy. You have cartridges, tonearms, turntables, cables, mats, weights, stands, phono stages, tubes, etc.
Good observation....

But the goal is precisely in audio to eliminate the many occasions of disturbance and noise....Digital permit to eliminate some, perhaps more easily indeed...

Digital is boring in comparison. What can you do to a DAC?

We can do with a dac what we can do with a turntable or with the complete audio system: mechanically optimally isolate them and coupling/ decoupling them, we can lower the noise floor of each audio component and decrease also the noise floor of the electrical grid of the room and the house, and we can maximise the S.Q. with active(electronical or non-electronical one) and passive controls of the acoustic of the room....Dac or turntable, any of the 2 need to be implemented in these 3 dimension or embedded rightfully anyway....

Is it boring? Not at all.... 😊

Analog or digital had, any of them, their specific advantages or inconvenients....

There is no absolute here, because the comparison objectively between the 2 types in the same conditions is almost impossible for most of us, because there is no 2 digital audio system identical and immersed in identical environtment nor 2 analog systems in the same conditions ...

Some will say: in my room my turntable is better than my dac.... Ok then, ask yourself: is my dac the best there is and perfectly embedded? Probably not.... Then reaching an absolute conclusion make no sense.... Reverse the argument for those who will claim that their dac is better than any turntable....

The truth is, i will repeat myself, nevermind the components, the most important question is how well are embedded my electronic components in the system, in the house, and in the room?
😎😋
😊😌


As for as sound goes I would say it's 50/50 depending mostly on the mastering. A music lover will take advantage of both.
And i concur with your conclusion....

Merry Christmas to you and to all.... 🎄🎈🎀🎁
I don't know why analog sounds better, it just does. To me digital is like following someone's favorite recipe to the T, but the result comes up short compared to the original-there's just something missing. It's like soul food without the soul. Don't get me wrong, digital can be very good. It's just not "slap yo mama" good.